Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 1 of 22
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`MILAGROS DEL VALLE on behalf
`of herself and all others similarly
`situated individuals,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, a Florida
`limited Liability Company, f/k/a
`GASTRO HEALTH, PL, f/k/a
`GASTROENTEROLOGY CARE
`CENTERS, LLC.
`
` Defendant.
`________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, MILAGROS DEL VALLE (“Plaintiff” or ”Del Valle”) through undersigned
`
`counsel, files this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, GASTRO
`
`HEALTH, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company, f/k/a GASTRO HEALTH, PL f/k/a
`
`GAESTROENTEROLOGY CARE CENTERS, LLC collectively ( “Defendant” or “Gastro
`
`Health”) and states as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`This is a claim by Plaintiff MILAGROS DEL VALLE against her former
`
`1.
`
`employer, GASTRO HEALTH, LLC,
`
`f/k/a GASTRO HEALTH, PL
`
`f/k/a
`
`GAESTROENTEROLOGY CARE CENTERS, LLC, for violations of the Family Medical
`
`Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., Section 510 of the Employee Retirement
`
`Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act
`
`(“FCRA”), Fla. Stat. § 760 et. seq.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 2 of 22
`
`2.
`
`In enacting the Family Medical Leave Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.
`
`(“the FMLA”), Congress wished to remedy its finding that employees with serious health
`
`conditions have “inadequate job security” when they have to leave work for temporary periods.
`
`See 29 U.S.C. § 2601(a)(4). The FMLA provides eligible employees, like Del Valle with
`
`unpaid, job-protected leave in the event they are suffering from a serious medical condition. 26
`
`U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). An employee that takes FMLA protected leave is entitled to return to the
`
`same position after coming back to work. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1). Further, the FMLA makes it
`
`unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to
`
`exercise, any right provided under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C § 2615(a)(1). Likewise, it is unlawful
`
`for an employer to discharge or discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice
`
`made unlawful under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2).
`
`3.
`
`The Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”)is also a remedial statute aimed at
`
`combating discrimination against individuals with physical or mental disabilities. The FCRA is
`
`meant to protect employees, like Del Valle, from discrimination, harassment and retaliation in
`
`the workplace on account of a real or perceived mental or physical handicap, or for asking for a
`
`reasonable accommodation related to the handicap.
`
`4.
`
`The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) was passed in 1974.
`
`In passing the Act, Congress found that the “continued well-being and security of millions of
`
`employees and their dependents” depends directly on ensuring safeguards with respect to
`
`employee benefit plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Congress also found it to be “desirable in the
`
`interests of employees and their beneficiaries, for the protection of the revenue of the United
`
`States, and to provide for the free flow of commerce, that minimum standards be provided
`
`assuring the equitable character” of employee benefit plans under ERISA. Id.
`
`5.
`
`ERISA was enacted “to protect interstate commerce and the interests of
`
`participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries . . . establishing standards of
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 3 of 22
`
`conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by
`
`providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.” 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1001(b). Section 510 of ERISA makes it unlawful “for any person to discharge, fine, suspend,
`
`expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to
`
`which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1140.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff, MILAGROS DEL VALLE, suffered from multiple disabilities that were
`
`also chronic health conditions entitling her to benefits under the FMLA, and protection from
`
`discrimination under the FCRA. Ms. Del Valle made Defendant aware of her health condition
`
`and her doctor’s treatment plan who recommended she take a medical leave. Ms. Del Valle
`
`initially requested and was approved for a one (1) week medical leave using her vacation/paid
`
`time off. Despite the Defendant’s knowledge of her need for leave, Defendant failed to provide
`
`her notice of her FMLA rights, or designate her upcoming leave as FMLA protected leave.
