Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 1

Filed 02/12/2001 Page 1 of 5
-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MOIRDLDALNEDDOIDSIYTrR;:>I"~'<F7fJWffB I 2 AM la-. J4

J,~V~fltlfl;~g~fo~8U~1 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT)

t , ' ()/Y- OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

~

01 ell 11f

5/ ~q

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

-------------------------------)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
JURy TRIAL DEMAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofreligion and retaliation,

and to provide appropriate relief to Hector Hocsman. As stated with greater particularity in

paragraphs 7 and 8, the Commission alleges that Mr. Hocsman was harassed because ofhis religion,

Jewish, and retaliated against at Defendant's place ofbusiness in Winter Park, Florida, because he

opposed the harassment. Specifically, Mr. Hocsman was forced to endure a religiously hostile work

environment while employed with the Defendant Employer. Moreover, Mr. Hocsman was retaliated

against by the Defendant Employer when his employment was terminated after he complained to

management and human resources about the harassment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 1 Filed 02/12/2001 Page 2 of 5

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) ("Title

VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981A.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction ofthe Untied States District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida, Orlando Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is

the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and

(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., (the "Employer"),

a Florida Corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City of

Winter Park, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc. has continuously been

an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g)

and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Hector Hocsman filed

a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7.

Since at least June 1998, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Winter Park, Florida facility in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

2

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 1 Filed 02/12/2001 Page 3 of 5
§2000e-2(a) when it subjected Hector Hocsman to unlawful discrimination by supervisory/management officials because ofhis religion, Jewish, in the form ofverbal and written conduct ofa religiously discriminatory nature. This unwelcome religious harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to affect the terms and conditions of his employment and to create an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Mr. Hocsman made it known to management that the discriminatory conduct was unwelcome.
8. Since at least June 1998, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Winter Park, Florida facility in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) when it retaliated against Mr. Hocsman by harassing him, attacking his work performance, and ultimately terminating him from his position of employment after he complained to management and human resources, opposing what he reasonably believed to be unlawful discrimination based on religion.
9. The effect of the employment practice(s) complained ofin paragraphs 7 and 8 above has been to deprive Hector Hocsman of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of his religion and his complaints to management and human resources concerning the unlawful employment practices.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs 7 and 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofHector Hocsman.
3

-- Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 1

Filed 02/12/2001 Page 4 of 5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in religious harassment, retaliation, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion. B. Order Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., to make whole Hector Hocsman by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detennined at trial, and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstatement and/or front pay, restoration of benefits and positive employment references for Hector Hocsman. D. Order Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., to make whole Hector Hocsman by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practice(s) described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including but not limited to, out of pocket losses, medical expenses, andjob search expenses in amounts to be detennined at trial. E. Order Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., to make whole Hector Hocsman by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practice(s) complained ofin paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain,

4

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 1 Filed 02/12/2001 Page 5 of 5
suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment oflife, in amounts to be detennined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., to pay Hector Hocsman punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless disregard for Charging Party's federally protected rights described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
RACHEL H. SHONFIE Senior Trial Attorney Fl. Bar Number: 0988626 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower Miami, Florida 33131 Phone (305) 530-6003 Fax (305) 536-4494
5

 
 Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 6:01-CV-179-0RL-31-JGG

v.

FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC.,

Defendant,

HECTOR HOCSMAN,

Intervenor.
--------------------------------~/

INTERVENOR HECTOR HOCSMAN'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN ("HOCSMAN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues Defendant, FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC. ("FKA"), a Florida corporation, for employment discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 1981a (collectively, "Title VII"), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of1992, Florida Statutes § 760.01, et seq.(the "FCRA"), and for violation ofFlorida's Private Sector Whistleblower Act, §§448.1 01, et. seq., Florida Statutes (2000) and in support thereofalleges the following:
INTRODUCTION 1. This action is brought to remedy unlawful discrimination in employment based

1

.. /

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 2 of 18

on HOCSMAN's religion, Jewish, and because HOCSMAN was retaliated against by FKA in response to HOCSMAN's complaints ofreligious discrimination. The legal basis for this action is Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 1981a (collectively, "Title VII"), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes § 760.01, et seq.(the "FCRA"). Plaintiff, HOCSMAN, seeks equitable reliefand damages. This action is also brought to remedy unlawful retaliation taken against HOCSMAN for his objection to and/or refusal to participate in what he believed in good faith to have constituted discriminatory and illegal employment practices on the part of DEFENDANT, FKA, in violation of Florida's Private Sector Whistleblower Act, §§448.101, et. seq., Florida Statutes (2000).

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES 2. This action arises, in part, under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"). This Court has original jurisdiction to grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1) and 1343 (3) and (4). This Court is vested with jurisdiction to order an injunction, front pay, back pay or any other equitable relief as may be proper, and compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 2000e-5(g). This action also arises, in part, under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes § 760.01, et seq.(the "FCRA"). This action also arises, in part, under Florida's Private Sector Whistleblower Act, §§448.1 01, et. seq., Florida Statutes (2000). This Court has jurisdiction over all state law claims pursuant to 28 U. S.C. §1331 and §1367. The state claims herein are
2

