Cases from cite.case.law:

BARONE, v. PALM BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 262 So. 3d 767 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . deciding, that the "manager rule" should be applied to whistleblower retaliation claims under section 448.102 . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO., 230 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 2017)

. . . The bracketed language is derived from F.S. 448.102(1), (2) and (3). 2. . . . As to whether, under F.S. 448.102(3), a claimant must prove an actual violation of law as opposed to . . .

DIEGO, v. VICTORY LAB, INC., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . . § 448.102. The term "employee," under either statute, does not include independent contractors. . . .

DAGNESSES, v. TARGET MEDIA PARTNERS, a a, 711 F. App'x 927 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 448.102, and for breach of contract. . . .

SUTHERLAND, v. BOEHRINGER- INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 700 F. App'x 955 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 448.102 (Count III), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IV), and negligent hiring, . . .

DOE, v. JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, 274 F. Supp. 3d 355 (D. Md. 2017)

. . . . §§ 448.101, 448.102 (2013)). . . .

THOMAS, v. TYCO INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . Defendant in this Court, asserting the following claims: violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act, § 448.102 . . . In Count' I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim under Florida’s Whistleblower Act, § 448.102 . . . Pursuant to section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, “[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel . . . activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102 . . .

GRADDY, v. WAL- MART STORES EAST, LP,, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . .” § 448.102(3), Fla. Stat. . . . activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102 . . . agency .,. conducting an investigation ... into an alleged violation of a law ... by the employer.” § 448.102 . . . though none exists in the text of the statute: "Florida’s Whistleblower Statute ("FWA”), at subsections' 448.102 . . .

KOGAN, v. ISRAEL,, 211 So. 3d 101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 448.102, Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). . . .

HALL, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL USA, INC., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . ¶ 448.102. . . .

USHER, v. NIPRO DIABETES SYSTEMS, INC., 184 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2009) precludes an employer from taking “any retaliatory personnel . . .

KUBIAK, v. S. W. COWBOY, INC. a d b a, 164 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 448.102 (“FWA”), and the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), respectively. . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . .

DONNERT v. FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d b a v. d b a, 612 F. App'x 657 (4th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 448.102(3), by retaliating against them for complaining about circus safety and refusing to participate . . .

WIERSUM, v. U. S. BANK, N. A., 785 F.3d 483 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 448.102(3). U.S. . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Fifth). . . . . Stat. § 448.102(3), enacted in 1991. . . . . § 448.102. . . . Stat. §§ 448.102, 448.101(5). . . .

KEARNS, v. FARMER ACQUISITION COMPANY d b a, 157 So. 3d 458 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . In making his claim under the FWA, Kearns proceeded under section 448.102(3), which provides that “[a . . . Section 448.102(3), which is the pertinent statutory section here, applies when an employee “[o]bjected . . . The employee alleged a violation of section 448.102 and claimed that she was terminated for refusing . . . See White, 369 F.Supp.2d at 1336; see also § 448.102(3). . . . As to prong three of the test to establish a claim under section 448.102(3), we do not agree with the . . .

ODOM, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (N.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . The Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA), codified as Florida Statutes § 448.102, prohibits retaliatory action . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . . Stat. § 448.102(3); Aery v. . . . Stat. § 448.102(3), an employee need only demonstrate that he had a “good faith, objectively reasonable . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . .

C. BUTTERWORTH, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,, 581 F. App'x 813 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 448.102; and breach of contract for terminating her without cause, withholding stock options, and . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . .

SMITH, v. PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., 750 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 448.102 (prohibiting employers from taking retaliatory action against employees who have disclosed . . . Stat. 448.102 (prohibiting retaliatory-personnel action against whistleblowing employees). . . .

BONNAFANT, v. CHICO S FAS, INC., 17 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 448.102(3); that she had engaged in statutorily protected activity; that Chico’s conduct in copying . . . Stat. § 448.102(3), which provides: “An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against . . . There appears to be a split of authority as to whether § 448.102(3) requires plaintiff to prove an actual . . .

A. SILVERMAN, v. WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES USA, INC. a, 20 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 448.102. However, Tracey-Meddoff v. J. . . .

In CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. v. LLC, 987 F. Supp. 2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . . §§ 448.102, 448.108. . . .

RAMIREZ, v. BAUSCH LOMB, INC., 546 F. App'x 829 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 448.102. . . . Ann. § 448.102. . . . Id. §§ 448.102(1), 448.103(l)(c). . . . .

