67 So. 3d 1159
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Juarez, a New Branch employee, sued under the FWBA alleging termination for whistleblowing due to opposition to workplace violence.
- Erazo, a co-employee and wife of New Branch's owner, attacked Juarez after a trip attempt and Juarez filed a police report and obtained a restraining order.
- Erazo was not present when police arrived; Juarez obtained ongoing restraining order during which Erazo did not work there.
- After the restraining order expired, Erazo returned to work and Juarez was terminated by New Branch.
- Juarez argued the termination was retaliation for reporting violence and that workplace violence violated OSHA and thus applied under FWBA § 3.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for New Branch; the appellate court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Juarez's actions constitute protected FWBA activity | Juarez objected by police report and restraining order | Complaint shows no employer policy or knowledge; action not tied to employer | No FWBA element shown; no direct link to employer policy or knowledge |
| Whether Erazo's violence was an employer activity or policy | Violence falls within employer-related policy/practice | Juarez failed to prove New Branch ratified or allowed the violence | Not proven; violence not shown to be employer activity or policy |
| Whether OSHA applies as the relevant law | OSHA violations are applicable law to the business | OSHA complaint focused on the batterer, not employer; no evidence of violation by employer | OSHA applicability not established to support retaliation claim |
| Whether the battery occurred within the scope of Erazo's employment or furthered New Branch's business | Battery linked to employer interests via Erazo's role | No evidence that battery was within scope or for employer's benefit | No scope or benefit shown; FWBA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1965) (de novo review guidance and evidentiary standard for summary judgment)
- Bldg. Educ. Corp. v. Ocean Bank, 982 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (standard for reviewing summary judgment cases)
- Coral Way Shopping Ctr. v. City Stores Co., 216 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (immaterial issues to determine entitlement to judgment as a matter of law)
- Dade-Commonwealth Title Ins. Co. v. Biscayne Kennel Club, Inc., 143 So.2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (immaterial issues should not be submitted to jury if law entitles movant to judgment)
- Williams v. Joseph L. Rozier Mach. Co., 135 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (affirming summary judgment where factual issues were not material)
- Sussan v. Nova Se. Univ., 723 So.2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (FWBA claim requires employer ratification of illegal conduct)
- Ruiz v. Aerorep Grp. Corp., 941 So.2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (battery within scope and purpose of employer invalidates FWBA claim)