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 3 of 18
for damages in excess of $75,000.00 and are therefore also within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Plaintiff, V.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), made a finding ofdiscrimination and retaliation against FKA, and filed suit in its own right on behalf ofHOCSMAN, giving him the right to intervene as a plaintiff. HOCSMAN brings his claims herein as an intervening plaintiff.
4. Venue is proper in the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 V.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c) because the unlawful employment practices were committed within this judicial district.
5. Plaintiff, HOCSMAN, is an individual who at all times material resided in Orange County, Florida, during the time ofhis employment with FKA. His religion is Jewish, and he is protected from discrimination in employment under Title VII and the FCRA. At all times material herein, HOCSMAN, was employed by FKA as a Project Designer.
6. At all relevant times concerning this action, FKA, a Florida corporation, has been continuously doing business in the State of Florida, City of Winter Park, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. At all times material, FKA was and is engaged in providing architectural designs and related professional services to its customers and clients.
7. At all times relevant to this action, FKA is an "employer," continuously engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (g) and (h), and Fla. Stat. § 760.02(7).
3

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 4 of 18
COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REOUIREMENTS 8. HOCSMAN timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Florida Commission of Human Relations ("FCHR") alleging discrimination and harassment based on his religion, Jewish, as well as retaliation in response to his complaints of same to FKA. 9. HOCSMAN has exhausted his administrative remedies required under 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and has otherwise fulfilled all applicable administrative prerequisites to bringing this action. Additionally, for purposes ofCount V ofthis Amended Complaint, this action is filed within two (2) years ofPlaintiff s discovery ofthe retaliatory personnel actions taken by FKA as more fully described herein. Upon information and belief, Defendant has not yet filed an Answer to HOCSMAN's Intervenor Complaint. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 10. HOCSMAN was employed with FKA as Project Designer from at or around June 1,1998, untilJune 15, 1999, when he was constructively discharged in retaliation for his complaints of religious discrimination. 11. On numerous occasions during his employment, HOCSMAN was subjected to derogatory jokes and other hostile statements regarding his religion. These discriminatory and anti-Semitic statements were made by supervisors and/or managers ofFKA; specifically by Mr. Robert Koch, one ofFKA' s senior shareholders and a principal ofthe firm, and by Mr. Joe Sistler, who served as a Project Architect and was a supervisor over HOCSMAN. 12. For example, at or around June 11, 1998, Mr. Robert Koch, drew a swastika on an architectural design plan that HOCSMAN was working on. Mr. Koch's action was
4

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 5 of 18
performed while he was ostensibly supervising HOCSMAN in Koch's role as ChiefDesigner at FKA. This incident, and others disturbed HOCSMAN, and caused him to be emotionally upset at work.
13. On or about July 8, 1998, Mr. Robert Koch approached HOCSMAN at a workstation and stated that: "Your family name doesn't sound Jewish." This statement was made in a derogatory manner, and made HOCSMAN feel extremely uncomfortable.
14. On or about January 9, 1999, Mr. Koch asked HOCSMAN, "Are you really Jewish?" Mr. Koch further commented that he had grown up "in a very Jewish neighborhood" in New York, and then stated "how different Jewish people are," and that all Jewish people "care about is money."
15. While acting as Project Director, and as HOCSMAN's direct supervisor in connection with certain projects, including FKA's "Crown Plaza" project, Mr. Joe Sistler frequently made anti-Semitic comments in HOCSMAN's presence. For example, within the first week of Mr. Sistler's employment at FKA, and while he was critiquing HOCSMAN's work, Mr. Sistler stated that his former employer was a "money hungry Jew," and that he could "understand the reasons" behind the Nazi Holocaust. In making this statement, it was clear that Mr. Sistler was expressing a beliefthat the extermination of Jewish people by the Nazi regime was somehow understandable or justified.
16. On or about February 16, 1999, during a meeting with HOCSMAN and other FKA employees, Mr. Koch stated that: "Jewish people since Biblical times were bankers. We all know that bankers have money and suck owners' pockets, and we all hate bankers." At this same meeting, Mr. Koch also turned to HOCSMAN and stated: "You don't behave
5

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 6 of 18
annoying like the Jews; they have all this annoying talk." Mr. Koch's statements were humiliating and highly offensive to HOCSMAN.
17. The frequent harassment and numerous anti-Semitic statements to which HOCSMAN was subjected during his employment at FKA were sufficiently severe and pervasive to affect the terms and conditions ofhis employment and to create an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Mr. HOCSMAN made it clear to FKA that this discriminatory conduct was unwelcome.
18. At or around the morning of June 10, 1999, HOCSMAN complained to FKA's Director ofHuman Resources, Ms. Lana Biondi, detailing the discriminatory and antiSemitic statements to that had been so frequently directed toward him by Mr. Koch and Mr. Sistler. HOCSMAN made his complaints to Ms. Biondi in good faith, believing that he was objecting to and/or refusing to participate in illegal and discriminatory employment practices being conducted by FKA in violation of Title VII and the FCRA.
19. In retaliation for HOCSMAN's complaints ofreligious discrimination made to FKA's Director of Human Resources, Mr. Sistler began to aggressively criticize HOCSMAN's job performance, demeanor and attitude to other members of FKA's management team in a deliberate attempt to terminate HOCSMAN's employment. Mr. Sistler's retaliatory abuse also included frequent statements to HOCSMAN asking him ifhe had "looked for a new job yet?"
20. On or about the afternoon of June 10, 1999, HOCSMAN was called into a meeting with FKA's Director of Human Resources (Ms. Biondi), and with two other members ofFKA's management team, Mr. Fred Pauzer and Mr. Jim Kelley. This meeting
6