R. AERY, v. WALLACE LINCOLN- MERCURY, LLC d b a, 118 So. 3d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Damages Under Florida’s Whistleblower Act As codified in section 448.102, Florida’s Whistleblower Act . . .

MORELAND, v. SUNTRUST BANK, a, 981 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 448.102. (Doc. #2.) . . .

BARNHART, v. LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, LLC,, 523 F. App'x 635 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 448.102. There was a good faith basis for bringing this claim. . . .

WIGFALL, v. SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY, INCORPORATED,, 517 F. App'x 910 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 448.102 (codifying the Florida Whistleblower’s Act, which prohibits employers from taking "retaliatory . . .

WOODFORD, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., 905 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D.R.I. 2012)

. . . . § 448.102 (1991) (the “FWA”). (ECF No. 13 at 3-4.) . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. UNLAWFUL RETALIATION, 95 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2012)

. . . instruction 415.5 is modified to reflect that in addressing the claimant’s burden of proof under section 448.102 . . . The bracketed language is derived from F.S. 448.102(1), (2) and (3). 2. . . . As to whether, under F.S. 448.102(3), a claimant must prove an actual violation of law as opposed to . . . This instruction is based on F.S. 448.102 and 448.103(c). 2. . . .

CASTILLO, v. ROCHE LABORATORIES, INC. a, 467 F. App'x 859 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 448.102(3). Roche, whose citizenship is diverse from Castillo’s, removed the case to the U.S. . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). We apply Title VII discrimination and retaliation law to Castillo’s claims. . . .

SMITH, v. PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., 864 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (N.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 448.102(2). . . . In Stein Mart, the court noted the parties’ disagreement "over whether § 448.102(3) of the FWA employs . . .

MEYER, v. HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., 841 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . cause of action for retaliatory discharge under Florida’s Whistle-blower Act, Florida Statutes section 448.102 . . .

SLATER, v. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, a. k. a. ESG LLC, A, 441 F. App'x 637 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 448.102. . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . .

JOHNSON, v. STEIN MART, INC., 440 F. App'x 795 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 448.102(3). . . . The parties disagree over whether § 448.102(3) of the FWA employs an actual violation standard or a reasonable . . . Stat. § 448.102(3) ("retaliatory personnel action”). . In fact, Ms. . . .

JUAREZ, v. NEW BRANCH CORP., 67 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . The plaintiff, Nidia Juarez (“Juarez”), sued under the Florida Whistle Blower’s Act (“FWBA”), Section 448.102 . . . activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102 . . .

W. CHERRY, Dr. W. II, LLC, v. D. B. ZWIRN SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L. P. LLC,, 433 F. App'x 870 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . relations and prospective business; (9) engaged in deceptive business practices; (10) violated Sections 448.102 . . .

SLATER, v. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, a. k. a. ESG LLC. A, 634 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 448.102 (FWA), against Energy Services Group International (ESGI), her former employer. . . .

McINTYRE, v. DELHAIZE AMERICA, INC. d. b. a., 403 F. App'x 448 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 448.102, for complaining about various violations of pharmacy laws and rules. . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . .

SHURICK, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, d. b. a., 623 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 448.102, alleging that the company had fired him for complaining about its safety violations. . . .

A. GLEASON, v. ROCHE LABORATORIES, INC., 745 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . . § 448.102(3): Bell v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 390 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1187 (M.D.Fla. 2005). . . .

BUSH, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY,, 373 F. App'x 936 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 448.102(3). . . .

ESCALA v. VICTORIA S SECRET STORES, LLC,, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 448.102. . . .

PINDER, v. BAHAMASAIR HOLDINGS LIMITED, INC. a, 661 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 448.102(3). . . . Stat. 448.102 which states: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee . . . she failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by § 448.102 . . . (1) or 448.102(2). . . . Bahamasair’s ongoing violations of aviation safety regulations which satisfies the first prong of § 448.102 . . .

O. DIAZ, v. IMPEX OF DORAL, INC., 7 So. 3d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . (Impex Logistics) for the violation of Florida’s Whistle Blower Act, section 448.102, Florida Statutes . . . activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102 . . . See § 448.102; Golf Channel, 752 So.2d at 565. . . .

WELLS, v. XPEDX, a Co. a, 319 F. App'x 798 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 448.102(3). . . .

SITARIK, M. D. v. JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS JFK HCA, M. D. M. D. JFK HCA, JFK HCA,, 7 So. 3d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Dorman, JFK, and HCA, (4) conspiracy to violate the whistleblower’s statute (§ 448.102) against JFK, . . .

BERNARD, v. SSA SECURITY, INC. a a. k. a., 299 F. App'x 927 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 448.102-448.103, and state law breach of contract. . . .

