Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID 317
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`STEPHANIE DICKENS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PEPPERIDGE FARM INCORPORATED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`/
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, STEPHANIE DICKENS (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, and
`
`pursuant to this Court’s July 23, 2020 Order granting Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint
`
`(Doc. 40), hereby brings this action against Defendant, PEPPERIDGE FARM INCORPORATED
`
`(“Defendant”). In support of her claims, Plaintiff states as follows:
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for damages, exclusive of interest, fees, and costs, and for
`
`declaratory relief, for violations of the Florida Private Whistleblower’s Act (“FPWA”), Fla. Stat.
`
`§ 448.102 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended (“FCRA”), Fla. Stat. § 760.01
`
`due to Defendant’s unlawful employment practices.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court because all the events giving rise to these claims
`
`occurred in Polk County, Florida.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff is a female resident of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida.
`
`PARTIES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID 318
`
`4.
`
`Defendant is a national food processor that is organized under the laws of
`
`Connecticut and operates food processing plants throughout the United States, including in
`
`Lakeland, Polk County, Florida.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES
`
`5.
`
`On August 29, 2018, DICKENS sent a letter to the U.S. Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (EEOC) providing detailed allegations of discrimination against
`
`PEPPERIDGE FARM INCORPORATED and asking that the EEOC investigate her claims. In the
`
`letter, DICKENS alleged she was the subject of unlawful discrimination, based upon her gender.
`
`At that time, DICKENS became an “aggrieved person” as defined in § 760.02(10), Florida Statutes
`
`(2016). A copy of DICKENS’ letter is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`6.
`
`On October 9, 2018, DICKENS sent a fax to the EEOC including her charge
`
`number (511-2018-03478) stating that she would like to confirm her appointment with the EEOC.
`
`A copy of DICKENS’ fax is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`7.
`
`On October 10, 2018, DICKENS sent a second fax to the EEOC including her
`
`charge number (511-2018-03478) attempting to confirm her appointment with the EEOC
`
`scheduled for October 11, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. A copy of DICKENS’ fax is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`8.
`
`On March 25, 2019, DICKENS filed a Charge of Discrimination formally
`
`recognizing her prior complaints of discrimination to allow the EEOC to open a formal
`
`investigation against PEPPERIDGE FARM INCORPORATED. A copy of DICKENS’ Charge of
`
`Discrimination, EEOC Charge No. 511-2018-03478 is attached as Exhibit D. This Charge was
`
`duel filed with the FCHR under the workshare agreement between the EEOC and the FCHR.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID 319
`
`9.
`
`On March 26, 2019, the EEOC sent a letter to DICKENS referencing her written
`
`correspondence in which she alleges employment discrimination. A copy of the EEOC letter is
`
`attached as Exhibit E.
`
`10.
`
`On April 29, 2019, the EEOC stamped DICKENS official Charge of
`
`Discrimination numbered 511-2018-03478 as received. See Exhibit D.
`
`11. More than 180 days have passed since DICKENS filed her Charge of
`
`Discrimination. Neither DICKENS nor the undersigned counsel has received notice of the FCHR’s
`
`disposition. The FCHR’s non-response is to be treated as a finding of “reasonable cause” pursuant
`
`to § 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (2016).
`
`
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`12.
`
`At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the
`
`meaning of the FCRA and FPWA.
`
`13.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees.
`
`Thus, Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of the FCRA, Fla. Stat. Section 760.02(7).
`
`14.
`
`At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendant within the
`
`meaning of the FPWA, Fla. Stat. § 448.101(2).
`
`15.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of
`
`the FPWA, Fla. Stat. § 448.101(3).
`
`16.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of repeated discrimination, retaliation and her
`
`resulting demotion, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages: loss of income, loss of opportunity for
`
`future income, loss of benefits, and loss of future pay increases. In addition, she has suffered and
`
`continues to suffer loss of her professional and personal reputation, emotional distress, mental
`
`anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID 320
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff has incurred costs and attorney’s fees in bringing this matter.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE
` TIMELINESS OF PLAINTIFF’S CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff, without the assistance of counsel, originally contacted the Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on or about July 2018 and an appointment was
`
`made for August 2018.
`
`2018.
`
`19.
`
`
`20.
`
`The EEOC cancelled Plaintiff’s appointment and rescheduled her for October
`
`In October 2018, the EEOC conducted an interview with Plaintiff and completed
`
`the EEOC intake questionnaire.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff provided the relevant information to support her claims.
