Stanton v. Florida Department of Health
129 So. 3d 1083
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Swanson, as appellant, seeks review of a final order dismissing his whistle-blower complaint against the Florida Department of Health.
- The Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Whistle-blower’s Act (chs. 112.3187–112.31895, Fla. Stat. 2011).
- The court cites Tillery v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (104 So.3d 1253, Fla. 1st DCA 2013) as controlling.
- Appellant alleged in April 2010 he disclosed funds misuse in writing, faced retaliation, a hostile work environment, multiple transfers, and termination for contrived reasons tied to the disclosure.
- The Commission stated it could not take action because appellant failed to plead factual basis for retaliation tied to the disclosures; he was advised of a right to judicial review within 30 days.
- The court affirms, noting on amendment rights and compliance with rules the complainant is allowed to cure defects, but appellant’s argument on amendment was insufficiently presented on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission had discretion to dismiss without fact-finding | Stanton | Tillery controls; Commission has inherent authority to dismiss when not meeting prima facie requirements | Yes, the Commission had authority to dismiss. |
| Whether the complaint states a prima facie Whistle-blower’s Act claim | Stanton’s allegations show retaliation for April 2010 disclosures | Complaint lacked prima facie factual basis under 112.31895(l)(a) and 112.3187(4) | The complaint failed to satisfy prima facie requirements and thus the Commission lacked statutory authority to proceed. |
| Whether the complaint shows the supervisor had authority to investigate the disclosed matter | Disclosure implicated actionable retaliation | Supervisor lacked required investigatory authority | Dispositive to lack of JX; supports dismissal. |
| Whether the Commission erred by not advising a circuit court remedy or discussing amendment rights | Appellant should have been told of circuit court remedy and afforded amendment | Tillery and rules limit such advisements when no whistle-blower claim is pled; amendment rights exist but not clearly presented | No reversible error; waiver and remedy rules applied; rights to amend discussed but not properly raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tillery v. Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 104 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (limits on Commission authority when prima facie elements are not met; inherent authority to dismiss)
- Robinson v. Dept. of Health, 89 So.3d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Commission authority to dismiss untimely whistle-blower claims)
- Lynn v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So.2d 511 (Fla.1955) (apparent duty of appellant to present error with argument)
- Greenwood v. State, 754 So.2d 158 (Fla.1st DCA 2000) (perfunctory argument waived review)
- Henderson v. State, 569 So.2d 925 (Fla.1st DCA 1990) (perfunctory argument not properly preserved)