VERO BEACH — An Indian River County judge has dismissed a retaliation lawsuit filed by Vero Beach Police Lt. Daniel Cook against the City of Vero Beach, ruling that Cook failed to establish a claim under Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act.
In a final summary judgment entered June 3, Circuit Judge Robert E. Meadows granted the city’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Cook’s complaint with prejudice, ending the case at the trial court level.
Cook, a Vero Beach police officer since 1989 who was promoted to lieutenant in 2001, alleged that city officials retaliated against him after he reported concerns involving Police Chief David Currey and what he described as a hostile work environment. The lawsuit was brought under Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act, which protects public employees from retaliation for certain disclosures of misconduct.
According to the court’s order, Cook pointed to a March 10, 2024 text message and a March 15, 2024 email he sent to City Manager Monte Falls, as well as his participation in a subsequent human resources investigation, as protected disclosures under the law.
The court found that the text message and email did not meet the legal requirements for protected whistleblower disclosures because they contained allegations the judge described as “vague and conclusory” and did not identify conduct that would qualify as violations covered by the statute.
The order also concluded that Cook’s participation in a workplace investigation did not support his claim because there was no evidence that information he provided during the investigation was shared with the officials who later took disciplinary actions against him.
Cook argued that several actions taken against him in 2024 were retaliatory, including counseling related to an internal investigation, a performance evaluation, a written reprimand and a one-shift suspension.
The judge determined that the counseling memorandum and performance evaluation did not constitute adverse personnel actions under the whistleblower statute. The court acknowledged that the written reprimand and suspension qualified as adverse actions but found the city had legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for imposing them.
According to the ruling, the reprimand stemmed from comments Cook made during a performance evaluation meeting, while the suspension was related to an email Cook sent to Human Resources Director Gabriel Manus and four members of the Vero Beach City Council that included personnel documents and materials concerning another employee’s harassment allegations.
The court found no evidence that Deputy Chief Matthew Monaco, who issued the disciplinary actions, acted out of retaliatory motive or was carrying out retaliation on behalf of Currey. The judge also found no evidence supporting a “cat’s paw” theory, in which a decision-maker merely rubber-stamps another person's retaliatory actions.
“Based upon the undisputed material facts and the law governing a cause of action under Florida Statute Section 112.3187,” the court wrote, “Final Summary Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Defendant, the City of Vero Beach, and the Complaint of Plaintiff, Daniel Cook, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
A dismissal with prejudice means the claims cannot be refiled in the trial court. The order states the judgment is final and appealable.