IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO:
2011-CA-004635-O

MICHAEL J. GODWIN, Division: 35

Plaintiff,

v.

GODWIN'S GATORLAND, INC., a Florida

for profit corporation,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, MICHAEL J. GODWIN, ("Godwin"), by and through his undersigned counsel,

files this, his Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against the Defendant GODWIN'S

GATORLAND, INC., ("Gatorland"), and for his cause of action declares and avers as follows:

Introduction

1. This is an action under the Florida Private Whistleblowers' Protection Act,

§448.01 et seq. Fla. Stat. Plaintiff, Godwin, a shareholder and member of the Godwin family

that owns and operates Gatorland, was employed by Gatorland to oversee the Rookery

Tours Department, an eco-tourism initiative officially begun at the park in 2008. This

program was developed to increase attendance to the park's Breeding Marsh & Bird

Rookery, and was comprised of birding tours, alligator night shine tours, and extended

hours Photographer Program. On June 27, 2010, the President & CEO of Gatorland, Mark

McHugh, terminated Godwin's employment with Gatorland. Godwin's termination was a

direct result of his oral and written opposition to Gatorland's plans to build a zip-line

directly through sensitive wetland areas on the property where endangered wood storks

and other avian species of special concern nest and roost Plaintiff, Godwin, advised the

CEO and the Board that their zip-line master plan could result in the abandonment of active

nests and that the zip-line route through the Breeding Marsh & Bird Rookery would place

visitors too close to the endangered wood stork and other avian species of special concern

nests resulting in the unlawful disturbance and harassment of these species and their

habitat in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.,

and its state law companion, the Florida Wildlife Code, Chapter 68A of the Florida

Administrative Code. Plaintiff, Godwin, who is currently the President of the Orange

County Audubon Society, further provided the Defendant with alternative plans that would

allow it to build a zip-line elsewhere on its property where no disturbance to the

endangered wood storks or other species would occur. Rather than follow and abide by

the applicable federal and state regulations, the Defendant chose to immediately terminate

the Plaintiffs employment within weeks of his report to the members of the Board of

Directors advising them that the current zip-line route and planned night-time operation

through the Breeding Marsh & Bird Rookery could potentially disturb federally endangered

wood storks and other protected species in violation of federal and Florida law. Plaintiff

was also banned from attendance at future Board meetings, notwithstanding his minority

shares in the corporation. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks monetary and equitable relief under

the Florida Whistleblower Protection Act, F.S. §§448.101-448.105.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This is a claim in excess of $15,000.00, and thus jurisdiction is proper in this

Court.

 3. The unlawful employment practices occurred in Orange County, and

therefore venue is properly in this Court.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff GODWIN is a citizen and resident of Orange County, Florida, over the

age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris.

5. At all times material hereto, Defendant GATORLAND was a foreign for profit

corporation engaged in the operation of a 110-acre theme park and wildlife preserve in

Orange County, Florida, located on the South Orange Blossom Trail, 4501 South Orange

Blossom Trail in Orlando, Florida.

6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff GODWIN was an employee of the

Defendant, GATORLAND, within the meaning of §448.101(2), Fla. Stat.

7. At all times material hereto, Defendant GATORLAND employed more than

ten persons, including Plaintiff GODWIN. Therefore, at all times material hereto,

GATORLAND was an employer within the meaning of §448.101(3), Fla. Stat.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

8. Defendant's website describes its facility as a "llO-acre theme park and

wildlife preserve, ... with thousands of alligators and crocodiles, a breeding marsh with

boardwalk and observation tower, one-of-a-kind reptilian shows, aviary, petting zoo,

swamp walk, educational programs and much, much more."

9. Located within Gatorland's "breeding marsh" is a plethora of nesting birds

including colonies of the endangered wood stork (Mycteria Americana).

