## Facts

- Gary Groover served as an assistant principal at Boynton Beach High School.
- Groover participated in an investigation by the School Board’s Office of Inspector General concerning an apparently unauthorized use of the school gym.
- After the investigation, the principal demoted Groover from assistant principal to a teaching position.
- Groover alleged the demotion was retaliation for cooperating with the Inspector General’s investigation, in violation of Florida’s Public Sector Whistleblower’s Act.
- The School Board asserted the demotion was based on performance concerns and that the principal had decided not to reappoint Groover before the investigation, though much of that claimed intent lacked contemporaneous written documentation.
- Evidence showed no open assistant principal positions in the district at the relevant time and that the district was operating under a pandemic-related hiring freeze.
- A jury found for Groover and awarded $140,000 in lost wages and $30,000 for mental anguish.
- The trial court entered final judgment on the verdict but denied Groover equitable relief (reinstatement or, alternatively, front pay).

## Issues

1. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Groover’s demotion was retaliatory adverse action under the Florida Public Sector Whistleblower’s Act.
2. Whether the jury’s awards for lost wages and mental anguish were legally permissible and supported by the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying reinstatement.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying front pay after denying reinstatement.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the final judgment for Groover, leaving the liability determination and damages awards intact.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of reinstatement, concluding the trial court could consider the lack of available positions and the hiring freeze in declining to order reinstatement.
- The appellate court reversed the denial of front pay and remanded for a new hearing limited to front pay.
- On remand, the trial court was directed to conduct an equitable analysis and make findings on whether front pay should be awarded and, if so, in what amount and duration, taking additional evidence if needed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida’s Public Sector Whistleblower’s Act, an agency may not take adverse action against an employee in retaliation for protected participation in investigations or disclosures covered by the statute.
- An appellate court will not reweigh credibility determinations where competent, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
- Reinstatement is a favored equitable remedy in retaliation cases but is not automatic; feasibility and employer operational constraints (including position availability) may justify denial.
- Front pay is an equitable substitute when reinstatement is impracticable; the unavailability of a position may support front pay rather than foreclose it.
- When deciding front pay, the trial court must exercise reasoned equitable discretion, considering factors such as the time needed to obtain comparable employment or position, the employee’s prospects, and the need to avoid windfalls or undercompensation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the whistleblower retaliation verdict and compensatory damages, but required a renewed equitable determination on front pay because the trial court’s reasons for denying reinstatement did not, without further analysis, justify denying front pay as a substitute remedy.


Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty. v. Groover, 337 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)