`
`Shortly after, and closer to her initial leave date of August 12, 2019, Ms. Del Valle contacted
`
`human resources requesting FMLA paperwork. On or about August 8, 2019, just four (4) days
`
`before starting her initial medical leave, and one (1) day after she asked for the FMLA papers,
`
`she was terminated. Ms. Del Valle qualified for FMLA leave, she had FMLA leave available to
`
`her, and she was denied the leave and terminated instead. The stated reason for Ms. Del Valle’s
`
`termination was manufactured after she disclosed her need and intentions to take medical leave
`
`as a means of discrimination and retaliation against Ms. Del Valle and/or interfering with her
`
`rights under the FMLA, Section 510 of ERISA and the FCRA.
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, Ms. Del Valle seeks all available relief in law and equity, including
`
`but not limited to: (i) a declaration from this Court that Defendant’s actions were unlawful; (ii)
`
`back pay and front pay (where reinstatement is not feasible); (iii) medical expenses; (iv)
`
`compensatory damages in whatever amount she is found to be entitled; (v) liquidated damages in
`
`whatever amount she is found to be entitled; (vi) an award of interest, costs and reasonable
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 4 of 22
`
`attorney’s fees and expert witness fees; (vii) punitive damages; (viii) equitable relief; (ix)
`
`declaratory relief; (x) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest (where allowable); and (xi) a jury
`
`trial on all issues so triable.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and the
`
`FMLA and ERISA, and has authority to grant declaratory relief under the FMLA and pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Defendant
`
`does business in this judicial district, and the majority of the acts complained of took place in this
`
`judicial district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`At all times material hereto, Ms. Del Valle was a resident of Miami-Dade County,
`
`Florida.
`
`11.
`
`At all times material to this action, Gastro Health, LLC f/k/a Gastro Health PL
`
`f/k/a Gastroenterology Care Centers, LLC (“Defendant”) was and continues to be a Limited
`
`Liability Company, doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and has continuously had at
`
`least 50 employees.
`
`12.
`
`At all times material to this action, Defendant operated within Miami-Dade
`
`County, specifically at the Gastro Health, LLC located at 9500 South Dadeland Blvd. Suite 200,
`
`Miami Florida 33156.
`
`13.
`
`At all times material to this action, Defendant was “engaged in commerce” within
`
`the meaning of §6 and §7 of the FLSA.
`
`14.
`
`The FMLA defines the term “employer” to broadly include “any person acting
`
`directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to any employee”. 29 U.S.C.
`
`2611(4)(ii)(I).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 5 of 22
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant is employer as defined under the FLMA.
`
`“To be ‘employed’ includes when an employer ‘suffer[s] or permit[s] [the
`
`employee] to work.’” See Freeman v. Key Largo Volunteer Fire & Rescue Dept., Inc., 494 Fed.
`
`Appx. 940, 942 (11th Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 62 (U.S. 2013).
`
`17.
`
`From on or about March 12, 2018 to her termination on or about August 8, 2019,
`
`Plaintiff was employed as an Imaging and Infusion Manager employee, overseeing staff
`
`performing ultrasounds, CT’s and administering injections on patients at Defendant’s location in
`
`Dadeland, Florida.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant employed Plaintiff as an Imaging and Infusion Manager employee.
`
`Defendant is an employer under the FMLA because it is engaged in commerce or
`
`in an industry affecting commerce and employed 50 or more employees for each working day
`
`during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
`
`20.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff worked at a location where Defendant,
`
`employed 50 or more employees.
`
`21.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant is an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C.
`
`2611(4).
`
`22.
`
`At all times material to this action Defendant directly or indirectly, jointly or
`
`severally, controlled and directed the day to day employment of Plaintiff, including: (i)
`
`timekeeping; (ii) payroll; (iii) disciplinary actions; (iv) employment policies and procedures; (v)
`
`scheduling and hours; (vi) terms of compensation; and (vii) working conditions.
`
`23.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee entitled to leave under the
`
`FMLA, based on the fact that she was employed by the employer for at least 12 months and
`
`worked at least 1,250 hours during the relevant 12-month period prior to her seeking to exercise
`
`her rights to FMLA leave.
`
`24.