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 7 of 18
was held in response to HOCSMAN's complaint ofdiscrimination, made to FKA's Director of Human Resources.
21. During this meeting of at or around the afternoon of June 10, 1999, Mr. Pauzer stated to HOCSMAN that: "I have a business to run and have no time for these matters. We can't control what people said." Additionally, HOCSMAN was presented with an extremely negative performance evaluation. The "Overall Performance Rating" given to HOCSMAN on this particular evaluation was the lowest possible rating according to FKA's rating scale; "Needs Significant Improvement."
22. This performance evaluation was completely inconsistent with HOCSMAN's previous written evaluation, executed by Mr. Pauzer and Mr. Kelley on or about February 16, 1999, and which documented HOCSMAN' s "good" and even "excellent" performance during the first nine (9) months ofhis employment with FKA. Significantly, HOCSMAN's "Overall Performance Rating" on this February 16, 1999 evaluation, received prior to his complaining ofdiscrimination, was the second-highest possible rating according to FKA's rating scale; that of "Consistently Exceeds Standards."
23. When HOCSMAN challenged the negative performance evaluation proffered by Mr. Kelley and Mr. Pauzer, as well as other oral criticisms of HOCSMAN's work, Mr. Pauzer presented an ultimatum to HOCSMAN. Namely, that HOCSMAN "could either quit or be fired." Mr. Pauzer also stated that "it wouldn't look good on your resume" if HOCSMAN were to be fired by FKA. Mr. Pauzer further stated that he would provide HOCSMAN with a positive letter of reference ifhe would simply resign or agree to a "layoff." FKA' s actions in connection with HOCSMAN's termination were taken in retaliation
7

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 8 of 18
for his good-faith complaints of religious discrimination. 24. As a result of DEFENDANT, FKA's, wrongful acts alleged herein,
HOCSMAN has suffered economic and emotional damages. 25. The acts of DEFENDANT, FKA, alleged herein were intentional and done
with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN's rights protected under Title VII and the FCRA, as well as under Florida's Private Sector Whistleblower Protection statute, §§448.101, et. seq., Florida Statutes (2000).
26. All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed, have occurred or have been waived.
27. HOCSMAN has engaged the services oflegal counsel and is obligated to pay legal counsel their fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action.
COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT 28. HOCSMAN repeats and realleges allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 herein. 29. The discrimination and harassment to which HOCSMAN was SUbjected was based upon his religion, Jewish. 30. DEFENDANT, FKA, violated Fla. Stat. § 760, et seq., by intentionally discriminating against HOCSMAN and subjecting him to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis ofhis religion as more specifically alleged in the General Allegations
8

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 9 of 18
section of this Amended Complaint. 31. The offensive, anti-Semitic language of DEFENDANT's agents,
managers, supervisors and/or shareholders, created a hostile and offensive work environment and negatively affected HOCSMAN's physical and psychological well being.
32. The conduct of DEFENDANT, by and through its agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders, and DEFENDANT's failure to take prompt remedial action to prevent continued harassment ofHOCSMAN deprived HOCSMAN ofhis statutory rights under the FCRA.
33. There was no legitimate non-discriminatory reason to justify DEFENDANT's intentional disparate treatment of HOCSMAN.
34. The actions ofDEFENDANT and/or its agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders were willful, wanton, intentional and were performed with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN's legally protected rights, entitling HOCSMAN to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 760.11 (5) to punish FKA for its actions and to deter it, and others, from taking such actions in the future.
35. The actions ofDEFENDANT make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling HOCSMAN to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
36. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of DEFENDANT' s actions, HOCSMAN has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
9

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 10 of 18
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN, demands judgment against DEFENDANT, FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC., for back pay, front pay in lieu ofreinstatement, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT - RETALIATION
37. HOCSMAN repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 herein.
38. DEFENDANT, FKA, violated Fla. Stat. § 760, et seq., by retaliating against HOCSMAN for complaining about and opposing what he reasonably believed to be unlawful discrimination and harassment based on his religion, as more fully described in the General Allegations section ofthis Amended Complaint.
39. The adverse employment actions suffered by HOCSMAN in retaliation for his good-faith complaints of religious discrimination and harassment included, but were not limited to, increased hostile remarks directed at HOCSMAN by Mr. Joe Sistler and Mr. Sistler's efforts to disparage HOCSMAN's performance, as more fully described above in Paragraph 19 ofthe General Allegations Section ofthis Amended Complaint; the unwarranted negative performance evaluation that was presented to HOCSMAN as more fully described in Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 ofthe General Allegations Section ofthis Amended Complaint, and the ultimate employment action resulting in the termination ofHOCSMAN's employment relationship with FKA as more fully described in Paragraph 23 of the General Allegations
10

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 11 of 18
Section of this Amended Complaint. 40. The adverse employment actions suffered by HOCSMAN were causally
related to and in retaliation for HOCSMAN's having engaged in the protected activity of complaining about religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace at FKA.
41. The actions ofDEFENDANT and/or its agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders were willful, wanton, intentional and were performed with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN's legally protected rights, entitling HOCSMAN to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 760.11(5) to punish FKA for its actions and to deter it, and others, from taking such actions in the future.
42. The actions of DEFENDANT make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling HOCSMAN to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
43. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of DEFENDANT's actions, HOCSMAN has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN, demands judgment against DEFENDANT, FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC., for back pay, front pay in lieu ofreinstatement, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
11

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 12 of 18
COUNT III VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS
AMENDED - RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT 44. HOCSMAN repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 herein. 45. The discrimination and harassment to which HOCSMAN was subjected was based upon his religion, Jewish 46. DEFENDANT violated Title VII by intentionally discriminating against HOCSMAN on the basis ofhis religion as more specifically alleged in the General Allegations section of this Amended Complaint. DEFENDANT intentionally discriminated and interfered with the terms and conditions of HOCSMAN's employment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 47. There was no legitimate non-discriminatory reason to justify DEFENDANT's intentional disparate treatment of HOCSMAN. 48. The offensive language and conduct of DEFENDANT's agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders created a hostile and offensive work environment and negatively affected HOCSMAN's physical and psychological well-being. 49. The conduct of DEFENDANT by and through its agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders, and DEFENDANT's failure to take prompt remedial action to prevent continued discrimination and harassment ofHOCSMAN, deprived HOCSMAN of his statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq. 50. The actions ofDEFENDANT and/or its agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders were willful, wanton, intentional and performed with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN' s legally protected rights, were willful, wanton, intentional and
12