 10. The wood stork is a gregarious species, which nests in colonies (rookeries),

and roosts and feeds in flocks, often in association with other species of long-legged water

birds. Storks that nest in the southeastern United States appear to represent a distinct

population. All available evidence suggests that regional declines in wood stork numbers

have been largely due to the loss or degradation of essential wetland habitat. This U.S.

nesting population of wood storks was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service on February 28, 1984 (Federal Register 49(4):7332-7335). The wood stork will

return to the same colony site for many years so long as that site and surrounding feeding

habitat continue to supply the needs of the birds. Storks require between 110 and 160 days

for the annual nesting cycle, from the period of courtship until the nestlings become

independent. In Central Florida, nesting activity may begin between February and April

and may be active as late as July or August. Colony sites may also be used for roosting by

storks during other times of the year.

11. In addition to the irreversible impacts of drainage and destruction of nesting

habitat, the greatest threats to colony sites are from human disturbance and predation.

Nesting storks show some variation in the levels of human activity they will tolerate near a

colony. In general, nesting storks are more tolerant of low levels of human activity near a

colony when nests are high in trees than when they are low, and when nests contain

partially or completely feathered young than during the period between nest construction

and the early nestling period (adults still brooding). When adult storks are forced to leave

their nests, eggs or downy young may die quickly when exposed to direct sun or rain.

12. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, protects plant and animal

species that are listed as "endangered" or "threatened." A species is "endangered" if it "is in

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range ...." 16 U.s.C. §

1532(6). A species is "threatened" if it is "likely to become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Id. § 1532(20).

13. The U.S. breeding population of the wood stork is protected by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Title 16 U.S.c. § 1531 et seq., prohibits

anyone, including private persons and corporations from "taking" endangered wildlife. The

definition of "take" includes to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 16 U.s.c. § 1532(19). A notable

component of this definition is the definition of "harm." Under the applicable implementing

federal regulations, the term "harm" within the meaning of "take" means an act which kills

or injures protected wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or

degradation which kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral

patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Harm" can also result from habitat

destruction that prevents the recovery of the species by affecting essential behavioral

patterns. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. The regulations extend this to threatened animals such as the

wood stork. See e.g. 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.31, 17.21. These regulations also extend to the year

round protection of the wood stork habitat such as the wood stork rookeries and nesting

areas.

14. Under the Act, the term "critical habitat" for an endangered or threatened

species means:

(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this
title, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations and protection; and (ii) specific areas outside
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
5

 accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this title, upon a

determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A).

Pursuant to 16 u.s.c. § 1538(a)(1)(G) of the Act, "it is unlawful for any person subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States to violate any regulation pertaining to any

threatened species of ... wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 [of the Act] and

promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by [the Act]." Thus, the

violation of any federal regulation enacted under the Act is itself a violation of the Act as a

matter of law.

15. Florida law provides similar protections for species like the wood stork. For

example, Rule 39-4.001 of the Florida Wildlife Code prohibits "taking, attempting to take,

pursuing, hunting, molesting, capturing, or killing (collectively defined as "taking"),

transporting, storing, serving, buying, selling, possessing, or wantonly or willingly wasting

any wildlife or freshwater fish or their nests, eggs, young, homes, or dens except as

specifically provided for in other rules of Chapter 39, Florida Administrative Code.

Likewise, Rule 39-27.011 of the Florida Wildlife Code prohibits "killing, attempting to kill,

or wounding any endangered species."

16. Additionally, Rule 68A-27.003 of the Florida Wildlife Code states the

following:

68A-27.003 Designation of Endangered Species; Prohibitions.

(1) Federally-designated Endangered and Threatened species:

(a) No person shall take, possess, or sell any of the endangered or threatened species
included in this subsection, or parts thereof or their nests or eggs except as allowed by
specific federal or state permit or authorization. [emphasis added].

(b) The following Federally-designated Endangered and Threatened species shall be

afforded the protection afforded under Commission rules and Florida Statutes and under the

6
 Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.s.c.§ 1531 et seq. and its implementing regulations.
Species classified as endangered are identified below by (E) and threatened as (T).

***

(f)(14) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) (E).

Thus, the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in

Florida" includes the wood stork, listed as "endangered" by the Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission.