STONE, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a a, 279 F. App'x 821 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 448.102(3). Geico cross-appeals the court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. . . .

AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS UNION, v. MERRIKEN,, 981 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . With that factual background, Merriken alleged in count I retaliatory discharge based on section 448.102 . . . Under section 448.102, Florida Statutes, An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against . . .

RUTLEDGE, a. k. a. v. SUNTRUST BANK,, 262 F. App'x 956 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 448.102. . . .

D. MORIN, v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT COMPANY,, 963 So. 2d 258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Morin’s amended complaint seeks damages for a violation of section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes, of the . . . Section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: Prohibition. — An employer may not take any retaliatory . . .

UNITED STATES, VARGAS, v. LACKMANN FOOD SERVICE, INC., 510 F. Supp. 2d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 448.102(3). . . . With respect to allegations of a violation of Section 448.102(3), the plaintiff must prove an actual . . .

EL TORO EXTERMINATOR OF FLORIDA, INC. a v. A. CERNADA,, 953 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . wages, negligent supervision and retaliation under the Florida Private Sector Whistleblower’s Act, § 448.102 . . . wages, negligent supervision and retaliation under the Florida Private Sector Whistleblower’s Act, § 448.102 . . .

J. NOVELLA, v. WAL- MART STORES, INC., 226 F. App'x 901 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 448.102(3). I. We review a grant of summary judgment on an ADA claim de novo. Lowe v. Ala. . . .

ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC. v. G. MI AGORRI,, 954 So. 2d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . of her four count complaint, Miñagorri makes a Private Sector Whistle-blower Act claim under section 448.102 . . . activities, policies or practices of the employer which are “in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102 . . .

RUIZ v. AEROREP GROUP CORP. d b a, 941 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 448.102, Fla. Stat. (2003); Sussan v. Nova Se. Univ., 723 So.2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). . . .

CANALS, v. CENTRO MATER, INC., 200 F. App'x 881 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 448.102. . . .

J. NOVELLA, v. WAL- MART STORES, INC., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), 2) for unlawful employment retaliation in violation of Florida Statute § 448.102 . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . .

RIVERA, v. TORFINO ENTERPRISES, INC., 914 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . . § 448.102, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

BELL, v. GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORPORATION,, 153 F. App'x 701 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . of summary judgment on appellant Kenneth Bell’s claims brought under Florida’s Whistleblower Act, § 448.102 . . .

MORA, v. ABRAHAM CHEVROLET- TAMPA, INC. d b a, 913 So. 2d 32 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . whistleblower suit, asserting that his discharge was a retaliatory personnel action in violation of section 448.102 . . .

T. LIGHT, v. VESTCOR COMPANIES, INC., 144 F. App'x 776 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 448.102(3) (West 2002) (the “Act”). . . .

HOWARD, v. DITSWORTH, J. C., 133 F. App'x 664 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 448.102(1) and (3). . . .

BELL, v. GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORPORATION,, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . This is an action pursuant to Florida’s Whistleblower’s Act, § 448.102(3), Fla. . . . Count one alleges that Georgia-Pacific violated Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act, § 448.102(3), Fla. . . . The prima facie case of under § 440.205 is essentially the same as § 448.102(3). . . . TechSouth, 833 F.2d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1987). . § 448.102(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . Florida’s Whistleblowers' Act prohibits "retaliatory personnel action[s].” § 448.102, Fla. . . .

TRACEY- MEDDOFF, v. J. ALTMAN HAIR BEAUTY CENTRE, INC., 899 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 448.102 precludes an “employer” from taking “any retaliatory personnel action against an employee . . .

DAUSMAN, v. HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT,, 898 So. 2d 213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . the ground that he failed to state a cause of action under the private sector whistle blower act, § 448.102 . . .

WHITE, v. PURDUE PHARMA, INC., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 448.102(3). . . . Stat. § 448.102(3), Plaintiff must prove as part of her prima facie case that the activity, policy or . . . Stat. § 448.102(1)); Golf Channel v. . . . Stat. § 448.102(2) and (3)). . . . Stat. § 448.102(3) provides that an employer may not take any retaliatory action against an employee . . .

E. SNOW, v. RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER RUSSELL, P. A., 896 So. 2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Specifically, she claimed that Ruden, McClosky terminated her for activity protected by section 448.102 . . . Section 448.102 provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee . . .

M. TYSON, v. VIACOM, INC. a, 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . complaint alleging claims for breach of contract and violation of Florida’s whistle blower statute, section 448.102 . . . See § 448.102, Fla. Stat. . . .

