the proceedings.” Id. The district court reversed the trial court’s judgment for petitioner and ordered that a directed verdict be entered for respondent. The conflict issue is whether the Whistle Blower’s Act should be strictly or liberally construed. We agree with petitioner that the Act is remedial and should be given a liberal construction. See Martin County v. Edenfield, 609 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla.1992) (“[W]e believe it clear that the [public employee] Whistle-Blower’s Act is a remedial statute designed to encourage the elimination of public corruption by protecting public employees who ‘blow the whistle.’ As a remedial act, the statute should be construed liberally in favor of granting access to the remedy.”); Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co., 645 So.2d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). Respondent’s argument that the Act should be
holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding that under edenfield the act should be liberally construed holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that the social security act is remedial and needs to be construed liberally holding that coas should be construed liberally