17. The Gatorland Wood Stork colony was formed in 2003 along the eastern

bank area of the Breeding Marsh and Bird Rookery. In 2010 twenty-one nests were

recorded, with the highest density of Wood Stork nests located in the tree tops at the

planned zip-line route. For years, these endangered birds could be observed safely by the

public via Gatorland's boardwalk and observation tower. However, these birds and their

habitat are in danger due to the Defendant's recalcitrant decision to build a zip-line 1

directly through the Wood Stork rookery in violation of the Endangered Species Act, rather

than through another area of the park. Plaintiff, Godwin, pointed out these possible

violations of law to the Defendant in an attempt to have them move the location of the zip-

line. As a result; Plaintiff was terminated .

.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

18. Plaintiffs, GODWIN, grandfather started Gatorland in 1949. The business has

been family owned and operated to the present day.

1 A zip-line consists of a pulley suspended on a cable mounted on an incline. It is designed

to enable a user propelled by gravity to traverse from the top to the bottom of the inclined
cable, usually made of stainless steel, by holding on or attaching to the freely moving pulley.

 19. Being part of a family business started by Plaintiffs grandfather and run by

Plaintiffs father, Godwin was raised at Gatorland and became officially employed by the

company in 1978, fulfilling a number of positions including Head Animal and Reptile

Curator, Manager of Alligator Farming, and creator of the world famous Gator Jumparoo

show. Godwin left Gatorland in 1988 and was subsequently employed by Service

Merchandise and IBM.

20. In or about 2003, Plaintiff returned to Gatorland as the IT Manager, where,

inter alia, he was in charge of all technical aspects of the park, from the computer, phone

and POS systems, to digital photography, the online gift store and the park's website.

21. In 2008, Gatorland instituted a birding and photography program to attract

eco-tourists. As a result, Gatorland created an eco-tourism program with the official name

of the Rookery Tours Department and made Plaintiff the Program Manager, a position for

which he was qualified, and the duties of which he performed with distinction. In fact,

Plaintiff was referred to as "Gatorland's Official Birder" and he handled all birding tours

. and events. One of the Plaintiff's duties was to act as Gatorland's official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commission's Great Florida Birding Trail, of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l.

22. During an April 30, 2009 meeting of Gatorland's Park Operating Committee,

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the park's operating Directors that Plaintiff was in charge

of all birds and gators within the Breeding Marsh. This announcement was reflected in

pertinent part from the meeting minutes, "Mike Godwin is in charge of the Breeding Marsh

with the exception of Adventure Hour, Egg Collection, and video productions (this was not

mentioned but Mark added to minutes). Mike is in charge of gators and birds within this

area as well."

23. On September 29, 2009, at the request of the Gatorland Park Planning

Committee and Board of Directors, who were in discussions to remove and destroy

portions of a wading bird rookery with protected species on the north end of the property

to build a larger parking area, Plaintiff researched the issue of whether nesting rookeries

containing species of special concern were protected and could be removed after nesting

season. Plaintiff consulted with his liaison at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission and was advised that the nests and habitat of protected species (such as the

wood stork) were protected all year round pursuant to Florida Wildlife Code 68A-27.

Plaintiff presented this information to the CEO advising that these nests were protected all

year round pursuant to the Florida Wildlife Code and could not be removed. Upon

receiving this information, the CEO, Mr. McHugh, (who also happens to be Plaintiffs

brother-in-law), told Plaintiff that he would not have his actions dictated by a minority and

would be "shutting everything down", and informed Plaintiff that he was therefore

terminated as a result.

24. In January 2010, the Gatorland CEO advised Plaintiff that his termination

was a "big misunderstanding" and that he was being rehired as Program Director to

recommence operations for the 2010 birding season. However, his rehire would not

include his annual salary or the monies he received from operating the nighttime tours at

the park.

25. As was typical at Gatorland, when Plaintiff was rehired, he was intentionally

misclassified as an independent contractor. Despite this fiction, Plaintiff received regular

9
employee insurance benefits, health, life, dental, and supplementaL for the entire year. His

hours and job duties were controlled by Gatorland. He was to receive $ 800 per week from

January 2010 though July 31, 2010, plus a 10% commission on gross revenues for all

activities of the program. Gatorland also provided Plaintiff office space, Gatorland business

cards, a paid cell phone and other benefits.

