Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`
`
`
`
`JESSE CASAREZ,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLORIDA MEDICAL CLINIC, LLC.,
`
`DEFENDANT.
`
`__________________________________________/
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, brings this action for damages and
`
`alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race (Hispanic) in
`
`violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In further support of his allegations, Plaintiff states as
`
`follows:
`
`Parties
`
`Plaintiff, Jesse Casarez, is a qualified Hispanic male and a member of
`
`1.
`
`a protected class due to his race.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant, Florida Medical Clinic,
`
`LLC., in the four years prior to this action.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant is a for-profit, domestic corporation operating as a medical
`
`clinic.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`
`
`
`
`JESSE CASAREZ,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLORIDA MEDICAL CLINIC, LLC.,
`
`DEFENDANT.
`
`__________________________________________/
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, brings this action for damages and
`
`alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race (Hispanic) in
`
`violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In further support of his allegations, Plaintiff states as
`
`follows:
`
`Parties
`
`Plaintiff, Jesse Casarez, is a qualified Hispanic male and a member of
`
`1.
`
`a protected class due to his race.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant, Florida Medical Clinic,
`
`LLC., in the four years prior to this action.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant is a for-profit, domestic corporation operating as a medical
`
`clinic.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff worked as a laborer for Defendant from approximately January
`
`28, 2013, until October 4, 2019.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`Plaintiff is domiciled in Pasco County, Florida.
`
`Defendant is a corporation domiciled in Pasco County, Florida.
`
`Defendant conducts business and was employed Plaintiff in Pasco
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`County, Florida and the amount in controversy exceeds $38,922.21.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`All material events occurred in Pasco County, Florida.
`
`This lawsuit has been filed in a timely manner.
`
`10. All prerequisites have been satisfied.
`
`11. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male and therefore a member of a protected class
`
`because of his race.
`
`12. Defendant is subject to 42 U.S.C 1981.
`
`13. Plaintiff is entitled by virtue of 42 U.S.C. 1981 to be protected from
`
`racial discrimination in the workplace.
`
`General Factual Allegations
`
`14. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manual laborer.
`
`15. Specifically, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a maintenance
`
`worker.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3
`
`16. As a maintenance worker, Plaintiff was responsible for working
`
`alongside Defendant’s employees to make repairs within Defendant’s facility.
`
`17. Defendant determined Plaintiff’s rate of pay, working hours, work
`
`assignments, and had the authority to discipline Plaintiff.
`
`18. Plaintiff worked inside of Defendant’s facility and worked under the
`
`direct supervision of Defendant’s managers.
`
`19. During the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant,
`
`Defendant by and through Plaintiff’s white manager, Bob Gould, who treated
`
`Plaintiff with hostility and in a disparate manner because of Plaintiff’s race,
`
`Hispanic.
`
`20.
`
`In fact, Plaintiff was the only Hispanic individual working on
`
`Defendant’s maintenance team.
`
`21. Specifically, Defendant manager, Bob Gould (white male), routinely
`
`denied Plaintiff many of the benefits and privileges of his position as a maintenance
`
`worker because of Plaintiff’s race. Indeed, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to
`
`work “on call” hours in addition to his regular scheduled hours.
`
`22. Employees who worked on call hours were compensated at a higher
`
`rate than their regular hourly rate. Plaintiff desired to work on call hours and to be
`
`compensated at a higher rate, however, Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to work
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4
`
`on call jobs and instead reserved those opportunities for less tenured white
`
`employees.
`
`23. Plaintiff was damaged financially as Defendant Manager Bob Gould, a
`
`white male, prevented him from earning the increased income associated with on-
`
`call job assignments because of Plaintiff’s race.
`
`24. Defendant’s racial discrimination of Plaintiff was not limited to
`
`preventing Plaintiff from earning additional income. Rather, Defendant’s racial
`
`discrimination against Plaintiff also included racial slurs and insults directed towards
`
`Plaintiff because of his race.
`
`25. Defendant’s employees and managers on the maintenance team
`
`constantly harassed, picked on, made fun of, and derogated Plaintiff because of his
`
`race.
`
`26. While Plaintiff was employed, Defendant’s manager created a group
`
`text message including all maintenance workers. In the group text message that
`
`included Plaintiff, Defendant’s manager sent racially derogatory and racially
`
`discriminatory messages intended to harass and intimidate Plaintiff.
`
`27. The text messages were directly related to Plaintiff’s race and the
`
`derogatory stereotypes associated with Hispanic individuals such as the way
`
`Hispanic individuals speak.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5
`
`28. Defendant’s manager sent Plaintiff numerous race-based derogatory
`
`text messages during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.
`
`29. Plaintiff was the only Hispanic member of the text message group.
`
`30. Defendant’s managers singled Plaintiff out because of his race and
`
`intentionally made racist comments, jokes, and remarks in the text message group in
`
`order to discriminate against Plaintiff and harass Plaintiff on the basis of his race.
`
`Count One
`Race Discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981
`
`31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and re-alleges 1-30, above.
`
`32. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male and therefore a member of a protected class
`
`due to his race.
`
`33. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately January 28,
`
`2013, until approximately October 4, 2019, as a maintenance worker.
`
`34. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the duties and responsibilities of his
`
`position with Defendant.
`
`35. Plaintiff was the only Hispanic member of the maintenance team.
`
`36. Throughout the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant,
`
`white manager Bob Gould, consistently harassed Plaintiff on the basis of his race by
`
`calling Plaintiff derogatory names, constantly using racially derogatory phraseology
`
`towards Plaintiff, and sending racially charged text messages in the work group chat.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6
`
`37. Defendant by and through its manager, Bob Gould, did not make racist
`
`or derogatory statements to the white employees on the maintenance team, only to
`
`Plaintiff (Hispanic).
`
`38. Defendant treated Plaintiff in a less favorable manner than white
`
`employees because Plaintiff is a Hispanic male.
`
`39. Plaintiff was entitled to be treated in the same manner as white
`
`employees and was entitled to receive the same terms, conditions, privileges, and
`
`benefits as white employees in Defendant’s workplace.
`
`40. Defendant denied Plaintiff the right to earn additional income by
`
`working on-call assignments because Plaintiff is Hispanic.
`
`41. White employees were allowed to work on-call assignments even
`
`though they had less tenure than Plaintiff.
`
`42.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1981, in pertinent part states “All persons within the
`
`jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory
`
`to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
`
`equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as
`
`is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties,
`
`taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other, thereby prohibiting
`
`employers such as Defendant from subjecting Plaintiff to a racially hostile work
`
`place.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7
`
`43. Under 42 U.S.C. 1981, Defendant was not permitted to subject Plaintiff
`
`to a racially disparate workplace.
`
`44. Despite the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1981, Defendant took adverse
`
`employment actions against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race.
`
`45. Plaintiff was financially and emotionally damaged as a direct result of
`
`Defendant’s discriminatory treatment and retaliation.
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs desires a trial by jury and judgment and all relief available
`
`under 42 U.S.C. 1981, including emotional distress, punitive, compensatory
`
`damages as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs and pre-judgment interest, not
`
`back or front pay.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of June 2021.
`
`
`/S/ Kyle J. Lee
`Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
`FLBN: 105321
`LEE LAW, PLLC
`1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303
`Brandon, Florida 33511
`Telephone: (813) 343‐2813
`Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com
`Info@KyleLeeLaw.com
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01519-MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8
`Case 8:21-cv-01519—MSS-CPT Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
