[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12590 ____________________

CHRISTOPHER OUNJIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

GLOBOFORCE, INC., d.b.a. Workhuman, a.k.a. Globoforce Group PLC, a.k.a. Globoforce Limited,

Defendant-Appellee. USCA11 Case: 22-12590 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023 Page: 2 of 16

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12590

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-04575-TKW-MJF ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, ABUDU, Circuit Judge, and BARBER, * District Judge. BARBER, District Judge: Appellant Christopher Ounjian alleged that when he ob- jected to unlawful conduct by his employer, appellee Globoforce, Inc., it retaliated against him and forced him to resign. Ounjian filed suit against Globoforce, alleging he was constructively discharged and seeking damages under the Florida Private Whistleblower Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The district court dismissed Ounjian’s complaint with prejudice, holding that Ounjian failed to allege facts constituting a constructive discharge for purposes of the Florida Private Whistleblower Act and failed to allege damages cognizable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. We agree with the district court that the com- plaint failed to state a claim for relief under either statute. Ounjian did not seek leave to amend, and any amendment would have been

* Honorable Thomas P. Barber, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 22-12590 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023 Page: 3 of 16

22-12590 Opinion of the Court 3

futile. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. I. BACKGROUND Because this is an appeal from an order dismissing a com- plaint, we recount the facts alleged in the complaint, accept them as true, and construe them in the light most favorable to Ounjian. See Ingram v. Kubik, 30 F.4th 1241, 1247 (11th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 142 S. Ct. 2855 (2022). Christopher Ounjian worked as a Global Account Executive for Globoforce, Inc. Globoforce sells its clients “reward and recog- nition services” by which they can provide their employees with “recognition points” that can be used to buy gift cards and mer- chandise on a website operated by Globoforce. Beginning in early 2019, Ounjian came to believe the company was misrepresenting the value of its services to clients and potential clients, principally by telling them that the merchandise on its website was priced at market value, when in fact many of the items on the website re- flected a substantial markup, resulting in hidden profits for Glo- boforce. Ounjian raised this issue with the company’s manage- ment, but upon receiving no satisfactory answer, he began provid- ing clients and potential clients with