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 13 of 18
were performed with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN' s federally protected rights, entitling HOCSMAN to compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 2000e-5(g) to punish FKA for its actions and to deter it, and others, from taking such actions in the future.
51. The actions ofDEFENDANT make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling HOCSMAN to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
52. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result ofthe actions ofDEFENDANT, FKA, HOCSMAN has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN, demands judgment against DEFENDANT, FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC., for back pay, front pay in lieu ofreinstatement, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. AS AMENDED - RETALIATION
53. HOCSMAN repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 27 herein.
54. DEFENDANT, FKA, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by retaliating against HOCSMAN for complaining about and opposing what he
13

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 14 of 18
reasonably believed to be unlawful discrimination and harassment based on his religion, as more fully described in the General Allegations section of this Amended Complaint.
55. The adverse employment actions suffered by HOCSMAN in retaliation for his good-faith complaints of religious discrimination and harassment included, but were not limited to, increased hostile remarks directed at HOCSMAN by Mr. Joe Sistler and Mr. Sistler's efforts to disparage HOCSMAN's performance, as more fully described above in Paragraph 19 ofthe General Allegations Section ofthis Amended Complaint; the unwarranted negative performance evaluation that was presented to HOCSMAN as more fully described in Paragraphs 21,22 and 23 ofthe General Allegations Section ofthis Amended Complaint; and the ultimate employment action resulting in the termination ofHOCSMAN' s employment relationship with FKA as more fully described in Paragraph 23 of the General Allegations Section of this Amended Complaint.
56. The adverse employment actions suffered by HOCSMAN were causally related to and in retaliation for HOCSMAN's having engaged in the protected activity of complaining about religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace at FKA.
57. The actions ofDEFENDANT and/or its agents, managers, supervisors and/or shareholders were willful, wanton, intentional and performed with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN's legally protected rights, were willful, wanton, intentional and were performed with malice or with reckless indifference to HOCSMAN' s federally protected rights, entitling HOCSMAN to compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 2000e-5(g) to punish FKA for its actions and to .deter it, and others, from taking such actions in the future.
14

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 15 of 18
58. The actions ofDEFENDANT make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling HOCSMAN to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
59. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result ofthe actions of DEFENDANT, FKA, HOCSMAN has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN, demands judgment against DEFENDANT, FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC., for back pay, front pay in lieu ofreinstatement, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA PRIVATE SECTOR WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION ACT. FLORIDA STATUTES §448.101. et seg.
60. HOCSMAN repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 herein.
61. Florida Statutes §448.1 02(3) provides a cause ofaction for any employee who has been the object ofa retaliatory personnel action for objecting to or refusing to participate in any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.
15

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 16 of 18
62. At all times material to this action, HOCSMAN was an employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes §448.101(2).
63. FKA is an employer within the meaning ofFlorida Statutes §448.1 0 1(3) and regularly employs more than 10 persons.
64. FKA violated Florida Statutes § 448.102(3) by taking retaliatory personnel actions against HOCSMAN due to his good faith objections to, and/or his refusal to participate in, FKA's violation offederal and state laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based upon religion, as has been more thoroughly described in the General Allegations section of this Amended Complaint herein.
65. FKA retaliated against HOCSMAN in violation of Florida's Private Sector Whistleblower Statute, as has been more thoroughly described in the General Allegations section to this Amended Complaint herein, including, but not limited to, Paragraphs 18 through 25 of this Amended Complaint. FKA's retaliatory actions were the result of HOCSMAN's having in good faith objected to and/or his refusal to participate inFKA' illegal and discriminatory employment practices in violation ofTitle VII and the FCRA, as has been more fully described herein.
66. FKA and its agents, employees, partners, officers and/or directors actively and knowingly participated in the retaliatory personnel actions against HOCSMAN, including, but not limited to, terminating HOCSMAN's employment, having actual knowledge and/or constructive knowledge of the wrongfulness of their conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to HOCSMAN would result, and/or acted with such reckless disregard or absence ofreasonable care as to constitute a conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of HOCSMAN, and/or acted with such gross negligence that they contributed to HOCSMAN's damages, injuries and losses.
16

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 17 of 18

67. As a consequence ofthese actions, HOCSMAN suffered damages including loss ofincome, lost wages and benefits, damage to reputation, standing in his profession and community, emotional distress damages, and other damages which have yet to be determined.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN, demands judgment against DEFENDANT, FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC., for compensation for lost wages, benefits and any other applicable remuneration, prejudgment interest, and all monetary awards, attorneys' fees, court costs and expenses incurred in this action, all other compensatory and punitive damages allowable at law, and any other such relief as this Court deems just and proper. To the extent that Plaintiffis required under applicable law to present a proffer to the Court prior to making a plea for relief under this Count V that includes a claim for punitive damages against Defendant, Plaintiffexpressly reserves the right to present same at such a time as deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN, demands a trial by jury for each Count of this

Amended Complaint on all issues so triable.