COLLINS, v. BEAZER HOMES USA, INC., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2004)

. . . . § 448.102. OSHA issued its findings and preliminary order on May 22, 2003. (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . . Plaintiff contends that she engaged in protected activity under § 448.102(3) which prohibits retaliation . . . Stat. § 448.102(3). . . .

M. ALEXANDER, v. TANDEM STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. a L. L. C. a a, 881 So. 2d 607 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Arguably, the letter was an attempt to comply with the requirement of section 448.102(1), Florida Statutes . . .

Dr. L. CHERRY, Jr. v. CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE,, 875 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 448.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2000); Golf Channel v. . . . . § 448.102(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

POHL, v. SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, INC. a, 880 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . amended complaint which alleged he was the target of a retaliatory personnel action prohibited by section 448.102 . . . Section 448.102(2) provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee . . . investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. § 448.102 . . . Pohl asserted that Southeast Airlines violated section 448.102(2) by taking retaliatory personnel action . . . were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under section 448.102 . . .

P. ROLAND, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, LLC f k a a, 873 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See §§ 112.3187 and 448.102, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . . Section 448.102, Florida Statutes, provides: 448.102 Prohibitions. — An employer may not take any retaliatory . . .

F. BRANCHE, v. AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 448.102, et seq. (the “FWA”). This Court has diversity jurisdiction over the parties. . . .

BRASINGTON, v. EMC CORPORATION,, 855 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and the Florida Whistleblower Act, sections 448.102 . . .

F. BRANCHE, v. AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC. a, 342 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 448.102, is expressly pre-empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”), 49 U.S.C. § 41713 . . . Stat. § 448.102. . . . Stat. § 448.102(1), is “related to” the “service of an air carrier.” . . . Stat. § 448.102(1). . . . .

TUCKER, v. HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, INC. a a, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 448.102(1), (2002), for complaining about his employer’s violation of Federal Aviation Regulations . . . Stat. § 448.102(1), (2002). . . .

DAHL, v. ECKERD FAMILY YOUTH ALTERNATIVES, INC. a d b a, 843 So. 2d 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 448.102(1). . . .

NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC. d b a WTVT- TV, v. AKRE,, 866 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . judgment entered against it for violating Florida’s private sector whistle-blower’s statute, section 448.102 . . . or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of’ a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102 . . . news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102 . . . Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre . . . judgment entered against it for violating Florida’s private sector whistle-blower’s statute, section 448.102 . . .

ALLOCCO, v. CITY OF CORAL GABLES, A A, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . §§ 448.102 et seq (by Allocco and Fernandez against UM).; count VI (second), violation of Florida’s . . . Stat. §§ 448.102 et seq. . . . Section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, which is referred to in this order as the private sector whistleblower . . . Stat. § 448.102 requires that the disclosure or threatened disclosure that is made by the plaintiff be . . .

L. PADRON, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. a, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 448.102(3), Fla. Stat. . . . she failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by § 448.102 . . .

HOLLEY, v. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OF DESTIN, INC. a, 803 So. 2d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . individuals alleging false imprisonment (count 2), assault and battery (count 3), and violation of section 448.102 . . .

MARTINOLICH, v. GOLDEN LEAF MANAGEMENT, INC., 786 So. 2d 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . section 440.25, Florida Statutes, (1995), and also in violation of Florida’s Whistle Blower Act, section 448.102 . . .

TAYLOR, v. MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., 770 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The statutory basis for Taylor’s complaint was sections 448.102(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (1995), . . .

SIERMINSKI, v. TRANSOUTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION,, 216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2000)

. . . court in Broward County, Florida alleging, that defendant violated Florida’s Whistle Blower’s Act, § 448.102 . . . former supervisor’s illegal notary practices, in violation of Florida’s Whistleblower’s Act, section 448.102 . . . activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102 . . . , took too long to develop and is too indirect to satisfy the causality requirement inherent in Ch. 448.102 . . .

M. TYSON, v. VIACOM, INC. a, 760 So. 2d 276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 448.102, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . The complaint failed to state a cause of action under section 448.102, however, because an injunction . . .

GILLYARD, v. DELTA HEALTH GROUP, INC. d b a, 757 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The two count complaint,sought to allege retaliatory discharge pursuant to section 448.102, Florida Statutes . . . Plaintiff argues that Section 448.102(3), F.S. shields an employee who has refused to participate in . . . The complaint attempts to allege a cause of action under Section 448.102(3). . . . No reasonable interpretation of Section 448.102(3), F.S. would make the act of remaining in Flagler County . . . Any other construction of Section 448.102(3), F.S. on these facts would lead to an absurd result. . . .

