Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—M.D. Fla.: School board’s motion to stay temporary reinstatement of whistleblowing COO rejected, (Aug 13, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

“Rehashing the same statutory interpretation arguments does not transform a losing hand into a likely winner,” said the court, finding scant likelihood of success on appeal.

Denying the School Board of Lee County’s motion to pause a court order calling for the temporary reinstatement of its former chief operations officer, a federal district court in Florida was not swayed by the board’s argument that it was likely to succeed on appeal because the court had “misconstrued” its arguments and misapplied the state’s whistleblower statute. The court noted that although the board may have “fiercely” disagreed with the court’s conclusion, “fierce disagreement is not the same as a substantial likelihood of success on appeal.” As to irreparable harm, the court found, among other things, that the COO’s $209,520 salary represented a “negligible fraction” of the district’s $27 million budget deficit (Stephens v. The School Board of Lee County, No. 2:25-cv-709-KCD-KRH (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2026)).

Discrimination allegations. In July 2023, the plaintiff in this case became COO for the School District of Lee County. A few months into his tenure, things took a turn. According to the COO, the district’s former superintendent subjected the COO—an African American—to a pattern of racial discrimination and repeated verbal abuse. On March 26, 2024, the superintendent informed the COO that his contract would not be renewed because of purported “performance deficiencies.”

Whistleblower complaint. On April 4, the COO submitted a formal whistleblower complaint. The district brought in an outside investigator who substantiated many of the COO’s complaints, leading to the superintendent’s resignation shortly thereafter.

Following a change in leadership, the COO was informed that his contract would not be renewed for the 2025-2026 school year, thus ending his employment on June 30, 2025.

Lawsuit. Throughout his tenure, the COO kept contemporaneous documentation of the superintendent’s conduct. Based on those records, he filed this lawsuit, alleging, among other things, retaliation in violation of the Florida Public Sector Whistleblower Act (FWA). The court granted the COO’s statutory request for temporary reinstatement, which the school board appealed.

Likelihood of success. In arguing for a stay, the board focused primarily on its likelihood of success on the merits. The board contended that it easily cleared this bar. Because its appeal turned on statutory interpretation, it noted that the Eleventh Circuit will review the matter de novo. From there, it reiterated two arguments from the underlying litigation: (1) the COO failed to show his whistleblower disclosure was made in good faith; and (2) the decision not to renew his contract followed a “personnel action” whose underlying performance deficiencies were documented in writing by the COO himself.

According to the COO, the board was attempting to relitigate a motion it had already lost. The court found he had a point, noting that under the FWA, a plaintiff seeking temporary reinstatement must show that he made a protected disclosure before termination, that he was discharged, and that the disclosure was not made in bad faith or after an agency initiated a personnel action against him. The court had previously found that he “checked all those boxes.”

Bad faith. Addressing the board’s bad faith argument, the board insisted that the court misread both its brief and Florida law. It complained that the court focused on the nine days between the time the former superintendent threatened the COO’s job and the time he filed his whistleblower complaint. The real issue, according to the board, was that the COO did nothing for eight months while enduring the superintendent’s alleged abuse, only blowing the whistle when his job was in jeopardy. However, the court noted that it had already answered this exact point.

As its order explained, “Nothing about [the COO] taking what he perceived as abusive conduct by [the superintendent] for eight months allows a reasonable inference of bad faith or wrongful purpose.” Although the board may “fiercely disagree” with the court’s conclusion, “fierce disagreement is not the same as a substantial likelihood of success on appeal,” said the court.

Statutory argument. With regard to its statutory argument, the board pointed out the FWA bars temporary reinstatement if the protected disclosure happened “after an agency's initiation of a personnel action... which includes documentation of the employee’s violation of a disciplinary standard or performance deficiency.” According to the board, the COO’s own private contemporaneous notes qualified as the statutory “documentation.” But, as the court had previously held, the plain text of the statute requires the entire process—including the documentation—to be an act of the agency.

“Rehashing the same statutory interpretation arguments does not transform a losing hand into a likely winner,” said the court. Accordingly, the court found that this factor did not favor the issuance of a stay.

Irreparable injury, hardships. As for the balance of hardships, the board stressed that if the court did not pause the reinstatement order its appeal might become moot. Beyond that, the board emphasized the practical headache of compliance. It pointed out that it had hired a replacement to fill the COO’s old job and that paying him a $209,520 salary to sit in a newly created role would drain resources from a school district facing a multi-million-dollar budget deficit. Further, the board contended that the COO would, in fact, benefit from an abeyance of his requested relief in light of the fact that he has already moved away from Lee County.

In response, the COO argued that the board’s financial obligations were not irreparable harm because “[p]aying an employee’s salary is, by definition, curable in money.” Moreover, the board had already taken steps to comply with the order in creating a chief of staff position for the former COO, decimating any argument that such compliance would result in irreparable harm. While it was true that he had since relocated, he asserted that the board has explored the possibility of a remote working arrangement, and “[a] relocation that the District can accommodate is not grounds to deny the statutory protection the Legislature crafted.” The court agreed.

The express purpose of the statutory relief is to keep a whistleblower on the job during the pendency of legal proceedings unless the statutory requirements for termination are met, explained the court, going on to state that, “Staying the Court’s reinstatement order would eviscerate that statutory protection.”

In addition, the court found that the former COO’s salary represented a “negligible fraction” of the district’s $27 million budget deficit. To the extent that the board filled the COO role, the court reminded the board that the statute, and the court’s order, expressly allow for reinstatement to an “equivalent position.” Thus, the court found the balance of harms weighed against the issuance of a stay.

Public interest. Finally, the board contended that the public interest factor weighed in its favor. First, because it is a government entity, the board argued its own interests and the public’s interests are one and the same. Second, it pointed to its constitutional mandate to provide a quality education, warning that the “ultimate harm” of reinstating the COO would fall squarely on the students. However, the court found that the board “never really connects the dots.”

No concrete explanation was offered for how putting the COO back to work would actually harm the students, aside from the fiscal burden of paying the COO’s salary, and, more fundamentally, the board’s argument ignored the policy choices already made by the state’s elected representatives.

Agreeing with the argument advanced by the COO, the court found that the public interest was best served by enforcing the FWA as written. The Florida legislature specifically drafted the statute to apply to public employers like school districts, mandating temporary reinstatement to keep whistleblowers on their job while their claims are litigated, explained the court, noting that “it is not this Court’s job to save a party from the consequences of that legislative choice.” Accordingly, the board’s motion to stay was denied.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-709-KCD-KRH.

Judge: Dudek, K.

Attorneys: Benjamin H. Yormak (Yormak Employment & Disability Law) for Larry Stephens. John F. Potanovic, Jr. (Boy Agnew Potanovic Miller) for School Board of Lee County, Florida.

Companies: School Board of Lee County, Florida

Cases: RemediesDamages Discrimination RaceDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation StateLawClaims Whistleblowers FloridaNews