DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ANA GROOVER, 

Respondent. 

No. 4D2023-2913 

[February 28, 2024] 

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Maxine D. Cheesman, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 502021CA012516. 

Sean Fahey of The School Board of Palm Beach County, West Palm 

Beach, for petitioner. 

Isidro M. Garcia of Garcia Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The School Board of Palm Beach County petitions for certiorari review 

from the denial of its motion for summary judgment contending that the 

respondent/plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before 

bringing her action under the Whistle-blower’s Act. § 112.3187(8)(b), Fla. 

Stat. (2021). We grant the petition and direct the trial court to enter 

summary judgment in the School Board’s favor. 

We have jurisdiction, and this case is controlled by School Board of 

Hillsborough County v. Woodford, 270 So. 3d 481, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), 

which this Court recently followed in South Broward Hospital District v. 

Stratos, No. 4D2023-0443, 2023WL7367935, (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 8, 2023).

The statute at issue provides: 

(b) Within 60 days after the action prohibited by this section, 

any local public employee protected by this section may file a 

complaint with the appropriate local governmental authority,
2 

if that authority has established by ordinance an 

administrative procedure for handling such complaints or 

has contracted with the Division of Administrative 

Hearings under s. 120.65 to conduct hearings under this 

section. The administrative procedure created by ordinance 

must provide for the complaint to be heard by a panel of 

impartial persons appointed by the appropriate local 

governmental authority. Upon hearing the complaint, the 

panel must make findings of fact and conclusions of law for a 

final decision by the local governmental authority. Within 180 

days after entry of a final decision by the local governmental 

authority, the public employee who filed the complaint may 

bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If 

the local governmental authority has not established an 

administrative procedure by ordinance or contract, a local 

public employee may, within 180 days after the action 

prohibited by this section, bring a civil action in a court of 

competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of this paragraph, 

the term “local governmental authority” includes any regional, 

county, or municipal entity, special district, community 

college district, or school district or any political subdivision 

of any of the foregoing. 

§ 112.3187(8)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021) (emphasis added). 

This provision creates a mandatory, presuit administrative exhaustion 

requirement. Woodford, 270 So. 3d at 484-85; Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 

3d 815, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (recognizing that certiorari is available to 

enforce this presuit requirement). 

The undisputed evidence shows that the School Board had a contract 

with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) that is materially 

identical to the contract in Woodford and that plaintiff never exhausted 

this remedy before filing suit. This case is therefore on all fours with 

Woodford and Stratos. The School Board was not required to advise 

plaintiff about the possibility of a DOAH remedy. Woodford, 270 So. 3d at 

486; Stratos, 2023WL7367935, at *3 n. 4. 

Additionally, the trial court departed from the essential requirements 

of law in ruling that the School Board had adopted an alternative 

administrative procedure through its Whistleblower Protection Policy and 

that plaintiff exhausted her remedies by filing a grievance. 

The grievance that plaintiff filed was not brought pursuant to the Policy 
3

and made no reference to the Whistle-blower’s Act. The policy required an 

employee alleging a violation of the Whistle-blower’s Act to lodge a 

complaint with the Inspector General. Plaintiff never did so. 

Pursuant to the Policy, the Inspector General would then investigate 

and present its findings to the Superintendent, who would make a 

decision. The Policy allows an employee aggrieved by the Superintendent’s 

decision to file an action under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (the 

Administrative Procedure Act).1

None of this occurred, and plaintiff never requested an administrative 

hearing or inquired whether the School Board had a contract with DOAH.

Thus, even if the trial court were correct that the policy set out an 

alternative administrative procedure as permitted by section 

112.3187(8)(b), plaintiff never followed or exhausted that procedure. Her 

filing of the generalized grievance cannot satisfy the exhaustion 

requirement of the statute.

Accordingly, the petition is granted. The trial court’s order denying 

summary judgment is quashed, and the court is directed to enter 

summary judgment in the School Board’s favor.

Petition granted.

MAY, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 Notice of the DOAH remedy is not required under Woodford, but we note 

that in this case the Whistleblower Protection Policy provides notice by 

referencing the APA.