`
`At all times material hereto, Plaintiff has a disability as defined by Fla. Stat. 760
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 6 of 22
`
`et. seq., that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Plaintiff’s condition/disability
`
`caused her to be substantially limited in major life activities, and as per Plaintiff’s treating
`
`doctor, medical leave was imminent and necessary.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff is covered by the FCRA because she is an individual who:
`
`a. Has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
`
`activities or bodily functions;
`
`b. Has a record of physical impairment that substantially limits one or more
`
`major life activities or bodily functions; and/or
`
`c. Was regarded as having a physical impairment that substantially limits one or
`
`more major life activities or bodily functions.
`
`26.
`
`At all times relevant, Defendant was the “employer” as defined by Fla. Stat. 760,
`
`et. seq.
`
`CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
`
`27.
`
`On or around January 2019, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and
`
`retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was dual filed with the
`
`Florida Commission on Human Rights.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff files her complaint within the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`Jurisdiction over this claim is appropriate pursuant to Fla. Stat. Chap. 760
`
`(FCRA), because more than 180 days passed since the filing of the charge, and the Court has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendant state court claims as they arise out of the same
`
`facts as circumstances as the federal claims.
`
`30.
`
`All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied and/or waived.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`31.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §
`
`2601, et seq, and the FCRA, because Plaintiff validly exercised her rights pursuant to the
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 7 of 22
`
`FMLA/FCRA and Defendant: (i) interfered with Plaintiff’s right to take FMLA leave, manage
`
`her own leave, and her right to reinstatement; (ii) failed to provide Plaintiff with notice of her
`
`rights under the FMLA; and (iii) discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating Ms.
`
`Del Valle as soon as she contacted HR and requested her FMLA paperwork.
`
`32.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant failed to comply with the FCRA
`
`because Plaintiff disclosed the nature and extent of her disabilities, and as a result, Defendant
`
`discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of her real or perceived disabilities.
`
`33.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff disclosed her need to use medical
`
`benefits provided by the Defendant’s health and wellness medical benefits policies, and was
`
`subsequently discriminated and retaliated against because of her intent to use such benefits and
`
`actual use of such benefits.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant is a leading medical group made up of physicians and advanced
`
`practitioners specializing in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorder, nutrition, and digestive
`
`health. https://www.gastrohealth.com. The Defendant operates in locations across the country
`
`such as Alabama, Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington and with over 240
`
`physicians.
`
`35. Ms. Del Valle was hired as an Imaging and Infusion Manager employee with
`
`Defendant in or around March 2018.
`
`36. Ms. Del Valle continued to work as an Imaging and Infusion Manager without
`
`incident until her termination on or around August 8, 2019.
`
`37.
`
`In or around October 2018, Ms. Del Valle, was home and suffered from an
`
`emergency medical occurrence that required immediate and emergency medical treatment.
`
`38. Ms. Del Valle informed her supervisor the next day and was allowed to work
`
`from home.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 8 of 22
`
`39.
`
`Ever since, Ms. Del Valle remained under doctor’s care and was treated for her
`
`serious medical condition and disabilities.
`
`40.
`
`As Ms. Del Valle’s health condition continued to worsen, her treating doctor
`
`recommended and insisted she take a medical leave to alleviate her stress while undergoing
`
`treatments.
`
`41.
`
` Ms. Del Valle sent an email request/calendar invite to her supervisor, Jennifer
`
`Muina, asking for one week off from work, using her PTO/vacation.
`
`42. Ms. Del Valle told her supervisor that her leave request related to her serious
`
`medical condition and disabilities, and Ms. Muina accepted the calendar invite.
`
`43.
`
`On August 5, 2019, Ms. Del Valle reminded Ms. Muina of her upcoming medical
`
`leave and the same day, walked into HR’s office and inquired about FMLA leave paperwork.
`
`44.
`
`On or around August 8, 2019, one day after she inquired about FMLA, Ms. Del
`
`Valle was called into Ms. Muina’s office along with the Head of HR Ana Pardino, and they
`
`terminated her employment.
`
`45. When Ms. Del Valle asked why she was being terminated, Ms. Pardino’s answer
`
`was because they didn’t feel she was happy at work.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants’ reason for terminating Plaintiff was pre-textual.
