In a major development for academic transparency and whistleblower protections, the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in Brevard County has denied a motion to dismiss filed by the Florida Institute of Technology (Florida Tech) in response to a lawsuit brought by Professor Richard “Rick” Addante. The ruling clears the way for full litigation of Addante’s claims under Florida’s Private Sector Whistle-Blower’s Act, marking a pivotal moment in the fight over ideological concealment and retaliation in higher education.
The lawsuit, filed by Sabatini Law Firm P.A. on behalf of Professor Addante, alleges that Florida Tech unlawfully terminated him after he recorded and reported a conversation involving the university’s president. In that recording, the president allegedly outlined a strategy to secure state appropriations and grants by rebranding course titles and program descriptions to obscure their race-based content and focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). According to the complaint, this rebranding was intended to mislead state officials and circumvent scrutiny under Florida’s evolving education policies.
Professor Addante, a tenured faculty member and neuroscientist, shared the recording with James O’Keefe of the O’Keefe Media Group. The video was later released publicly, sparking widespread attention and controversy. Shortly thereafter, Florida Tech terminated Addante’s employment—a move the lawsuit characterizes as retaliatory and unlawful under Florida’s whistleblower protections.
The university responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit lacked sufficient legal grounds to proceed. However, the court rejected that argument, affirming that Addante’s allegations—if proven—could constitute a violation of Florida Statutes §§448.101–448.105, which protect private-sector employees from retaliation when they disclose employer misconduct to appropriate authorities.
Legal analysts note that the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed signals a recognition of the seriousness of Addante’s claims. “This is not just a personnel dispute,” said Anthony Sabatini, lead counsel for Addante. “It’s about protecting the integrity of Florida’s education system and ensuring that whistleblowers are not punished for exposing deception.”
The case has drawn national attention, especially among critics of DEI programs who argue that such initiatives often operate under opaque or misleading frameworks. Supporters of Addante’s lawsuit see it as a test case for enforcing transparency and accountability in academic institutions that receive public funding.
Florida Tech has not issued a detailed public response to the court’s ruling, but internal sources suggest the university is preparing to defend its actions vigorously. Meanwhile, Addante’s legal team is preparing for discovery and trial, confident that the facts will support their client’s claims.
“This is a victory for truth and for every professor who’s been pressured to stay silent,” Addante said in a brief statement. “Florida’s taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being used, and students deserve honesty in their education.”
The case is expected to proceed to evidentiary hearings in the coming months, with potential implications for how Florida’s universities structure and disclose their curricula. As the state continues to scrutinize race-based and ideological content in public institutions, the Addante lawsuit may become a landmark in defining the boundaries of academic freedom, transparency, and whistleblower protection.