Fla. Stat. » 448

448.101

Definitions.

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
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster (2005) fladistctapp · cites it 3× “NOTES [1] §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section 448.”
Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc. (2009) fladistctapp · 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 (1994) fla · cites it 3× “, codified at §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1993). [2] Section 448.”
Morin v. Florida Power & Light Co. (2007) fladistctapp · 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. (2015) ca11 “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 System Corp. (2017) mdd “at *6-7 (citing Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 448.101 , 448.102 (2013)).”
Golf Channel v. Jenkins (2000) fla · cites it 2× “" § 448.101(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] See also Park v.”
Myers v. CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC. (2010) ca11 “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 (2002) flsd · 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 Telecommunications, Inc. (2002) flsd · 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. (1994) fladistctapp · 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 Service, Inc. (2007) flmd · 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. (2000) fladistctapp
— 448.101(2) — 3 cases
Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster (2005) fladistctapp “NOTES [1] §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section 448.”
Morin v. Florida Power & Light Co. (2007) fladistctapp “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 Family Youth Alternatives, Inc. (2003) fladistctapp
— 448.101(3) — 5 cases
Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc. (2009) fladistctapp “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 (2005) fladistctapp
Morin v. Florida Power & Light Co. (2007) fladistctapp “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).”
Wallace v. School Bd. of Orange County, Fla. (1998) flmd
Dahl v. Eckerd Family Youth Alternatives, Inc. (2003) fladistctapp
— 448.101(4) — 20 cases
Kubiak v. S.W. Cowboy, Inc. (2016) flmd
NEW WORLD COMMUNICATION OF TAMPA, INC. v. Akre (2003) fladistctapp
Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster (2005) fladistctapp “NOTES [1] §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section 448.”
Vaughn Usher v. Nipro Diabetes Systems, Inc., and Nipro Medical Corporation (2016) fladistctapp
Forrester v. John H. Phipps, Inc. (1994) fladistctapp “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 (1994) fla “, codified at §§ 448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1993). [2] Section 448.”
Golf Channel v. Jenkins (2000) fla “" § 448.101(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] See also Park v.”
Padron v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (2002) flsd “Fla.Stat. § 448.101(5) [emphasis added]. Plaintiffs harassment claim rests solely on the phrase “any other adverse employment action”.”
Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc. (2009) fladistctapp “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.”
Bell v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (2005) flmd
— 448.101(l)(a) — 1 case
Glenn v. Unemployment Appeals Commission (1999) fladistctapp
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.

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney (Florida Bar No. 39104). For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.