26. Under Plaintiff's watch, the birding and Rookery Tours / photography

program in 2010 received acclaim throughout the birding and nature photography circles

in the USA and internationally and made a substantial profit. GODWIN received numerous

accolades from the program's visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor, vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature.

27. On or about February 16, 2010, the Defendant's Park Planning Committee

met with a company called Global Expeditions to receive a zip-line proposal for the park.

Days later, the Park Planning Committee met to discuss recommending the zip-line project.

The original planned route approved by the committee, which did not affect any protected

bird or bird habitat, was unilaterally changed by Defendant's CEO so that the zip-line went

directly through the middle of the rookery. The members of the Committee voted to

approve the route change over the objections of the Plaintiff. A request by Plaintiff to seek

legal guidance on the issue was also denied by the Committee.

28. On February 20, 2010, at the Gatorland Annual Stockholders Meeting, the

shareholders passed a resolution stating that no one at GatorIand, including its employees,

was to approach any outside or governing body regarding any aspect of the zip-line project

without permission from the Board or the CEO. The resolution violates the Florida

Whistleblower Protection Act since this on its face penalizes protected activity under

10
Florida law. Prior to the shareholder's meeting, the CEO, McHugh, advised Plaintiff that he

[McHugh] had an "ace in the hole" with respect to the Breeding Marsh and Plaintiffs report

from the FWC (Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission) regarding the year round

protection of protected species' nests. Nonetheless, at this meeting, the Plaintiff reported

to the Board about the applicable state and federal laws and regulations regarding the

protected birds at Gatorland.

29. On April 1, 2010, the CEO sent a confidential email to the Gatorland Board

stating that he [McHugh] had personally removed several Cormorant nests protected under

the Migratory Bird Treaty act without permit. This was done after a request by Plaintiff to

build a structure under the nesting location to protect visitors from falling material and

waste. At the time of the request, CEO McHugh had stated in response "It would be cheaper

just to cut the goddamn branches." The nest removal was carried out by McHugh

personally during the Plaintiffs days off, and despite being in charge of the area, the

Plaintiff was not consulted or informed prior to the action performed. Plaintiff was

approached by CEO McHugh upon his return, and was told if he [GODWIN] had any issues

with what had happened, he could "go tell someone who cared." A few minutes later the

CEO returned to update his remark stating "I meant anyone on the BOD ... NOT any

government or regulatory agency as that is strictly prohibited by the recent board

resolution."

30. On April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff was removed from the Gatorland Park

Planning Committee over his objections to the planned zip-line route through the Breeding

Marsh.

11
 31. On or about May 7, 2010, the CEO requested that Plaintiff provide him with

the then existing wood stork nesting locations. Plaintiff provided the CEO with an initial

bird count and a diagram showing the existing nests and nesting history. In addition, the

Plaintiff sent the CEO the Southeastern Wood Stork Management Guidelines which were

prepared and published by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.

32. On or about May 20, 2010, Plaintiff was asked to review the Wood Stork

nesting count diagram prior to the Gatorland Board of Directors meeting. Plaintiff

recounted twenty-one active nests and confirmed locations.

33. On May 22, 2010, during the scheduled Board of Directors meeting, the CEO,

McHugh, presented a zip-line report and completed presentation with no mention of the

endangered Wood Storks, the applicable state and federal guidelines, or the effect and

possible violations of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Florida Wildlife Code.

Being Gatorland's expert on the birds and the Breeding Marsh, Plaintiff was allowed to

report to the Board about the Endangered Species law and guidelines and the possible

impact that the zip-line construction and operation would have. Plaintiff advised the Board

about the applicable federal regulations specifically with respect to wood storks.

34. In fact, pursuant to the published guidelines, the area surrounding the wood

stork colony is divided into two zones. The primary zone is the most critical area and

"must be managed according to recommended guidelines to insure that a colony site

survives." The Guidelines further state:

The primary zone must extend between 1000 and 1500 feet in all directions
from the actual colony boundaries when there are no visual or broad aquatic
barriers, and never less than 500 feet even when there are strong visual or
aquatic barriers. The exact width of the primary zone in each direction from
the colony can vary within this range, depending on the amount of visual
screen (tall trees) surrounding the colony, the amount of relatively deep,
12

 open water between the colony and the nearest human activity, and the
nature of the nearest human activity. In general, storks forming new colonies
are more tolerant of existing human activity, than they will be of new human
activity that begins after the colony has formed.

See Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service, § V(A)(l).

35. The applicable federal wood stork guidelines also set forth the following

recommended restrictions:

a. Any of the following activities within the primary zone, at any time of the
year, are likely to be detrimental to the colony: [emphasis added]

(1) Any lumbering or other removal of vegetation, and

(2) Any activity that reduces the area, depth, or length of flooding in
wetlands under and surrounding the colony, except where periodic
(less than annual) water control may be required to maintain the
health of the aquatic, woody vegetation, and

(3) The construction of any building, roadway, tower, power line, canal.

b. The following activities within the primary zone are likely to be

detrimental to a colony if they occur when the colony is active:

(1) Any unauthorized human entry closer than 300 feet of the
colony, and

(2) Any increase or irregular pattern in human activity anywhere

in the primary zone, and

(3) Any increase or irregular pattern in activity by animals,

including livestock or pets in the colony, and

(4) Any aircraft operation closer than 500 feet of the colony.

Id., at§ V(A) (2).

13

36. Additionally, Plaintiff advised the board that under federal law, the word

"take" means "harass" or "harm" and that the proposed route potentially violated federal

law if the 500 foot primary zone requirements were not adhered to.

37. At the same meeting, the Board was advised that under the instructions of

the CEO, the company had issued a press release on the zip-line, even before the Board had

the opportunity to vote on the route. The Board delayed the vote on the route but

authorized the Park Planning Committee to continue with all current zip-line planning.

38. On May 24, 2010, McHugh instructed Plaintiff to forward his request on

behalf of Gatorland to present his zip-line project to the local Orange County Audubon

Society, of which Plaintiff was a member.

39. On May 26, 2010, the Orange County Audubon SOCiety advised McHugh that

it could present his zip-line proposal at the organization's final general meeting before the

summer break. McHugh was advised by Plaintiff that the meeting would be attended by

many people, birders, and photographers already familiar with the Gatorland Rookery.

40. On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff offered to act as a liaison between Gatorland's CEO

and the Orange County Audubon Society regarding the zip-line project. The CEO refused. In

fact, on June 7, 2010, McHugh advised the Board members not to communicate with

Plaintiff except for the purported consequences of Plaintiffs actions regarding the zip-line

project and the effect on the rookeries.

41. On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff received an email from the Board of Directors

adVising him that they saw a conflict of interest between his upcoming role as president of

Orange County Audubon Society and Gatorland. The irony here is that prior to the issues

that arose regarding the zip-line, as part of Plaintiffs job duties; he was expected to join

14

such organizations and partner with them to help promote the park's eco-tourism

program. In fact, before the zip-line project was initiated, the Plaintiff had received several

emails from the Gatorland Board congratulating him for becoming a board member of the

Orange Audubon Society.

42. On June 9, 2010, Plaintiff continued to receive emails from the Board

Members berating him for his opposition to the current zip-line route and its violation of

state and federal wildlife protection laws. Some of the emails suggested that he should be

barred from future Board meetings, that he was costing the company money and that he

should be fired. Plaintiff then advised the CEO that contrary to the allegations and

innuendos from the Board members, that he had not provided either the local Audubon or

the FWC or any other agency any information regarding the zip-line prior to the upcoming

presentation the CEO was to give to the local Audubon at Gatorland.

43. During the time between the last Board meeting and the upcoming meeting

between the CEO and the local Audubon, the CEO had been advising Board Members and

employees that the future of the company and their jobs were being threatened as a result

of Plaintiffs objection to the zip-line route and his insistence that federal and state wildlife

protection laws and regulations be followed. In fact, on June 10 and 11, 2010, Plaintiff

started receiving emails from Gatorland employees criticizing him for his position.