`
`Defendants’ reason for termination Plaintiff was manufactured, post hoc, after
`
`Plaintiff engaged in activities protected by the FMLA, ERISA, and the FCRA.
`
`48. Ms. Del Valle had a disability; she made the Defendant aware of this disability,
`
`and requested the paperwork to take FMLA leave for this disability.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`At the time of her termination, Plaintiff was eligible for FMLA leave.
`
`At the time of her termination, Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s intent to take
`
`FMLA covered leave.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 9 of 22
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff’s notice(s) for her need for leave was sufficient to alert Defendant that
`
`her request was for FMLA covered leave.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition as defined by the FMLA as her
`
`condition was:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`An illness, injury impairment, or physical or mental condition involving
`inpatient care in a hospital;
`
`An illness, injury impairment, or physical or mental condition involving a
`period of incapacity or subsequent treatment in connection with or
`consequent to in patient care in a hospital;
`
`An illness, injury impairment, or physical or mental condition involving a
`period of incapacity of more than three (3) days involving treatment two
`or more times by a health care provider;
`
`An illness, injury impairment, or physical or mental condition involving a
`regimen of continued treatment under supervision of a health care
`provider; and/or
`
`An illness, injury impairment, or physical or mental condition requiring
`multiple treatments for a condition that would likely result in a period in
`capacity of more than three (3) consecutive calendar days in the absence
`of medical intervention or treatment.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff was, at all times relevant, a qualified employee as defined by the FMLA
`
`and the FCRA.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant terminated Plaintiff before she was allowed to provide additional
`
`information so that Defendant could reasonably determine whether the FMLA and the FCRA
`
`applied to her need for time off work.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019, interfered with Plaintiff’s
`
`right to take available FMLA-covered leave.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019 interfered with her right to
`
`reinstatement to the same or similar position after taking available FMLA-covered leave.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019 was in retaliation for
`
`Plaintiff requesting to take FMLA-covered leave.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 10 of 22
`
`58.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019 was in retaliation for
`
`having requested a reasonable accommodation. .
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019 was designed to dissuade
`
`Plaintiff’s coworkers
`
`from
`
`taking FMLA-covered
`
`leave and/or complaining about
`
`discriminatory, harassing and hostile treatment.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019 was designed to dissuade
`
`Plaintiff’s coworkers from asserting their rights under the FCRA.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant fired Plaintiff in whole or in part because of her disability(ies) and/or
`
`perceived disability(ies).
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff on August 8, 2019 interfered with the rights
`
`afforded to Plaintiff by ERISA, the FMLA, and the FCRA.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was motivated, in whole or in part, by
`
`the likelihood that Plaintiff would need FMLA-covered leave in the future.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was motivated, in whole or in part, by
`
`the likelihood that Plaintiff would need FCRA covered leave in the future.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was motivated, in whole or in part, by
`
`Plaintiff’s exercising her rights under an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA (i.e. her need
`
`to seek medical treatment covered by her health insurance).
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff’s FMLA-covered absences and/or her likely need for future FMLA-
`
`covered leave was a substantial or motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate her.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff’s exercising of her rights to an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA
`
`and/or her likely need for future benefits under his ERISA-covered plan was a substantial or
`
`motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate her.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff’s disability/perceived disability was a substantial or motivating factor in
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminated her.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 11 of 22
`
`69.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was not wholly unrelated to Plaintiff’s
`
`need for time off work under the FMLA.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was not wholly unrelated to
`
`Plaintiff’s exercising of her rights under an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff was not wholly unrelated to Plaintiff’s
`
`disability/perceived disability.
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA-covered leave pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1).
`
`Defendant’s actions violate the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §2615(a).
`
`Defendant’s actions violate the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §2614(a).
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute interference with Plaintiff’s rights under the
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`FMLA.
`
`76.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under
`
`the FMLA.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute discrimination in violation of Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the FMLA.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute discrimination in violation of Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under Section 510 of ERISA.