2-) DATED this

2 rJ
day ofApril101

Florida Bar No.: Andrew G. Wedmore, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 0141143 nLL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 180 Park Avenue, North, Suite 200 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Telephone: (407) 647-8911 Facsimile: (407) 647-8911 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Hector Hocsman
17

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 18 Filed 04/25/2001 Page 18 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail and facsimile to: Paul Scheck, Esquire, Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A., Attorneys for Defendant, Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc., at (407) 422-7368 (facsimile) Signature Plaza, Suite 900, 201 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, and Rachel Shonfield, Esquire, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami District Office, at (305) 536-4494 (facsimile) Two South Biscayne Blvd., One Biscayne Tower, Miami, Florida 33131, this 23RD day of April, 2001.
18

 
 Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 34 Filed 03/07/2002 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

!.-~ , ~
~~

r;aJ:o.::~
i ~ I ~:

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DMSION

-7 , 59 ?ilI? , •• r; 'l '\

o· i~d'f.f l ·

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

HECTOR HOCSMAN,

Intervenor PlaintitT, vs.
Case No. 6:01-cv-179-0rl-31JGG -vs-

FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Upon consideration of the Mediation Report (Doc. No. 33), it is

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule

3.08(b), subject to the right of any party to move the Court within sixty (60) days for the purpose

of entering a stipulated form of final order or judgment; or, on good cause shown, to reopen the

case for further proceedings. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. This case is removed

from the October trial docket. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida on this

""r1
, day of March,

2002.

Copies furnished to:

!t.r ~ ~

Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \
1;ytx:.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----~-----Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP DF ocI umL eEnt 34 COFPiledY03/07/2002
Date Printed: 03/07/2002

Page 2 of 2

Notice sent to:
Rachel H. Shonfield, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Paul J. Scheck, Esq.
Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.
Signature Plaza, Suite 900 201 South Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32801
Wayne L. Helsby, Esq.
Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.
Signature Plaza, Suite 900 201 South Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32801
Andrew G. Wedmore, Esq. Jill S. Schwartz & Assoc., P.A. 180 Park Ave. N., Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789

 
 Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, HECTOR HOCSMAN
Intervener-Plaintiff
v.
FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS, INC.
Defendant.

) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 6:01-CV-179-0RL-31-JGG ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

(\1
, I
r ,_,, ~"l 1• \

CONSENT DECREE

The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), filed this action on February 12, 2001, alleging a violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (''Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the bases of religion and retaliation. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendant, Fugleberg Koch Architects ("FKA"), violated Title VII, by subjecting Hector Hocsman to a hostile environment based on his religion, Jewish, and terminating him in retaliation for complaining about harassment.
This Consent Decree is designed to resolve the disputes between the parties with regard to this lawsuit. This Consent Decree is being entered by mutual agreement ofthe parties solely for the purpose ofsettlement ofdisputed claims, and that it shall not constitute an adjudication on the merits ofthis lawsuit and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant ofany violation of Title VII or any executive order, law, rule or regulation dealing with or in connection with discrimination

'.

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 2 of 11

based on religion or retaliation or of any other liability. In the interest of resolving this matter and

as a result of having engaged in extensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this

action should be resolved by entry ofthis Consent Decree. This Consent Decree is binding upon the

parties.

The parties agree that this Decree resolves all ofthe issues raised by EEOC Charge Number

150 AO 0698, the EEOC complaint in this case and/or the Intervener-Plaintiffs complaint. The

parties further agree that this Decree does not resolve any charges of discrimination that may be

pending with the EEOC other than the charges referenced in this Consent Decree.

Now, therefore, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this

Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

I. Jurisdiction

1. This Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter ofthis action and the parties for the purpose

of entering and enforcing this Decree.

2. Venue is proper.

3.

No party shall contest the jurisdiction of this Federal Court to enforce this Decree and its

terms or the right of the EEOC to seek the Court's enforcement of the Decree upon Defendant's

noncompliance with any of the terms of this Decree.

4. Defendant, its officers, managers, and employees are permanently enjoined from engaging

in any unlawful employment practices based on religion.

5. Defendant, its officers, managers, and employees are permanently enjoined from

discriminating against any individual who opposes any ofDefendant's practices which the employee

believes to be a violation of Title VII; or who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC

2

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 3 of 11
alleging violation(s) of such statute; who cooperates with the EEOC in the investigation and/or prosecution of any charge ofdiscrimination; or who cooperated in the investigation or prosecution ofthis case.
II. Circulation of Anti-Discrimination Policy Within 45 days of entry of this Consent Order, but no later than June 30, 2002, Defendant will certify by written declaration by FKA's Chairman of the Board, Lyle Fugleberg, that all personnel have received and reviewed the most recent EEO policy, attached as Exhibit A, and had an opportunity to ask any questions regarding the policy. The EEO policy will also be displayed on bulletin boards in FKA where other employee information is commonly posted. At the end of each six-month period, but no later than June 30th and December 30th annually, until the expiration ofthis Consent Order, FKA will certify by written declaration that the policy has remained posted
III. Trainin& on Anti-Discrimination Laws Defendant agrees to conduct annual training for all of its officers, managers and human resources personnel for the duration ofthis Decree. The first annual training shall occur within one month after distribution ofthe policy, referenced in section II, and no later than June 30, 2002. The trainings will focus on the requirements of Title VII as it relates to religious discrimination. The training will also include the topic of prevention of discrimination based on retaliation. These training sessions will last for at least four (4) hours in length and will be conducted by Allen, Norton, & Blue, P.A. Defendant also agrees to provide the EEOC with at least two weeks notice before it conducts each training session and to provide copies ofthe training materials to the EEOC. Defendant agrees that the EEOC, may be in attendance at training sessions. Defendant agrees that within 30 days after each training session, it will provide the EEOC with a list that sets forth the date of the training, subjects discussed, and the names and job titles of the individuals in attendance at
3

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 4 of 11

the training session. Defendant will pay for the trainer, his/her preparation time, and all materials

incident to the training.

