" wrote in
:

Did you read the link? It specifically states (with a link to the FL
statute) that shows there is no exception for "public policy". The
employer is free to employ, or not, at his discretion.

Your link appears to refer to this:

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has:
(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental
agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the
employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However,
this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing,
brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a
supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable
opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.
(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate
governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation,
hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or
regulation by the employer.
(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.


Seems to me that the "employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has" ...
"(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation."

That seems to me to mean that the employer may not fire the employee
because the employee did something which the employer didn't like but
which prohibition violates the law, etc.

That in my reading is the exact opposite of what you claim. But them,
English is my second language. I hope you can explain to me what the
above really means.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid