Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 448.101 (2025)

Definitions.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

448.101 Definitions.—As used in ss. 448.101-448.105, the term:

(1) “Appropriate governmental agency” means any agency of government charged with the enforcement of laws, rules, or regulations governing an activity, policy, or practice of an employer.

(2) “Employee” means a person who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration. The term does not include an independent contractor.

(3) “Employer” means any private individual, firm, partnership, institution, corporation, or association that employs ten or more persons.

(4) “Law, rule, or regulation” includes any statute or ordinance or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.

(5) “Retaliatory personnel action” means the discharge, suspension, or demotion by an employer of an employee or any other adverse employment action taken by an employer against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.

(6) “Supervisor” means any individual within an employer’s organization who has the authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee or who has managerial authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of law, rule, or regulation of which the employee complains.

History.—s. 4, ch. 91-285.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 106 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, 896 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, 896 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). · cites it 3× “NOTES [1] §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section 448.”

Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc., 7 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). · cites it 5× “See § 448.101(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). However, he argued that the jury could find that Impex and Impex Logistics were either a “single employer” or a “joint employer” of Diaz, and thus the motion for directed verdict should be denied.”

Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh, 645 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1994). · cites it 3× “, codified at §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1993). [2] Section 448.”

Morin v. Florida Power & Light Co., 963 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). · cites it 3× “Morin ("Morin"), appeals an order granting Florida Power & Light's ("FPL") motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under Florida's Private Sector Whistleblower Act ("Whistleblower Act" or "Act"), section 448.101, et seq., Florida Statutes (2005).”

Marc Wiersum v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 785 F.3d 483 (11th Cir. 2015). “MARTIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Today’s majority holds that when Congress passed the National Banking Act (NBA) in 1864, it intended — 150 years later — for the three words “dismiss at pleasure” to preempt Marc Wiersum’s retaliation claim under the Florida Whistle-blower’s…”

Doe v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 274 F. Supp. 3d 355 (D. Maryland 2017). “at *6-7 (citing Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 448.101 , 448.102 (2013)).”

Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 2× “" § 448.101(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] See also Park v.”

Myers v. Cent. Florida Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010). “Against CFI alone, she alleged sex discrimination under Title VII and the FCRA, retaliation under Title VII, the FCRA, and the Florida Private Whistleblower Act (“Whistle-blower Act”), Fla. Stat. § 448.101-105 , and negligent retention and supervision, a common law claim.”

Allocco v. City of Coral Gables, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “Standard for Whistleblower Claims Under Florida Law Florida’s private ( Fla. Stat. § 448.101 et seq.) and public-sector (Fla.”

Padron v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (S.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “Fla.Stat. § 448.101(5) [emphasis added]. Plaintiffs harassment claim rests solely on the phrase “any other adverse employment action”.”

Forrester v. John H. Phipps, Inc., 643 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). · cites it 8× “The lower court viewed section 448.101-105 to be a type of "whistle-blower" act concerning violations of law specifically regulating an employer's particular type of business.”

United States Ex Rel. Vargas v. Lackmann Food Serv., Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2007). · cites it 4× “Fla. Stat. § 448.101 (5). A close temporal proximity can provide a basis to infer that protected activity and the adverse action are related.”

Show all 106 citing cases →

— 448.101(1) — 1 case

Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

— 448.101(2) — 3 cases

Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, 896 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “NOTES [1] §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section 448.”

Morin v. Florida Power & Light Co., 963 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). “Morin ("Morin"), appeals an order granting Florida Power & Light's ("FPL") motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under Florida's Private Sector Whistleblower Act ("Whistleblower Act" or "Act"), section 448.101, et seq., Florida Statutes (2005).”

Dahl v. Eckerd Fam. Youth Alternatives, Inc., 843 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

— 448.101(3) — 5 cases

Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc., 7 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “See § 448.101(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). However, he argued that the jury could find that Impex and Impex Logistics were either a “single employer” or a “joint employer” of Diaz, and thus the motion for directed verdict should be denied.”

Tracey-Meddoff v. J. Altman Hair & Beauty, 899 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Wallace v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., Fla., 41 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

Dahl v. Eckerd Fam. Youth Alternatives, Inc., 843 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

— 448.101(4) — 20 cases

Kubiak v. S.W. Cowboy, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2016).

New World Commc'n of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, 896 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “NOTES [1] §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section 448.”

Vaughn Usher v. Nipro Diabetes Sys., Inc., & Nipro Med. Corp., 184 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Forrester v. John H. Phipps, Inc., 643 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “The lower court viewed section 448.101-105 to be a type of "whistle-blower" act concerning violations of law specifically regulating an employer's particular type of business.”

— 448.101(5) — 11 cases

Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh, 645 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1994). “, codified at §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1993). [2] Section 448.”

Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2000). “" § 448.101(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] See also Park v.”

Padron v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “Fla.Stat. § 448.101(5) [emphasis added]. Plaintiffs harassment claim rests solely on the phrase “any other adverse employment action”.”

Bell v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

— 448.101(l)(a) — 1 case

Glenn v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 731 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.