IV. Postine

Defendant agrees to post within seven days from the date ofexecution ofthis Consent Decree

an eleven by fourteen inch copy of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B for the duration of the

Consent Decree.

v. Monitorine

A. FKA agrees to provide the EEOC with certification that it conducted the training referenced

in Section III within fourteen (14) days after each individual session occurs and no later than June 30th annually throughout the duration ofthe Decree.

B. FKA agrees to provide the EEOC with its first certification that it posted the notice

referenced in Section IV within seven (7) days from the Court's execution of this Decree. At the end of each six (6) month period, but no later than June 30th and December 30th

annually, following the execution date of this Decree, Defendant will certify in writing to

Plaintiff that the notice has remained posted for the entire preceding six-month period.

C. The Defendant shall submit written reports to the Commission every six (6) months and

thereafter for the life ofthis Consent Decree. The first report shall be received no later than

June 30, 2002. The final report shall be submitted to the Commission thirty days prior to the

expiration ofthe Consent Decree. Each report shall contain:

1. The names, addresses, phone numbers and employment status, including job title, of

each individual who has reported to any officer, manager, or human resources

personnel that s/he has been discriminated against based on religion or subjected to

unlawful retaliation.

4

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 5 of 11
2. Defendant will also provide infonnation on any investigation of complaints of discrimination based on religion, or complaints ofunlawful retaliation that have been initiated and the results of such investigation.
3. Such infonnation shall be reported to the EEOC at the expiration of each six month period, but no later than June 30th and December 30th annually, for the three year period following the execution date of this order.
D. The EEOC shall have the opportunity to interview employees, identified through submission of reports made pursuant to Section V.C, to monitor compliance with this Decree. Interviews may be conducted at Defendant's facilities during nonnal business hours to the extent such interviews do not interfere with Defendant's nonnal business operations.
E. FKA's Human Resources Director shall act as Defendant's representative for the purpose of coordinating the submission ofreports that are required herein. All reports and documents required to be delivered by FKA to the EEOC shall be mailed to: Rachel H. Shonfield, Senior Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two South Biscayne Blvd., Miami, Florida 33131. VI. Monetary Relief
A. Defendant hereby agrees to pay a total of $1 00,000 to resolve this litigation. FKA will pay to Hector Hocsman $55,728, representing compensatory damages and shall issue a fonn 1099 itemizing same. FKA will also pay $44,272 to Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, P.A., representing attorney's fees and costs, and shall issue a fonn 1099 itemizing same.
B. Within 14 days after the entry ofthe Court's Order, Defendant will mail, certified mail return receipt, checks to Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, P.A., for the amounts specified in Section VI.A. Concurrent with the mailing of the checks, Defendant agrees to copy the EEOC on 5

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 6 of 11
the checks and the 1099 fonns, and the certified return receipts. C. If the Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments, the Defendant shall:
(1) pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.c. Section 6621 (b) until the same is paid; and
(2) bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance or delay of the Defendant. VII. Enforcement
A. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek judicial enforcement of each aspect, tenn or provision of this Decree. The Commission will take whatever measures it deems appropriate to effectuate the enforcement of the tenns of this decree.
B. This Decree shall remain in effect for three years from the date of the Court's execution of this Decree. VIII. Costs FKA, Hector Hocsman, and the EEOC shall bear their own costs and attorney fees associated
with this litigation.
AM.;L
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, this l'2- day of~ 2002.
G~~
United States District Judge
6

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 7 of 11
Agreed: FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
~TEDSTATESEQUALE~LOYMENT
OPPOR~TY COMMISSION
by:l~&AAia~~
Delner rankhn-Thomas Regional Attorney EEOC Miami District Office 1 Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131
FOR THE INTERVENER:
. r;(.r;(~}
d' chwartz, Esq~
Jill chwartz & Associates, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
by:~~~~~~~~ Paul Scheck, Allen, Norto 201 South ge Avenue Orlando, FL 32801
7

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35

Filed 04/15/2002 Page 8 of 11 F~EMPLOYEEHANDBOOK8

(
101 Nature of Employment

Employment with FKA is voluntarily entered into, and the employee is free to resign at-will at any time, with or without cause. Similarly, FKA may terminate the employment relationship at-will at any time. with or without notice or cause, so long as there is no violation of applicable federal or state law.
Policies set forth in this handbook are not intended to create a contract, nor are they to be construed to constitute contractual obligations of any kind or a contract of employment between FKA and any of its employees. The provisions of the handbook have been developed at the discretion of management and. except for its policy of employment-at-will, may be amended or cancelled at any time, at FKA's sole discretion.
These provisions supersede all existing policies and practices and may not be amended or added to without the express written approval of the Board of Directors of FKA.
102 Employee Relations

FKA believes that the work conditions. wages, and benefits it offers to its employees are competitive with

(

those offered by other employers in this area and in this industry. If employees have concerns about work conditions or compensation, they are strongly encouraged to voice these concerns openly and directly to

their supervisors or the Human Resources Director.

Our experience has shown that when employees deal openly and directly with supervisors, the work environment can be excellent, communications can be clear, and attitudes can be positive. We believe that FKA amply demonstrates its commitment to employees by responding effectively to employee concerns.

In an effort to protect and maintain direct employer/employee communications, we will resist organization, within applicable legal limits, and protect the right of employees to speak for themselves.

If and when employees examine the option of representation by individuals outside FKA, however, we strongly encourage careful consideration of such related issues as rt:gular deductions from paychecks for representation fees, the potential for outside interference with supervisury relationships, and the commitment to comply with directions from third parties.

