Odomes v. City of Fort Lauderdale

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that letter written by union attorney “on behalf of” plaintiff was not plaintiff’s protected disclosure because at time of writing plaintiff was unaware of potential illegality forming subject of letter, without mentioning indirect nature of disclosure
• stating that “[a]n employee cannot attain whistleblower status by dispensing with due diligence and remaining unjustifiably ignorant of information that would have refuted or cast doubt on his charges”
• stating that the WPA does not “institute a lottery scheme under which would-be whistleblowers receive protection for making unsupported accusations if . . . for reasons unknown to them, the accusations turn out to be supportable after all”
• noting that “while the temporal proximity of an adverse personnel action to a protected disclosure may lend support to an inference of a causal relationship, ‘a stretch of over two years realistically cannot constitute temporal proximity in the ordinary sense of that phrase’”
• no causal connection between alleged retaliatory act and alleged disclosure, because the disclosure took place (continued…
• “[A]n employee must have had such a belief at the time the whistle was blown in order to state a claim under the DCWPA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).