Welcome to my whistleblower blog which I hope will become a resource on whistleblower law (both employer retaliation and qui tam cases) from a Florida perspective. In this first installment we'll look at a recent public sector whistleblower case that illustrates that case procedure can matter as much as case merits.

Richard Turkiewicz was Director of Public Safety and Police for the University of Central Florida (UCF)  from 1988 forward. He was considered an exemplary employee. Commencing late 2005 he disclosed to his superior what he considered to be possible regulatory violations and/or acts of gross malfeasance or waste of public funds. About a year later he was called into a meeting and advised to seek other employment because he wasn't considered to be "engaging enough". Soon thereafter he was informed that he would not be reappointed.

Turkiewicz initiated an internal grievance alleging violation of university rules and statutes. Ultimately the grievance was dismissed. He then filed suit. UCF moved to dismiss the case noting that he had failed to first seek a remedy from the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) before filing suit.

Florida's Public Sector Whistleblower Law provides, in part, that a public sector employee who is retaliated against for disclosing a violation of law or gross waste of public funds can sue in civil court for reinstatement and to recover lost wages. It provides that the employee "may" file a complaint with FCHR within 60 days after the act of retaliation. Turkiewicz argued that the law should be liberally construed in his favor, that pursuing an internal grievance was sufficient and that "may" didn't mean "shall" file an FCHR complaint before suing.The trial court agreed.

On appeal the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to dismiss the case. It noted that although the statute indeed uses the "may" language the statute also provides that public employees are entitled to file a civil lawsuit only after receiving a notice from FCHR that its investigation was concluded. The court stated, "the use of the word 'may' simply acknowledges that one who has a claim under the Act has the right to pursue a legal remedy. However, if the aggrieved person does choose to pursue a legal remedy, he or she must do so by first filing a complaint with FCHR". You can find a copy of the opinion here: http://bit.ly/9ykhUE