`
`79.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute interference with Plaintiff’s right to an employee
`
`benefit plan covered by ERISA.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute discrimination in violation of the FCRA.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute interference with Plaintiff’s rights under the
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`FCRA.
`
`82.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute
`
`retaliation
`
`for
`
`requesting a
`
`reasonable
`
`accommodation under the FCRA.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 12 of 22
`
`83.
`
`Defendant’s actions were willful as Defendant knew or had reason to know that
`
`its actions violated federal law, yet Defendant acted wantonly or with reckless disregard for the
`
`law.
`
`84.
`
`Defendant is liable for the actions of its managers and/or agents taken within the
`
`scope of their employment with Defendant and its related entities, including the decision to
`
`terminate Plaintiff.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant’s actions, if left unchecked, will deter other employees from exercising
`
`their rights under ERISA, the FCRA and/or the FMLA which will in turn thwart the purposes of
`
`Congress in ensuring that a balance exists between work and healthy workers.
`
`COUNT I
`INTERFERENCE WITH FMLA RIGHTS
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges all factual allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through
`
`85 of the Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff was, at all times relevant, eligible for FMLA-covered leave.
`
`Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer as defined by the FMLA.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s right to take
`
`FMLA leave under the FMLA.
`
`90.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s right to manage
`
`her own leave by failing to provide her notice once Defendant became aware that Plaintiff
`
`needed or desired to take FMLA protected leave.
`
`91.
`
`By terminating Plaintiff after she requested FMLA leave paperwork, Defendant
`
`interfered with Plaintiff’s right to be reinstated to the same or similar position after requesting
`
`and potentially taking FMLA protected leave.
`
`92.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant’s interference with Plaintiff’s right to
`
`leave, right to manage her own leave, and reinstatement violated the FMLA.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 13 of 22
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiff suffered from a disability that also qualifies as a “serious health
`
`condition” within the meaning of the FMLA.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff’s condition is “chronic” within the meaning of the FMLA.
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA protected leave.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`Defendant is subject to the requirements of the FMLA.
`
`Plaintiff provided adequate notice of her serious health condition to Defendants.
`
`Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s serious health condition and her need for
`
`FMLA protected leave.
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiff had not exhausted her entitlement to FMLA leave at the time.
`
`100. Defendant terminated Plaintiff one (1) day after Plaintiff contacted HR and
`
`requested FMLA paperwork.
`
`101. By terminating Plaintiff Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s right for leave, and
`
`to future FMLA benefits.
`
`102. Plaintiff was denied benefits to which she was entitled under the FMLA.
`
`103. As a result of Defendant’s intentional, willful and unlawful acts by interfering
`
`with Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered damages and incurred
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`104. Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages because Defendant cannot show that its
`
`violation of the FMLA was in good faith.
`
`105. Defendant’s violation of the FMLA was willful, as its managers engaged in the
`
`above-described actions while knowing that same were impermissible under the FMLA.
`
`106. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
`
`WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Milagros Del Valle, respectfully requests entry of:
`
`a.
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for their interference with her
`rights under the FMLA;
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 14 of 22
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for damages, including lost
`earnings and benefits, front pay, and/or all actual monetary losses suffered
`as a result of Defendant’s conduct;
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for her reasonable attorneys’
`fees and litigation expenses;
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for liquidated damages
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii);
`
`declaratory judgment that Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff violate
`Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA; and
`
`an order granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
`equitable under the circumstances of this case.
`
`COUNT II
`FMLA RETALIATION
`
`107. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 85 of the Complaint, as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`108. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff, at least in part
`
`because Plaintiff wished to exercise her right or attempted to exercise her right to take leave from
`
`work that was protected under the FMLA.
`
`109. With actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s need for leave, disability and health
`
`condition, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment as soon as she requested FMLA
`
`paperwork.
`
`110. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of
`
`the FMLA.
`
`111. As a result of Defendant’ intentional, willful and unlawful acts of retaliating
`
`against Plaintiff for exercising her rights pursuant to the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered damages
`
`and incurred reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`112.
