Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 3/13/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Kimberly Tucker, General Counsel Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building E, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Dear Ms. Tucker:
You have asked for my opinion on the following questions:
1. Can a person who meets the statutory requirements of section
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how does that affect the HRS Inspector General's ability to complete an ongoing investigation pursuant to section
In sum:
1. A person who has filed a complaint that falls within the scope of sections
2. No response to your second question is necessary.
According to your letter, a complaint has been filed that comes within the scope of section
(a) Any violation or suspected violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public's health, safety, or welfare. (b) Any act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor.
However, subsequent to filing a complaint and during the course of the investigation of the complaint, the employee advised the agency that he "did not desire whistle-blower status and further, did not want his allegations investigated as a whistle-blower investigation." Thus, your question is whether the employee may decide, after filing a whistle-blower's complaint, to "waive all rights under the Whistle-blower's Act" and withdraw his or her action from the statutorily prescribed process.
The Florida Legislature enacted the Whistle-blower's Act to prevent public agencies from taking retaliatory action against employees who report "violations of law on the part of a public employer or independent contractor that create a substantial and specific danger to the public's health, safety, or welfare."1 In addition, the act is intended to prevent retaliatory action being taken against any person "alleging improper use of governmental office, gross waste of funds, or any other abuse or gross neglect of duty on the part of an agency, public officer, or employee."2
In order for a complaint to qualify as a whistle-blower's complaint, subject to investigation under section
Pursuant to the act:
This section protects employees and persons who disclose information on their own initiative in a written and signed complaint; who are requested to participate in an investigation, hearing, or other inquiry conducted by any agency or federal government entity; who refuse to participate in any adverse action prohibited by this section; or who initiate a complaint through the whistle-blower's hotline; or employees who file any written complaint to their supervisory officials or employees who submit a complaint to the Chief Inspector General in the Executive Office of the Governor, to the employee designated as agency inspector general under s.
In order to qualify as a whistle-blower complaint, particular information must be disclosed to certain statutorily designated officials; a general complaint of wrongdoing or a complaint to officials other than those specifically named does not entitle the complainant to whistle-blower protection.5
When a complaint is made to the Chief Inspector General or agency inspector general, the official receiving the information has 20 days in which to determine whether it is the type of information described in the act, whether the source of the information is a person within the scope of the act, and whether the information demonstrates reasonable cause to suspect a violation of the law.6 If it is determined that all these factors are met, the Chief Inspector General or agency inspector general making the determination "shall then conduct an investigation[.]"7 The requirement to investigate is phrased in mandatory terms8 and nothing in the Whistle-blower's Act would terminate this duty in response to a request from the complainant.
Thus, once a complaint meeting the requirements set forth in sections
The only waiver that may be exercised by the complainant is a waiver of his or her right to the confidential treatment of his or her identity or name. Section
While the complainant, like any plaintiff in a court action, has the right to withdraw from participation in the proceeding, this does not require the termination of the investigation. Based on the allegations presented and the evidence produced by the investigation, the Inspector General may proceed to investigate or may terminate the investigation under ss.
Therefore, it is my opinion that a person who meets the statutory requirements of sections
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tgk