ALLEN DROZD
v.
AMATUS HEALTH, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Under Florida's Private Whistleblower's Act, an employee must prove that the employer actually violated a law, rule, or regulation to recover for retaliatory discharge; proof of the employee's good faith, objectively reasonable belief of a violation is insufficient.
[1] Under Florida's Private Whistleblower's Act, an employee seeking protection from retaliatory discharge must prove that the employer actually violated a law, rule, or regu…
[2] The word "is" in the statutory phrase "activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation" requires proof of an actual viola…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.”
This statutory language establishes the requirement that the employer's activity must be "in violation of" a law, rule, or regulation, which the court interpreted to require actual violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen Drozd was employed by Amatus Health, LLC for three weeks before being terminated. He sued for wrongful termination under Florida's Private Whist…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retaliatory Personnel Action cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-1842 LT Case No. 2019-CA-001534-A _____________________________
ALLEN DROZD,
Appellant,
v.
AMATUS HEALTH, LLC,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. Lauren P. Blocker, Judge.
Archibald J. Thomas, III, of Archibald J. Thomas, III, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, for Appellant.
Jessica T. Travers and Kimberly R. Rivera, of Littler Mendelson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
March 21, 2025
EDWARDS, C.J.
Appellant, Allen Drozd, sued his former employer, Appellee, Amatus Health, LLC, alleging that when it fired him after three weeks’ of employment, that it constituted a violation of Florida’s
Appellant raises three points on appeal, only one of which merits any discussion: With regard to the employer’s activity, policy, or practice, which the employee threatened to disclose or refused to participate in, must the employee prove that the employer was actually violating a law, rule, or regulation, or would it be enough to show that the employee believed in good faith that the employer was violating a law, rule, or regulation in order to recover? To quote former president Bill Clinton, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”3
1 §§ 448.101–105, Fla. Stat. (2023). 2 “‘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.” Id. § 448.101(4). The law, rule, or regulation must have been legislatively enacted. Kearns v. Farmer Acq. Co., 157 So. 3d 458, 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). 3 KENNETH W. STARR, Report of Independent Counsel Re: Investigation of President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC- 105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf.
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED. MACIVER, J., concurs. Eisnaugle, J., concurs in result only with opinion.
4 _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
5
Case No. 5D2023-1842 LT Case No. 2019-CA-001534-A
EISNAUGLE, J., concurring in result only with opinion.
I agree that we must affirm, but I do not reach the merits of the case. On appeal, after a lengthy discussion of the history of Aery, Kearns, and numerous federal decisions, Drozd baldly states that Aery was correct and argues, in just one paragraph of his brief, that the trial court erred in this case.
The entirety of Drozd’s argument on this issue (as it specifically applies to this case) is as follows:
Here, the adoption of the standard suggested in Kearns not only departed from the binding precedent in Aery, but the inclusion of the specific language from Kearns in the jury instructions as opposed to the wording suggested by the Florida Standard Jury Instructions regarding retaliation and protected activity denied Plaintiff a fair trial and warrants the granting of a new trial herein. The trial court herein was required to follow Aery and in adopting the rationale suggested in dicta by Kearns was an abuse of discretion.
This argument is conclusory and insufficient to carry an appellant’s burden to demonstrate error in the initial brief. Wells v. State, 807 So. 2d 132, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“On this issue, the defendant’s appellate argument is entirely conclusory, and does not carry the defendant’s burden of making error appear.”). As a result, I would affirm without reaching the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Nahoom v. Fla. League of Cities Inc., 396 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
- R.C. v. State, 157 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Wells v. State, 807 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)