`
`Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination was not “received” by the
`
`EEOC until purportedly April 29, 2019, even though Plaintiff’s signature is dated March 25,
`
`2019.
`
`letter.
`
`23.
`
`Two (2) days later, on May 1, 2019, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Right to Sue
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff was in constant contact with the EEOC throughout the approximate
`
`eight (8) months between her letter dated August 29, 2018 and her Charge of Discrimination
`
`getting filed by the EEOC.
`
`25.
`
`In fact, Plaintiff emailed the EEOC Investigator on several occasions after she
`
`signed the charge to include additional information about additional incidents as Plaintiff checked
`
`the box indicating that the discrimination Defendant subjected her to was a “Continuing Action.”
`
`26.
`
`However, the EEOC did not include this information in the charge of
`
`discrimination that it helped Plaintiff prepare and file.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID 321
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff’s completed questionnaire constitutes the initial filing of Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 states the following:
`
`§ 1601.12 Contents of charge; amendment of charge
`
`(a) Each charge should contain the following:
`
`(1) The full name, address and telephone number of the person making
`the charge except as provided in Fla. Stat. § 1601.7;
`
`(2) The full name and address of the person against whom the charge is
`made, if known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent);
`
`(3) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates,
`constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices: see Id. §
`1601.15(b);
`
`(4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent
`employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent labor
`organization, as the case may be; and
`
`(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged
`unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State or
`local agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice
`laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the
`agency.
`
`(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is
`sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge
`a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to
`describe generally the action or practices complained of. A charge may be
`amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the
`charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein. Such amendments and
`amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment
`practices related to or growing out of the subject matter of the original charge
`will relate back to the date the charge was first received. A charge that has been
`so amended shall not be required to be redeferred. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff’s completed Questionnaire contained the full name and address of the
`
`company against whom the charge was made. A clear and concise statement of facts, as set out
`
`within Plaintiff's complaint, included pertinent dates that constituted the alleged unlawful
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID 322
`
`employment practices.1
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff’s August 29, 2018, letter is enough to initiate a charge to which her formal
`
`charge relates back.2
`
`30.
`
`As such, Plaintiff’s claims under the FCRA are timely.3
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RETALIATION UNDER THE FPWA
`
`
`
`31.
`
`In 2009, Plaintiff began working for Defendant in its bakery department. During
`
`her lengthy tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff was promoted to General Utility Worker, and she
`
`worked in this capacity until her demotion on or about April 2018 and continues to work in a lesser
`
`role.
`
`32.
`
`During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff satisfactorily performed
`
`the duties of her position in a competent manner.
`
`33.
`
`Nevertheless, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions
`
`because of her opposition to Defendant’s unlawful and unsanitary national food production process
`
`
`1 See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237, 1240 (11th Cir. 1989) (Eleventh Circuit reversed district court’s
`dismissal of an age discrimination claim because the filing of an EEOC intake questionnaire constituted timely filing
`of a charge.); see also Berry v. Essilor of Am., Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“It is in keeping
`with the purpose of the Act to keep the procedure initiating action simple…All that is required is that it [the charge]
`give sufficient information to enable the EEOC to see what the grievance is all about.”) (quoting Jenkins v. United
`Gas Corp., 400 F.2d 28, 30 n.3 (5th Cir. 1968)).
`2 This relation back has been approved by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court
`examined "the validity of an EEOC regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer to verify a charge after the time for
`filing has expired." Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106, 109, 122 S. Ct. 1145, 152 L. Ed. 2d 188 (2002).
`Edelman sent a letter to the EEOC claiming discrimination on the bases of gender, national origin, and religion but
`did not make an oath or affirmation. Id. at 109. Edelman received a Form 5 Charge of Discrimination; however, he
`did not return the verified form until 313 days after the alleged discriminatory act. Id. at 109-10. The Supreme Court
`held that defects in oaths or affirmations can be cured by an employee, even after the filing deadline has passed, and
`that the filing of a sworn charge "relates back" to the filing date of the unsworn complaint. Id. at 119.
`3 EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b) provides that "[a] charge may be amended to cure technical defects or
`omissions, including failure to verify the charge..." The regulation maintains that such amendments "will relate back
`to the date the charge was first received." The Court in Edelman construed § 706 of Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5)
`"to permit the relation back of an oath omitted from an original filing" finding "the EEOC's relation-back regulation
`to be an unassailable interpretation of § 706." Edelman, 535 U.S. at 116, 117. In Wilkerson the court considered (on
`summary judgment) the following three factors: (I) the communication between the plaintiff and the EEOC; (2)
`the EEOC intake questionnaire form itself; and (3) the response by the EEOC to the completed questionnaire.