`
` Because Defendant cannot prove that their violation of the FMLA was in good
`
`faith, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 15 of 22
`
`113. Defendant’s violation of the FMLA was willful, as its managers / human resource
`
`personnel engaged in the above-described actions while knowing that same were impermissible
`
`under the FMLA.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Milagros Del Valle, respectfully requests entry of:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`judgment in her favor and against the Defendant for violation of the anti-
`discrimination/anti-retaliation provisions of the FMLA;
`
`judgment in her favor and against the Defendant for damages, including
`lost earnings, reinstatement, front pay, and/or all actual monetary losses
`suffered as a result of Defendant’s conduct;
`
`judgment in her favor and against the Defendant for her reasonable
`attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for liquidated damages
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii);
`
`declaratory judgment that Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff violate
`Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA; and
`
`an order granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
`equitable under the circumstances of this case.
`
`COUNT III
`UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION BASED ON HANDICAP IN VIOLATION OF THE
`FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (Fla. Stat. 760 et. seq.)
`
`114. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 85 of the Complaint, as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`115. Plaintiff’s conditions substantially limited one or more of Plaintiff’s major life
`
`activities. Plaintiff’s condition was a disability or handicap as defined by the FCRA.
`
`116. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or
`
`without reasonable accommodation.
`
`117. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation.
`
`118. Defendant is aware of Plaintiff’s disability, and/or regarded Plaintiff as disabled
`
`because of her disability.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 16 of 22
`
`119. Defendant terminated Plaintiff on the basis of her disability or because Defendant
`
`regarded Plaintiff as disabled because of her disability in violation of the FCRA.
`
`120. Further, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for having requested a
`
`reasonable accommodation.
`
`121. Additionally, Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff, and further
`
`failed to engage in the necessary deliberative process.
`
`122. As a result of Defendant’s conduct set forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`compensation for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, and reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`123. Defendant engaged in discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate
`
`Plaintiff with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA.
`
`124. Plaintiff suffered emotional pain and mental anguish as a direct result of
`
`Defendant’s unlawful discrimination.
`
`125. Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary losses as a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful
`
`discrimination and retaliation.
`
`126. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff has
`
`suffered and continues to suffer damages.
`
`127. Plaintiff demand trial by jury.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Milagros Del Valle, respectfully requests entry of:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for violation of the anti-
`discrimination/anti-retaliation/accommodation provisions of the FCRA;
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for economic damages,
`including lost earnings, reinstatement, front pay, and/or all actual
`monetary losses suffered as a result of Defendant’s conduct;
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for noneconomic damages,
`including but not limited to, pain, suffering, mental anguish, emotional
`distress, and/or loss of enjoyment of life suffered as a result of
`Defendant’s conduct.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 17 of 22
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for her reasonable attorneys’
`fees and litigation expenses;
`
`judgment in her favor and against Defendant for punitive damages;
`
`declaratory judgment that Defendant’ practices toward Plaintiff violate
`Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA; and
`
`an order granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
`equitable under the circumstances of this case.
`
`COUNT IV
`FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS
`ACT (Handicap)
`
`128. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 85 of the Complaint, as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`129. Plaintiff’s conditions substantially limited one or more of Plaintiff’s major life
`
`activities. Plaintiff’s condition was a disability or handicap as defined by the FCRA.
`
`130. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or
`
`without reasonable accommodation.
`
`131. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation.
`
`132. Defendant failed to grant a reasonable accommodation as requested.
`
`133. Defendant is aware of Plaintiff’s disability, and/or regarded Plaintiff as disabled
`
`because of her disability.
`
`134. Defendant terminated Plaintiff on the basis of her disability or because Defendant
`
`regarded Plaintiff as disabled because of her disability in violation of the FCRA.
`
`135. Further, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for having requested a
`
`reasonable accommodation.
`
`136. Additionally, Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff, and further
`
`failed to engage in the necessary deliberative process.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61627 Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2021 Page 18 of 22
`
`137. As a result of Defendant’s conduct set forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`compensation for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, and reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`138. Defendant engaged in discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate
`
`Plaintif