103 Equal Employment Opportunity

In order to provide equal employment and advancement opportunities to all individuals, employment decisions at FKA will be based on merit, qualifications, and abilities. FKA does not discriminate in employment opportunities or practices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status. national origin. age. disability. or any other characteristic protected by law.

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35

Filed 04/15/2002 Page 9 of 11
F~MPLOYEEHANDBOOK9

(
103 Equal Employment Opportunity Continued

FKA will make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with known disabilities unless doing so would result in an undue hardship. This policy governs all aspects of employment. including selection. job assignment. compensation. discipline. termination. and access to benefits and training. Any employees with questions or concerns about any type of discrimination in the workplace are encouraged to bring these issues to the attention of their immediate supervisor or the Human Resources Director. Employees can raise concerns and make reports without fear of reprisal. Anyone found to be engaging in any type of unlawful discrimination will be subject to disciplinary action. up to and including termination of employment.
104 Business Ethics and Conduct

The successful business operation and reputation of FKA is built upon the principles of fair dealing and ethical conduct of our employees. Our reputation for integrity and excellence requires careful observance of the spirit and letter of all applicable laws and regulations. as well as a scrupulous regard for the highest standards of conduct and personal integrity.

The continued success of FKA is dependent upon our clients' trust and we are dedicated to preserving that

(
"

trust. Employees owe a duty to FKA. its clients. and its shareholders to act in a way that will merit the

continued trust and confidence of the public.

FKA will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and expects its directors, officers, and employees to conduct business in accordance with the letter, spirit. and intent of all relevant laws and to refrain from any illegal, dishonest, or unethical conduct.

In general. the use of good judgment. based on high ethical principles. will guide you with respect to lines of acceptable conduct. If a situation arises where it is difficult to determine the proper course of action. the matter should be discussed openly with your immediate supervisor and. if necessary. with the CEO. COO or other Executive Committee member for advice and consultation.

Compliance with this policy of business ethics and conduct is the responsibility of every FKA employee. Disregarding or failing to comply with this standard of business ethics and conduct could lead to disciplinary action. up to and including possible termination of employment.

105 Hiring of Relatives

The employment of relatives in the same area of an organization may cause serious conflicts and problems with favoritism and employee morale. In addition to claims of partiality in treatment at work. personal conflicts from outside the work environment can be carried into day-to-day working relationshi ps.

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Document 35 Filed 04/15/2002 Page 10 of 11

NOTICE

POSTED PURSUANT TO A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION
In the Action of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND HECTOR HOCSMAN v.
FUGLEBERG KOCH ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED

This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree in EEOC and Hector Hocsman v. Fugleberg Koch Architects Incomorated, Case No.: 6:01-CV-179-0RL-31-JGG in the Middle District ofFlorida. Fugleberg Koch Architects Incorporated has agreed that it will not discriminate against employees in violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from discrimination based on race, religion, color, national origin, and sex in all aspects of their employment, including hiring, promotions and discharge.
Fugleberg Koch Architects Incorporated assures its employees that it supports Title VII, and that it will not take any action against an individual because he/she has exercised hislher rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.
This notice shall remain posted for three (3) years from the date signed. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under title VII, or any other federal anti-discrimination law, may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000 or (305)530-6001.

~ Signed this

day of----".-..'..I..I...a...;...'fI..:;..J,.;..&......---::_ _ _, 2002.

hA.,ihn\O," of the Board, Fugle.........::..r~~ h Architects, Inc.

Post Until - - - - -

Case 6:01-cv-00179-GAP Date Printed: 04/15/2002

DocFumI enLt 3E5

CFiO ledP04Y/15/2002

Page 11 of 11

Notice sent to:
Rachel H. Shonfield, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Paul J. Scheck, Esq. Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Signature Plaza, Suite 900 201 South Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32801
Wayne L. Helsby, Esq.
Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.
Signature Plaza, Suite 900 201 South Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32801
Andrew G. Wedmore, Esq. Jill S. Schwartz & Assoc., P.A. 180 Park Ave. N., Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?244010170022332-L_3...
CLOSED, FRC, JGG
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Orlando) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:01-cv-00179-GAP

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Fugleberg Koch Assigned to: Judge Gregory A. Presnell Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Intervenor Plaintiff Hector Hocsman
V. Defendant Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc.

Date Filed: 02/12/2001 Date Terminated: 03/07/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Rachel H. Shonfield Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 Fax: 305/536-4494 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew G. Wedmore Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, P.A. 180 North Park Ave., Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 407/647-8911 Fax: 407/628-4994 Email: awedmore@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul J. Scheck Shutts & Bowen LLP 300 S. Orange Ave., Suite 1000 P.O. Box 4956 Orlando, FL 32802-4956 407/423-3200 Ext 6730 Fax: 407/425-8316 Email: pscheck@shutts-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 5

5/22/2007 9:28 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?244010170022332-L_3...