`See Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F. 3d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc.,
`865 F. 2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1989).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID 323
`
`by creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiff that fundamentally altered the terms and
`
`conditions of her employment.
`
`34.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant was acting through its agents, servants,
`
`and employees, who were acting within the scope of their authority, course of their employment,
`
`and under the direct control of the Defendant.
`
`35.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant was a food processing “Plant” within the
`
`meaning of 21 C.F.R. § 117.3.
`
`36.
`
`21 C.F.R. § 117.20(a) mandates that food processing plants, such as the facility
`
`Defendant operates, “must be kept in a condition that will protect against the contamination of
`
`food.”
`
`37.
`
`Additionally, 21 C.F.R. § 117.35(c) states that Defendant was required to perform
`
`to ensure the cockroach and other pest infestations and dealt with as follows:
`
`Pest control. Pests must not be allowed in any area of a food plant. Guard, guide, or pest-
`detecting dogs may be allowed in some areas of a plant if the presence of the dogs is unlikely to
`result in contamination of food, food-contact surfaces, or food-packaging materials. Effective
`measures must be taken to exclude pests from the manufacturing, processing, packing, and holding
`areas and to protect against the contamination of food on the premises by pests.
`
`38.
`
`As such, Defendant had a legal obligation to ensure that the national food products
`
`that it produces and sells to consumers across the United States and Canada are free from food
`
`contamination prom pests such as cockroach infestations.
`
`39.
`
`However, due to Defendant’s lackadaisical approach to food safety, Defendant
`
`failed its obligation and retaliated against Plaintiff because of her opposition to Defendant’s
`
`unlawful conduct.
`
`40.
`
`During the early morning hours of February 22, 2018, Plaintiff observed that
`
`Defendant’s gluten tanks, the main machine it uses to process the food products it produces was
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID 324
`
`infested with cockroaches. The cockroach infestation consisted of roaches, roach feces, and
`
`various roach body parts that had gotten inside the wheat gluten tank and were not removed
`
`because Defendant failed to maintain pests as mandated by 21 C. F. R. § 117.20(a).
`
`41.
`
`Pieces of the cockroach infestation unlawfully contaminated Defendant’s food
`
`products.
`
`42.
`
`When Plaintiff noticed the cockroach infestation, she immediately attempted to
`
`follow Defendant’s protocol and informed Defendant’s sanitation department to remove the
`
`cockroach infestation as directed by federal and state regulations.
`
`43.
`
`Additionally, federal regulations mandated that Defendant was required to clean
`
`the wheat gluten tank to assess the level of infestation and take measures to eradicate such
`
`infestation.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff informed her supervisor, Derick Hall, of the measures that needed to be
`
`taken to correct the roach infestation at Defendant’s food processing plant.
`
`45.
`
`Instead, Defendant chose not to perform the required sanitation needed to rid the
`
`gluten tanks of the cockroach infestations and Defendant prohibited Plaintiff from effectuating the
`
`required sanitation protocols needed to rid a gluten tank of cockroach infestations.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant failed to take remedial action as required by 21 C.F.R.§ 117.35 (c).
`
`Additionally, Defendant’s decision makers chose to ignore the incident and denied
`
`ever knowing about the complaint despite its documentation.
`
`48.
`
`In retaliation for her complaints about the handling of the roach infestation in
`
`Defendant’s wheat gluten tanks, Defendant created a hostile work environment that materially
`
`changed the terms and conditions of her employment on or about April 2018 that continues to the
`
`present time.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID 325
`
`49.
`
`Defendant took frivolous disciplinary action against Plaintiff on several occasions,
`
`subjected her to heightened scrutiny that was simply not in accordance with Defendant’s standard
`
`operating procedures, denied her lateral transfers and promotions because she alerted Defendant
`
`to, and opposed Defendant’s failure to remedy the cockroach infestation.
`
`50.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant drastically reduced Plaintiff’s pay despite her lengthy
`
`tenure, stellar track record and superior knowledge of Defendant’s Bakery department.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant demoted her to a position of a new hire on or about April 2018.
`
`51.
`
`Prior to her complaints about the roach infestation, Plaintiff had rarely been
`
`subjected to disciplinary action. However, Defendant punished Plaintiff more harshly than
`
`employees who did not make complaints about Defendant’s roach infestation.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff’s demotion was no mere slight, but instead an act of retaliation against
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s former position as a General Utility Worker at Defendant’s facility in
`
`Lakeland, Florida was a highly coveted position to Defendant’s other employees.
