IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO

MICHAEL J GODWIN

Plaintiff

v

GODWINS 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 GODWINS

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

sect44801 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 parks Breeding Marsh amp Bird

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

hours Photographer Program On June 27 2010 the President amp CEO of Gatorland Mark

McHugh terminated Godwins employment with Gatorland Godwins termination was a

direct result of his oral and written opposition to Gatorlands plans to build a zip-line

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

1

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 amp 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 USC sect 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 amp 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 FS sectsect448101-448105

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 This is a claim in excess of $1500000 and thus jurisdiction is proper in this

Court

2

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 sect448101(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 sect448101(3) Fla Stat

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

8 Defendants 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 Gatorlands breeding marsh is a plethora of nesting birds

including colonies of the endangered wood stork (Mycteria Americana)

3

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 US

nesting population of wood storks was listed as endangered by the US 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

4

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 16 UsC sect

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 sect 1532(20)

13 The US breeding population of the wood stork is protected by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended Title 16 USc sect 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 Usc sect 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 CFR sect 173 The regulations extend this to threatened animals such as the

wood stork See eg 50 CFR sectsect 1731 1721 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 USC sect 1532(5)(A)

Pursuant to 16 usc sect 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 39-4001 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 39-27011 of the Florida Wildlife Code prohibits killing attempting to kill

or wounding any endangered species

16 Additionally Rule 68A-27003 of the Florida Wildlife Code states the

following

68A-27003 Designation ofEndangered 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 Uscsect 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 Gatorlands boardwalk and observation tower However these birds and their

habitat are in danger due to the Defendants recalcitrant decision to build a zip-line1

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

7

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 parks 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 Gatorlands Official Birder and he handled all birding tours

and events One of the Plaintiffs duties was to act as Gatorlands official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commissions Great Florida Birding Trail of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l

22 During an April 30 2009 meeting of Gatorlands Park Operating Committee

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the parks 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

8

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 US

nesting population of wood storks was listed as endangered by the US 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

4

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 16 UsC sect

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 sect 1532(20)

13 The US breeding population of the wood stork is protected by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended Title 16 USc sect 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 Usc sect 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 CFR sect 173 The regulations extend this to threatened animals such as the

wood stork See eg 50 CFR sectsect 1731 1721 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 USC sect 1532(5)(A)

Pursuant to 16 usc sect 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 39-4001 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 39-27011 of the Florida Wildlife Code prohibits killing attempting to kill

or wounding any endangered species

16 Additionally Rule 68A-27003 of the Florida Wildlife Code states the

following

68A-27003 Designation ofEndangered 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 Uscsect 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 Gatorlands boardwalk and observation tower However these birds and their

habitat are in danger due to the Defendants recalcitrant decision to build a zip-line1

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

7

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 parks 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 Gatorlands Official Birder and he handled all birding tours

and events One of the Plaintiffs duties was to act as Gatorlands official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commissions Great Florida Birding Trail of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l

22 During an April 30 2009 meeting of Gatorlands Park Operating Committee

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the parks 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

8

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 16 UsC sect

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 sect 1532(20)

13 The US breeding population of the wood stork is protected by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended Title 16 USc sect 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 Usc sect 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 CFR sect 173 The regulations extend this to threatened animals such as the

wood stork See eg 50 CFR sectsect 1731 1721 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 USC sect 1532(5)(A)

Pursuant to 16 usc sect 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 39-4001 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 39-27011 of the Florida Wildlife Code prohibits killing attempting to kill

or wounding any endangered species

16 Additionally Rule 68A-27003 of the Florida Wildlife Code states the

following

68A-27003 Designation ofEndangered 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 Uscsect 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 Gatorlands boardwalk and observation tower However these birds and their

habitat are in danger due to the Defendants recalcitrant decision to build a zip-line1

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

7

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 parks 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 Gatorlands Official Birder and he handled all birding tours

and events One of the Plaintiffs duties was to act as Gatorlands official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commissions Great Florida Birding Trail of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l

22 During an April 30 2009 meeting of Gatorlands Park Operating Committee

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the parks 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

8

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 USC sect 1532(5)(A)

Pursuant to 16 usc sect 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 39-4001 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 39-27011 of the Florida Wildlife Code prohibits killing attempting to kill

or wounding any endangered species

16 Additionally Rule 68A-27003 of the Florida Wildlife Code states the

following

68A-27003 Designation ofEndangered 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 Uscsect 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 Gatorlands boardwalk and observation tower However these birds and their

habitat are in danger due to the Defendants recalcitrant decision to build a zip-line1

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

7

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 parks 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 Gatorlands Official Birder and he handled all birding tours

and events One of the Plaintiffs duties was to act as Gatorlands official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commissions Great Florida Birding Trail of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l

22 During an April 30 2009 meeting of Gatorlands Park Operating Committee

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the parks 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

8

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

Federal Endangered Species Act 16 Uscsect 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 Gatorlands boardwalk and observation tower However these birds and their

habitat are in danger due to the Defendants recalcitrant decision to build a zip-line1

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

7

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 parks 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 Gatorlands Official Birder and he handled all birding tours

and events One of the Plaintiffs duties was to act as Gatorlands official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commissions Great Florida Birding Trail of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l

22 During an April 30 2009 meeting of Gatorlands Park Operating Committee

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the parks 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

8

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 parks 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 Gatorlands Official Birder and he handled all birding tours

and events One of the Plaintiffs duties was to act as Gatorlands official liaison to the

Florida Wildlife Commissions Great Florida Birding Trail of which Gatorland had been a

member of since 200l

22 During an April 30 2009 meeting of Gatorlands Park Operating Committee

Gatorland CEO McHugh advised the parks 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

8

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 Plaintiffs 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 programs visitors for his enthusiastic and engaging demeanor vast

knowledge and genuine love of nature

27 On or about February 16 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

Florida law Prior to the shareholders 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 amp 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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 ampWildlife 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 Gatorlands 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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 US Fish amp

Wildlife Service sect 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 atsect 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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 organizations 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 Gatorlands 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 parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

such organizations and partner with them to help promote the parks 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 Gatorlands 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 CEOs email read in pertinent part

15

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

When I asked them if they secured a USFampW 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 USFampW 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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 USFampW 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 Gatorlands 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 Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

49 On June 27 2010 the Defendants 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 Defendants 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 CEOs 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 McHughs

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 WHISTLEBLOWERS 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 Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

55 By and through its above-referenced conduct Defendants 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 GATORLANDs violations of federal and state laws rules and regulations

engaged in protected activity pursuantto sect448102(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 GODWINs employment because of GODWINs objections to GATORLANDs

unlawful activities GATORLAND has violated GODWINs rights pursuant to sect448102(3)

Fla Stat

58 As a direct and proximate result of GATORLANDs 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 sect44801 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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21

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 PA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9000 Sheridan Street Ste 96 Pembroke Pines FL 33024 Tel 954-862-2217 Fax 954-862-2287

EmnCRcifrta-(QID

lsi Micfi A Pancier Esq Michael A Pancier Esq Fla Bar No 958484

21