44. On or about June 11, 2010, Gatorland's Marketing director sent out an email

stating that zip-line route through the Breeding Marsh (and wood stork protected area)

would be the "ultimate thrill ride" for the park. Shortly thereafter, the CEO sent out an

email to Plaintiff and the Board with respect to work allegedly done at the St. Augustine

Alligator Farm Rookery. The CEO's email read in pertinent part:

15

 When I asked them if they secured a USF&W permit before doing the work,
they said, and I quote "Hell no, why would you ask?" Since St. Augustine
Alligator Farm is our most high profile competitor in the rookery jphoto
arena, I suggest you take a trip up there in the next week or two SO you can
see what our competition really has. Bottom line, they did major work in
their rookery including removal of vegetation without a USF&W permit ...
and nobody cared.

45. In response to some of these emails, on June 11, 2010, Plaintiff sent an email

to the Board and the CEO stating in pertinent part:

... There seems to be a perception that I am opposed to the addition of the

zipline attraction, and have taken some sort of action against it. This is not
the case, as I believe that if done properly, the zipline would be a wonderful
new addition to our park and can hopefully generate much needed revenues
for Gatorland.

***
Putting aside the philosophical and ethical arguments of running an
entertainment venue through the middle of a wildlife sanctuary, my primary
concerns with the current zipline route through the Breeding Marsh are
impact upon the wildlife that call this refuge home, and the laws and
regulations that exist to protect this wildlife. Some of you have stated that
you do not feel the zipline will impact the birds within the Rookery, that
these birds are highly adaptive and will in time become used to the venue.
For several of the nesting species that inhabit our sanctuary, especially the
low to mid-level nesters, this may very well be true. However, the top level
nesters, such as the endangered Wood Stork, may indeed be [adversely]
affected by irregular human movement that occurs in close proximity to their
nesting areas, especially if that human movement is on the same level or just
above their treetop nests.

Besides being a habitat for nesting birds, the Breeding Marsh is, outside of
nesting season, a roosting area for many species of protected birds that seek
a safe place to sleep. It has been proposed that the zipline run at night, again,
fantastic idea, but this will definitely impact the birds that roost in the area.
Anyone that has walked the Breeding Marsh at night when it is full of
roosting birds will attest to that statement, as many of the roosting birds fly
away upon approach.

We can all debate about the impact of the zipline route upon the birds,
however, the laws and regulations regarding these protected animals is much
clearer. It is not my place to provide you all with the guidelines and legal
16

 statutes regarding our endangered and protected birds, I would ask that if
any of you are interested in these documents that you ask the CEO if he
would provide them for you. While I am not a legal expert, my interpretation
of the state and federal guidelines and statutes shows that Gatorland would
be in direct violation of these laws if the proposed Breeding Marsh route is
built.

***
46. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff sent the USF&W wood stork guidelines to the

third generation Board members as they had never received them from the CEO (even

though Plaintiff had provided them to the CEO weeks earlier). In response, one Board

member wrongly stated that these laws and guidelines were written for wild areas and did

not apply to Gatorland.

47. On June 13, 2010, the Third Generation Board Members voted to accept the

controversial and potentially unlawful zip-line route. That day, the CEO sent out an email

that the Breeding Marsh was not a Bird Sanctuary, and suggested that Plaintiff was

advancing his personal opinions with false support. On one occasion, the CEO sent out an

email falsely stating that Plaintiff "[was] fighting against the unanimous wishes of this

board, the shareholders, and the employees, and he will cost us valuable time and a large

sum of money fighting a frivolous lawsuit."

48. On or about June 23, 2010, the Gatorland's CEO advised in an email of his

upcoming plan to solicit conservation groups to partner with and would offer the Orange

County Audubon Society a percentage of zip-line revenues if the group joined Gatorland as

a conservation partner and went along with the zip-line proposal, or in other words, what

amounted to a veiled attempt to offer them a kickback in return for their acquiescence on

the zip-line project.

17
 49. On June 27, 2010, the Defendant's CEO made his presentation before the

Orange County Audubon, Kissimmee Valley, and State of Florida Audubon groups at

Gatorland. The CEO advised the Audubon -members and directors present that Gatorland

would give them or any other environmental group that would partner with them a

percentage of zip-line revenues of approximately one percent of the expected one million

dollars in revenues the zip-line was expected to generate if they accepted his zip-line route

through the rookery. In response, one of the Audubon members stated that "partnership

begins on day one" and further offered suggestions on moving the zip-line route to an area

that would not disturb the protected wood storks.