`
`53.
`
`Purportedly, Defendant only allows its most skilled employees to be General
`
`Utility Worker’s because, in order to be a General Utility Worker, you must be able to work any
`
`position in Defendant’s bakery department at any given time and with little to no notice.
`
`54.
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s lengthy four (4) year tenure with Defendant and her role as a
`
`General Utility Worker, Defendant demoted Plaintiff back to a position of a new hire on or about
`
`April 2018. Defendant’s demotion of Plaintiff was not in accordance with its standard disciplinary
`
`procedures.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff made $75,867 in 2016, and she made $75,504 in 2017. However, in 2018,
`
`Defendant reduced Plaintiff’s wages by over fifty percent (50%). Despite making over $75,000 in
`
`the prior two (2) years, Defendant dramatically cut Plaintiff’s pay to approximately $36,704 in
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID 326
`
`2018.
`
`56.
`
`Each day Plaintiff is damaged because of her unlawful demotion in retaliation for
`
`her complaints.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING GENDER DISCRIMINATION
`
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, and on account of her protected status,
`
`Plaintiff benefits from the protections of the FCRA.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff performed the job for which she was hired in a satisfactory manner.
`
`During Plaintiff’s tenure with Defendant, Defendant systematically discriminated
`
`against Plaintiff and other similarly situated women, by denying them essential job promotions
`
`and job transfers in favor of men with less seniority and experience. Discovery will reveal that
`
`men are promoted in greater numbers than female employees.
`
`60.
`
`For example, shortly after making the complaint, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to
`
`numerous other disciplinary actions for conduct that it did not reprimand its male employees.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff was only approximately two (2) of the ten (10) women who worked as
`
`General Utility Workers.
`
`62.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiff and other similarly situated women who worked as General
`
`Utility Workers were given harsher, and more frequent reprimands than their male counterparts
`
`were given for the same conduct.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff was also given a bizarre, five (5) day suspension for a situation that did
`
`not warrant such a drastic punishment and was done in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaint about
`
`Defendant’s unlawful food safety practices.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff and other similarly situated female
`
`employees by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work environment that materially altered the terms
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID 327
`
`and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
`
`65.
`
`Each day Plaintiff is damaged because of her unlawful demotion because of her
`
`gender.
`
`66.
`
`For example, Plaintiff made $75,867 in 2016, and she made $75,504 in 2017.
`
`However, in 2018, Defendant reduced Plaintiff’s wages by over fifty percent (50%). Despite
`
`making over $75,000 in the prior two (2) years, Defendant dramatically cut Plaintiff’s pay to
`
`approximately $36,704 in 2018.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant’s practice of favoring men over women and promoting men instead of
`
`women regardless of their seniority and experience is not an isolated occasion but is merely the
`
`logical conclusion that resulted from Defendant’s discriminatory employment practices that favor
`
`men over women.
`
`68.
`
`Defendant demonstrates this preference by paying men more and allowing them
`
`to have more opportunity for growth within the company than it does to Plaintiff and similarly
`
`situated female employees.
`
`Plaintiff was routinely passed over for positions that she was entitled to under
`
`69.
`
`Defendant’s policies and procedures in favor of males with less experience and less
`seniority.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment based on her gender.
`
`Plaintiff complained about this disparate treatment to Defendant by objecting to
`
`Defendant’s discriminatory gender employment practices to Defendant’s Human Resources
`
`(“HR”) representatives.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant took no remedial action in response.
`
`Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for invoking her rights under the Florida
`
`Civil Rights Act by subjecting her to a hostile work environment in which Plaintiff was denied the
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID 328
`
`same terms and conditions of employment as similarly situated employees.
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`RETALIATION UNDER THE FPWA
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and readopts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 56 of this
`
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff opposed and refused to participate in Defendant’s violation of the food
`
`and safety regulations, thereby engaging in protected activity under the FPWA.
`
`76.