McEOWEN, v. JONES CHEMICAL, INC., 758 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2000)

. . . this split in the district courts regarding the extent of the written notice requirement of sections 448.102 . . . We held that when an employee brings a whistle-blower claim pursuant to subsection 448.102(3), on the . . .

GOLF CHANNEL, v. JENKINS,, 752 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2000)

. . . See § 448.102-.103. . . . Sections 448.102 and 448.103 are closely related. . . . See § 448.102(1). . . . 1) does not apply to those claims brought pursuant to subsections 448.102(2) or (3). . . . Thus, the relevant subdivisions here are chapter 448, section 448.102, and subsection 448.102(1). . . . . The majority opines that the “any action” language refers to any action brought pursuant to section 448.102 . . . 448.103(1), and is applicable to all causes of action, whether the action is for retaliation based on 448.102 . . . of the statutes which requires notice to be given only when an action is brought pursuant to section 448.102 . . . (3) and not pursuant to section 448.102(1). . . . If we were to accept this position, because section 448.102(1) already requires written notice, we would . . .

McEOWEN, v. JONES CHEMICAL, INC., 745 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . McEowen contends that the notice requirement of subsection 448.102(1) does not apply to actions brought . . . The whistle-blower statute provides, in part: 448.102 Prohibitions. . . . (1).... §§ 448.102 — .103(1)(c). . . . (1) applies to all three subsections of section 448.102. . . . (2) and 448.102(3)); Jenkins v. . . .

ARMSTRONG SURGICAL CENTER, INC. v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL L. N. H. H. P. R. T., 185 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 1999)

. . . Id. at § 448.102. . . .

JUDD, v. ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, a HCA a, 739 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . summary judgment in her whistle blower claim against her former employers, which was based on section 448.102 . . . regarding the activities to which she objected but contends that written notice is not required by section 448.102 . . . Districts, which have held that the written notice requirement applies only to claims brought under section 448.102 . . . There is no question that some ambiguity exists between sections 448.102 and 448.103 concerning the necessity . . . For example, under subsection 448.102(2), the employee may not be allowed to give notice if called to . . . Under subsection 448.102(3), the employee has already objected or refused to participate in alleged illegal . . .

T. SULLIVAN, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, a, 170 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 448.102(3) (West 1998). . . .

J. MOLENDA, v. HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION,, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . and equitable relief for alleged violations of the Florida Whistle-blower’s Act (“the Act”), Section 448.102 . . . Plaintiff first asserts a claim under the Florida Whistle-blower’s Act (“the Act”), Section 448.102(3 . . . Fla.Stat. § 448.102(3). . . . See Fla.Stat. § 448.102(3) (emphasis added). . . .

Dr. SUSSAN, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY,, 723 So. 2d 933 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . three months later for insubordination, and Sussan sued the University seeking protection under section 448.102 . . . Section 448.102, provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee . . .

WALLACE, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA,, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . (West 1997) (“Title VII”); the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”); and Sections 112.3187 and 448.102 . . . Counts III, IV, V, and VI are state law claims for violation of the FCRA, Sections 112.3187 and 448.102 . . . V — Florida Statute § H8.102 Plaintiff also claims that his termination violates Florida Statute § 448.102 . . . Walsh, 645 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla.1994) (stating that the purpose of § 448.102 is to “protect private employees . . . Therefore, § 448.102 does not apply to the defendant and summary judgment is warranted. 6) Count VI — . . .

JENKINS, v. GOLF CHANNEL a k a, TGC,, 714 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The reference to ‘this subsection’ means subsection 448.102(1). . . . This written notice requirement only applies to subsection 448.102(1). . . . Id. § 448.102(3). In the present case Baiton is proceeding under subsection 448.102(3). . . . (1), 448.102(2) or 448.102(3). . . . Section 448.102 outlines three different “prohibitions.” . . .

ROBINSON, v. JEWISH CENTER TOWERS, INC., 993 F. Supp. 1475 (M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . Defendant states that Robinson’s complaint should be dismissed because Florida Statute § 448.102(1) requires . . .

A. RESLEY, v. RITZ- CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,, 989 F. Supp. 1442 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . . § 448.102. . . . claim of retaliatory personnel action under Florida’s private sector “whistleblower” statute, F.S. § 448.102 . . .

J. SCHULTZ, Jr. v. TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 704 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The heart of the whistle blower act is section 448.102, and it provides as follows: An employer may not . . .