The Florida District Court of Appeal recently ruled that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is protected by sovereign immunity in a case involving wrongful termination claims. This decision has implications for state employees who may seek legal recourse under both state and federal laws regarding employment rights.
The case, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission v. Jeffrey Hahr, was filed under docket number 1D20-2578. It centers around Jeffrey Hahr, a former OPS Reserve Officer, who claimed he was wrongfully terminated from his position. Hahr alleged that his firing was in retaliation for providing unfavorable testimony in another lawsuit against the Commission.
Hahr's complaint included multiple counts, with Count I alleging a violation of section 92.57 of the Florida Statutes. This section prohibits employers from terminating employees based on the nature of their testimony in judicial proceedings. Count IV of Hahr's complaint alleged retaliation under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The trial court initially denied the Commission's motion to dismiss these counts, leading to the appeal.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, in a ruling issued on August 9, 2021, agreed with the Commission, stating that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The court highlighted that the state and its subdivisions enjoy sovereign immunity from civil liability unless explicitly waived by legislative enactment or constitutional amendment. The court noted, "A waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal, and therefore waiver will not be found as a product of inference or implication."
The court first addressed Count IV, which dealt with Hahr's claims under USERRA. The court referenced a previous ruling in Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hightower, which established that sovereign immunity bars private actions against state agencies under USERRA. The court stated, "Because Hightower is directly on point, we reverse the trial court’s order on this count and remand for entry of an order granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss."
Next, the court examined whether the state had waived its sovereign immunity concerning claims arising under section 92.57. The court concluded that it had not. Hahr conceded that section 92.57 does not contain an independent waiver of sovereign immunity. The court emphasized that the language of the statute does not demonstrate a clear legislative intent to allow lawsuits against the state in this context.
The court compared section 92.57 to other statutes that have been found to include waivers of sovereign immunity, such as those related to workers' compensation or civil rights. The court noted that those statutes explicitly include the state as an employer liable for claims, which is not the case with section 92.57.
In its decision, the court stated, "There is no clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity in section 92.57 and the waiver provisions of section 768.28 do not apply." The court ultimately reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for the entry of an order granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss as to both Counts I and IV.
This ruling has significant implications for state employees and their ability to seek legal remedies for wrongful termination and retaliation claims. The court's decision reinforces the principle of sovereign immunity in Florida, which protects state agencies from certain legal actions unless there is a clear waiver by the legislature.
The ruling may affect future cases involving state employees who claim wrongful termination or retaliation under similar circumstances. It highlights the importance of understanding the legal protections available to employees and the limitations imposed by sovereign immunity.
As for what’s next, Hahr's options for appeal remain unclear. The court's decision is not final until the disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further actions that Hahr may pursue.