`
`Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity under the
`
`FPWA by subjecting Plaintiff to different terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment with
`
`Defendant as Defendant denied Plaintiff job transfers and promotions, took frivolous and
`
`pretextual disciplinary action against Plaintiff, subjected her to harsher scrutiny, suspended
`
`Plaintiff for approximately five (5) days in a manner not in accordance with its operating
`
`procedures, demoting Plaintiff, and by drastically reducing her pay in further deviance of its own
`
`disciplinary policy.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff was injured by Defendant’s violations of the FPWA, for which she is
`
`entitled to legal and injunctive relief.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`A jury trial on all issues so triable;
`
`That process issue and that this Court take jurisdiction over the case;
`
`Judgment against Defendant in the amount of Plaintiff’s lost wages,
`
`benefits, and other remuneration;
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`Any other compensatory damages allowable at law;
`
`All costs, attorney’s fees, and reasonable expenses incurred in prosecuting
`
`these claims, in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 448.104; and
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID 329
`
`(f)
`
`For such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
`
`COUNT II
`FCRA VIOLATION
`(GENDER DISCRIMINATION)
`
`
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and readopts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 and 57
`
`through 73 of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiff is a woman and as such, member of a protected class under the FCRA.
`
`Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment on account of her gender by
`
`Defendant’s conduct.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff was also subjected to unwelcome harassment based on her gender.
`
`Defendant subjected Plaintiff to harassment that was sufficiently severe or
`
`pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant as
`
`Defendant denied Plaintiff job transfers and promotions, took frivolous and pretextual disciplinary
`
`action against Plaintiff, subjected her to harsher scrutiny, suspended Plaintiff for approximately
`
`five (5) days in a manner not in accordance with its operating procedures, demoting Plaintiff, and
`
`by drastically reducing her pay in further deviance of its own disciplinary policy.
`
`83.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known of the unwelcome harassment suffered by
`
`Plaintiff and failed to intervene or to take prompt and effective remedial action in response.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant’s actions were willful and done with malice.
`
`Plaintiff was injured due to Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, for which she is
`
`entitled to relief.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
`
`
`
`
`
`A jury trial on all issues so triable;
`
`That process issue and this Court take jurisdiction over the case;
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID 330
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration;
`
`Reinstatement of Plaintiff to a position comparable to her prior position,
`
`or in the alternative, front pay;
`
`(e)
`
`Any other compensatory damages,
`
`including emotional distress,
`
`allowable at law;
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`Prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained.
`
`All costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; and
`
`For such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
`
`COUNT III
`FCRA RETALIATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and readopts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 and 57
`
`through 73 of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the FCRA.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the FCRA by opposing Defendant’s
`
`gender discriminatory employment practices.
`
`89.
`
`Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity under the
`
`FCRA by subjecting Plaintiff to harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to
`
`alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant as Defendant denied
`
`Plaintiff job transfers and promotions, took frivolous and pretextual disciplinary action against
`
`Plaintiff, subjected her to harsher scrutiny, suspended Plaintiff for approximately five (5) days in
`
`a manner not in accordance with its operating procedures, demoting Plaintiff, and by drastically
`
`reducing her pay in further deviance of its own disciplinary policy.
`
`90.
`
`Defendant’s actions were willful and done with malice.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID 331
`
`
`
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`Defendant took material adverse action against Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff was injured due to Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, for which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to legal and injunctive relief.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`A jury trial on all issues so triable;
`
`That process issue and that this Court take jurisdiction over the case;
`
`That this Court enter a declaratory judgment, stating that Defendant
`
`interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA;
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration;
`
`Reinstatement of Plaintiff to a position comparable to her prior position,
`
`with back pay plus interest, pension rights, and all benefits;
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`at law;
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`Front pay;
`
`Any other compensatory damages, including emotional distress, allowable
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`Prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained.
`
`All costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; and
`
`For such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`Dated this 18th day of November 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jason W. Imler
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02529-TPB-AEP Document 64 Filed 11/18/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID 332
`
`JASON W. IMLER, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 1004422
`GARY L. PRINTY, JR. ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 41956
`PRINTY & PRINTY, P.A.
`3411 W Fletcher Ave, Ste A
`Tampa, Florida 33618
`(P): (813) 434-0649
`
`(F): (813) 423-3722
`Email: garyjr@printylawfirm.com
`Jason.imler@printylawfirm.com
`toni.harrold@printylawfirm.com
`wanda.butler@printylawfirm.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 18th, 2020, I electronically filed the
`
`foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notice to
`
`all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason W. Imler
`JASON W. IMLER, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 1004422
`GARY L. PRINTY, JR. ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 41956
`PRINTY & PRINTY, P.A.
`3411 W Fletcher Ave, Ste A
`Tampa, Florida 33618
`(P): (813) 434-0649
`
`(F): (813) 423-3722
`Email: garyjr@printylawfirm.com
`Jason.imler@printylawfirm.com
`toni.harrold@printylawfirm.com
`wanda.butler@printylawfirm.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`