It has been consistently held under the Florida Whistleblower Act (“FWA”) covering private employers that there is no protection under the FWA if the employee’s complaint is not for an “actual” violation of a law, rule or regulation.  The law for public employers is broader because it includes disclosure of “suspected violation.”  Nevertheless, on an issue not addressed in the briefing by either party, the 4th DCA in Avery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury used the words “objectively reasonable belief, “appeared to be illegal” and “could have reasonably believed were illegal” in finding that the employee had met the standard for protection under the FWA.  The Plaintiffs’ Bar has touted Avery as changing the “actual violation” requirement of the statute.  Given the fact that in using those words the 4th DCA was responding to the argument made by the employer that the employee did not mention the specific laws when he said that his employer’s practices were “illegal,” as well as the fact that the issue before the 4th DCA was not whether there was an “actual” violation, the Plaintiffs’ Bar’s celebration over Avery should turn out to be much to do about nothing.