SO. After touring the facilities, the Defendant's CEO thanked the members of the

Orange County, Kissimmee Valley, and State of Florida Audubon groups present for their

participation, and that he [McHugh] was returning home as it was a Sunday, and that he

was sure the Audubon groups would like to meet privately to discuss his proposal without

him, and invited the group to continue using the Gatorland Board Room for their

discussion. During this meeting, the members decided to send a letter to the Defendant

stating the concerns of the impact of the zip-line upon the native birds and to ask for a

route change as no one could understand why the original route (as originally approved by

the Board and presented during the CEO's earlier presentation) was not being

implemented. Additionally, the members agreed that Audubon could not accept payment

for partnership, but would be willing to partner with Gatorland at no cost. After the

meeting ended, McHugh, despite his earlier departure statement, was outside the Meeting

Room and again thanked the members on their way out. Upon entering CEO McHugh's

office, McHugh advised Plaintiff that he was fired. McHugh told the Plaintiff that he heard

18
everything everyone had said in the meeting and accused the Plaintiff of saying that he was

going to "fight this to the very end", which was blatantly false. Plaintiff immediately called

for the Orange County Audubon Director who was just outside of the office to corroborate

no such statement was ever made by the Plaintiff.

51. On June 30, 2010, the Defendant, through its CEO, McHugh, sent Plaintiff a

letter of termination which, among other things, cancelled his cell phone account and all

business interests, as well as all benefits. Plaintiff was further restricted from being on

Gatorland property except during park hours and was prohibited from speaking with any

Gatorland employees during business hours. Plaintiff was offered COBRA for his

insurance, again demonstrating that he was an employee notwithstanding any suggestion

to the contrary by Defendant.

52. After his termination, the Defendant, through its CEO, McHugh, further

retaliated against Plaintiff by withholding his commissions owed, and by falsely stating that

he was released due to poor performance. The CEO intentionally understated revenues to

justify his unlawful retaliatory termination of the Plaintiff.

53. Plaintiff has retained the Law Firm of Michael A. Panciec PA and has agreed

to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTFF IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA

WHISTLEBLOWER'S PROTECTION ACT

54. Plaintiff incorporates as if fully set forth herein paragraph 1-53 of the within

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

19
 55. By and through its above-referenced conduct, Defendant's GATORLAND

parking lot project and zip-line project were in violation of federal law, including, but not

limited to, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, as well as its implementing

regulations, and the Florida Wildlife Code which is codified in the Florida Administrative

Code.

56. Plaintiff GODWIN, by and thorough his complaints and objections to

Defendant GATORLAND's violations of federal and state laws, rules, and regulations,

engaged in protected activity pursuantto §448.102(3), Fla. Stat.

57. By and through its adverse employment actions taken against GODWIN,

including but not limited to taking away Plaintiffs nighttime tours, his salary, and in

terminating GODWIN's employment because of GODWIN's objections to GATORLAND's

unlawful activities, GATORLAND has violated GODWIN's rights pursuant to §448.102(3),

Fla. Stat.

58. As a direct and proximate result of GATORLAND's unlawful actions as set

forth herein, GODWIN has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the

future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL GODWIN demands judgment against Defendant

GATORLAND, as follows:

A. Injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from further engaging in unlawful

conduct under the Florida Whistleblowers' Protection Act, §448.01 et seq. Fla. Stat.

B. Reinstatement to his former position or a substantially equivalent position

with the same benefits and compensation, or in the alternative, front pay;

20

 C. Full backpay including lost wages and fringe benefits, other remuneration

and seniority rights;

D. Compensatory damages;

E. Attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.; and

F. Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

59. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: April /J.. ,2011

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
9000 Sheridan Street, Ste 96
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
Tel: 954-862-2217
Fax: 954-862-2287
EmnCRcif;rta'!!-.(;QID

lsi Micfi: A. Pancier. Esq.

Michael A. Pancier, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 958484

21