Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 4D99-0517.
| Decision Date | 07 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D99-0517.,4D99-0517. |
| Citation | 760 So.2d 276 |
| Parties | John M. TYSON, Appellant, v. VIACOM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph C. Segor, Miami, and Chonin & Sher, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.
Lawrence P. Bemis, P.A., and Robert W. Pittman of Steel Hector & Davis, L.L.P., Miami, for appellee.
Viacom was subject to an injunction issued by a federal court in Oregon. Tyson was an officer-employee of Viacom.. He wrote a letter to the federal court contending that Viacom had violated the injunction. Viacom fired him. He sued Viacom in the circuit court in Fort Lauderdale, alleging that the retaliation was a violation of the Florida Whistle Blowers Act. The circuit court dismissed his suit. We affirm. The Act in question bars an employer from retaliating against an employee who has:
§ 448.102, Fla. Stat. (1997). Tyson's claims were based on subsections (2) and (3), and not on subsection (1).
Claims under subsections (2) and (3) are not subject to the prior notice provision contained in the second sentence of subsection (1); the notice provision is limited to claims under subsection (1). See The Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So.2d 561, 565 (Fla.2000)
; Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313, 316-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Judd v. Englewood Community Hosp., 739 So.2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Blue, J., specially concurring). The complaint was not defective in failing to allege prior notice.
The complaint failed to state a cause of action under section 448.102, however, because an injunction is not "a law, rule or regulation" and the federal district court is not an "agency" within the meaning of the Act. The term "law" does not refer to the whole body of law but instead only to positive law. Section 448.101(4) states that the statutory term 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."
In context, the word "includes" is unambiguously one of limitation, not enlargement.
Moreover, in this act, the legislature has defined agency as "any agency of government charged with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc.
...blower claim to this Court. We affirmed the dismissal of the whistle blower claim by opinion on June 7, 2000. See Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In affirming, we held that Tyson's claim did not satisfy the definitional requirements of the On November 22, 2000, Tys......
-
Curry v. State
...of laws is also a function of the executive branch of government. See Art. IV, § 1, Fla. Const.; see also Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). As in petitioning administrative agencies, complaints to law enforcement agencies are a protected constitutional activity.......
-
White v. Purdue Pharma, Inc.
...and, thus, a termination resulting from a report of an injunction violation did not merit FWA protection. Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has likewise held that a plaintiff could not sustain an FWA claim for termination after......
-
Pierre v. AIDS Healthcare Found., Inc.
...1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (determining that an FCC policy did not qualify as a "law, rule or regulation" under the FWA); Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla. 4thDCA 2000) (concluding that the violation of an injunction is not a violation of law under the FWA). Second, the Court al......