News / Blog

As we discussed in our July 2025 post, in State v. Toal, 406 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), Florida’s First District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether noneconomic damages are available under Florida’s public sector whistle-blower’s act (“the Act”) and determined that such damages are not available under the Act.[1] At the time, the decision conflicted with the Third District Court’s decision in Iglesias v. City of Hialeah, 305 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), where the court held that noneconomic damages “could be recovered because the Whistleblower’s Act did not expressly exclude them[.]”[2] On March 25, 2026, in Miami-Dade County v. Garavan, No. 3D25-0014 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 25, 2026), the Third District Court joined the First District Court in holding that non-economic damages are not available under the Act.[3] This blog post will discuss the Garavan opinion and its importance to parties litigating under the Act.

By way of background, Dr. David Fintan Garavan “was an employee of the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s Office.”[4] Dr. Garavan brought suit under the Act, alleging that the County demoted and terminated him in retaliation for raising complaints of violations of laws, rules, and/or regulations.[5] Following a jury trial, “the jury returned a verdict in his favor, awarding both economic and non-economic damages.”[6] The County subsequently filed a motion to set aside the non-economic damages portion of the verdict aside as excessive, and the trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment, “finding substantial evidence of emotional distress and reputational harm.”[7] The County appealed.[8]

On appeal, the County argued that “the jury’s award of non-economic damages to Dr. Garavan is barred as a matter of law because the County is entitled to sovereign immunity and Dr. Garavan’s recovery is limited to those damages expressly waived.”[9] As the First District Court did in Toal, the Third District Court began its analysis by reviewing the history of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.[10] The court noted that sovereign immunity is the idea that the sovereign (including the State of Florida) cannot be sued without its consent, a doctrine that has its roots in the English common law.[11] The court noted, “‘The immunity of the States of Florida and its agencies from liability for claims arising under Florida law or common law is absolute absent a clear, specific, and unequivocal waiver by legislative enactment.’”[12] The court further stressed, “The Florida Supreme Court has required that any legislative waiver of sovereign immunity be clearly expressed and strictly construed.”[13] The court went on to state that “if the sovereign has not expressly, clearly and unequivocally waived a specific category of damages—such as non-economic damages—we conclude that those damages are not recoverable against the sovereign.”[14]

The court next turned to whether the County was entitled to sovereign immunity for non-economic damages under the Act. The court set forth the statutory language of the Act related to permitted relief and stressed that the Act “does not include non-economic damages as a form of relief.”[15] The court determined that the list of remedies under the Act were limited to “a quantifiable economic loss damage.”[16] The court contrasted the Act with Florida’s private sector Whistleblower Act, which “expressly authorizes additional relief in the form of ‘[a]ny other compensatory damages allowable at law,’ which has been found to include noneconomic damages.”[17]

The court thus held that “[b]ecause [the Act] does not expressly and unequivocally waive sovereign immunity for non-economic damages, we find that such damages cannot be recovered against the County under the Act.”[18] Notably the court further held that its prior decision in Iglesias was not controlling because there was no indication sovereign immunity was raised in that case.[19] The court concluded its analysis by quoting extensively from Toal.[20] The court reversed the final judgment to the extent that the trial court awarded non-economic damages and remanded “for entry of a corrected judgment limited to the forms of relief authorized by section 112.3187(9), Florida Statutes.”[21]

After Toal, there was a split among District Courts of Appeal regarding whether non-economic damages are recoverable under the Act. Now, that split does not exist, although it is possible another District Court of Appeal will hold that such damages are recoverable. Until then, plaintiffs should be mindful of Toal and Garavan when deciding whether to pursue a claim under the Act, as governmental entities will undoubtedly rely upon these decisions to limit recovery to quantifiable economic damages. We will continue to monitor recent case law and will provide updates as they become available.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this topic, or any topic related to labor and employment law, please contact us.

[1] State v. Toal, 406 So. 3d 978, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).

[2] Iglesias v. City of Hialeah, 305 So. 3d 20, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

[3] Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Garavan, No. 3D25-0014, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 25, 2026), available at https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2486594/opinion/Opinion_2025-0014.pdf (last visited Apr. 17, 2026). For purposes of this blog post, the page numbers referenced will be to the version posted on the court’s website.  The Third District Court has jurisdiction over Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id., at *3. The court noted that although the County had not raised the issue of sovereign immunity at the trial court level, it could raise it for the first time on appeal. Id., at *3 n.1.

[10] Id., at *3-4.

[11] Id., at *4.

[12] Id. (quoting Daly v. Marion Cnty., 265 So. 3d 644, 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (other citation omitted)).

[13] Id., at *5 (emphasis added).

[14] Id., at *6.

[15] Id., at *8.

[16] Id.

[17] Id., at *10 (quoting § 448.103(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (other citation omitted)).

[18] Id., at *11.

[19] Id., at *11 n.2.

[20] Id., at *11-12.

[21] Id., at *12.

Photo by Juliana Romão on Unsplash