Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Rosa v. Department of Children and Families
2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16867
In Rosa, the jury returned a verdict in her favor on an employment whistle-blower claim. However, the trial court judge entered a directed verdict in favor of the Defendant because "the court found that Rosa's March 1999 letter did not constitute a whistle-blower complaint because it did not satisfy the requirements of section 112.3187(5), Florida Statues (2000)." Rosa at 1.
The Defendants argued that instead of a formal complaint about "allocation of duties and responsibilities within the department," the plaintiff merely wrote a letter that was more of a "rant" than a formal complaint regarding "misfeasance" or "malfeasance" in the department. Id.
The court held that "[Although the] letter could be construed as an employee ranting about personal conflicts with another employee, there are also different reasonable inferences that could be drawn to support Rosa's position that the letter describes another department employee acting negligently." Rosa at 5.
The court reasoned that considering prior rulings on the definitions of misfeasance and malfeasance, the term misfeasance includes negligent acts committed by an employee of an agency. Also, because there were two reasonable inferences, it was a question properly left to the jury.
Topic(s)