Mediator
Mark S. Walker TERMINATED: 03/05/2002

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wayne L. Helsby Allen, Norton & Blue, PA Suite 100 1477 W Fairbanks Ave Winter Park, FL 32789 407/571-2152 Fax: 407/571-1496 Email: whelsby@anblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark S. Walker Fraxedas Mediation Firm 1051 Winderly Place, #201 Maitland, FL 32751 407/661-5757 Email: peacemkr90@aol.com PRO SE

Date Filed 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/13/2001 02/13/2001 03/05/2001
03/13/2001 03/13/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT alleging violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act filed; jury demand (nbl) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: James G. Glazebrook (nbl) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Fugleberg Koch . Consent(s) issued. (nbl) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
2 RELATED CASE ORDER/NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 TRACK 2. No later than (11) days from the date of this order counsel shall file their certificates. (ctc) (nbl) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
3 INTERESTED PERSON ORDER: Within (11) days from the date of this order the parties shall file their certificate. ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff shall show cause within (11) days from the date of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to respond to the Interested Person Order; Response due on 3/19/01 for U.S. E.E.O.C. ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 03/05/2001)
5 RESPONSE by U.S. E.E.O.C. to [4-1] order to show cause. (nbl) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
6 CERTIFICATE of Interested Persons by U.S. E.E.O.C. Re: [3-1] order (nbl) (Entered: 03/13/2001)

2 of 5

5/22/2007 9:28 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?244010170022332-L_3...

03/13/2001 03/19/2001 04/03/2001 04/04/2001 04/06/2001 04/09/2001 04/09/2001 04/10/2001 04/10/2001 04/11/2001
04/11/2001
04/13/2001 04/25/2001 04/26/2001
04/30/2001 04/30/2001

7 NOTICE of pendency (No Related) by U.S. E.E.O.C. of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (nbl) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
8 MOTION by Hector Hocsman to intervene as plaintiff (nbl) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
9 ORDER granting [8-1] motion to intervene as plaintiff ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 4/3/01 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 04/03/2001)
10 INTERESTED PERSON ORDER: Within (11) days from the date of this order intervenor-plaintiff HECTOR HOCSMAN shall file his certificate. ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
11 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT (nbl) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
12 NOTICE of Pendency (No Related) by U.S. E.E.O.C. of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (nbl) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
13 CERTIFICATE of Interested Persons by U.S. E.E.O.C. Re: [3-1] order (nbl) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
14 CERTIFICATE of Interested Persons, by Fugleberg Koch Re: [3-1] order (nbl) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
15 NOTICE of Pendency (No Related) by Fugleberg Koch of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (nbl) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
16 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 5/28/01 ; Discovery cutoff 2/28/02 ; dispositive motion filing deadline for 3/29/02 Pretrial statement due on or before 7/1/02 ; Pretrial conference for 4:00 7/22/02 ; Jury trial set for 9:00 8/5/02 ; Scheduled for Judge Gregory A. Presnell ( signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 4/10/01 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
16 ORDER referring case to mediation. Appointing Mark S. Walker as mediator. Conduct hearing by February 28, 2002 Lead counsel, Rachel H. Shonfield, to coordinate dates. ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 4/10/01 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
17 ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to [1-1] complaint by Fugleberg Koch (rdo) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
18 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Intervenor Hector Hocsman amending [1-1] complaint; jury demand (rdo) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
19 ORDER TO SHOW cause for failure to respond to an Interested Persons Order (doc. 10) filed April 4, 2001. Intervenor Plaintiff Hector Hocsman has failed to respond and is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed: Response due on 5/10/01 (Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell) ctc (rdo) (Entered: 04/26/2001)
20 CERTIFICATE of Interested Persons by Hector Hocsman Re: [19-1], [10-1] order (nbl) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
21 NOTICE of Pendency (No Related) by Hector Hocsman of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (nbl) (Entered: 04/30/2001)

3 of 5

5/22/2007 9:28 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?244010170022332-L_3...

04/30/2001 05/29/2001 07/03/2001 07/17/2001 07/20/2001 07/24/2001 10/26/2001 11/09/2001 11/13/2001 12/26/2001 01/08/2002 01/15/2002
01/15/2002 03/05/2002 03/07/2002
03/07/2002

22 RESPONSE by Hector Hocsman to [19-1] order to show cause. (nbl) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
23 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by Fugleberg Koch to [18-1] amended complaint (nbl) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
24 NOTICE of Court Order and MOTION by Fugleberg Koch with memorandum in support to stay action (nbl) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
25 MEMORANDUM by Hector Hocsman in opposition to [24-1] motion to stay action (nbl) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
26 RESPONSE by U.S. E.E.O.C. to [24-1] motion to stay action (nbl) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
27 ORDER denying [24-1] motion to stay action ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 7/23/01 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
28 NOTICE of Court Order and MOTION by Fugleberg Koch to stay action (nbl) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
29 RESPONSE by U.S. E.E.O.C. to [28-1] motion to stay action (nbl) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
30 ORDER denying [28-1] motion to stay action ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
31 JOINT MOTION by U.S. E.E.O.C., Fugleberg Koch and Hector Hocsman to extend scheduling order deadlines referred to Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook (rdo) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
MOTION(S) referred: [31-1] joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines referred to Judge Gregory A. Presnell (nbl) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
32 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 4/30/02 ; dispositive motion filing deadline for 5/31/02 Pretrial statement due on or before 8/21/02 ; Pretrial conference for 4:30 9/18/02 ; Jury trial set for 9:00 10/1/02 ; Scheduled for Judge Gregory A. Presnell ( signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 1/15/02 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
32 AMENDED ORDER referring case to mediation. Conduct hearing by June 25, 2002 Lead counsel, Rachel H. Shonfield, to coordinate dates. ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 1/15/02 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
33 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation conference held: February 28, 2002. J. Joaquin Fraxedas, mediator. Hearing outcome: Settled (nbl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
34 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: This case has been settled through mediation; this case is dismissed without prejudice subject to the right of any party to move the Court within (60) days to reopen the case upon good cause shown; all pending motions are denied as moot. ( Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 3/6/02 ) ctc (nbl) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
CASE CLOSED. (nbl) (Entered: 03/07/2002)

4 of 5

5/22/2007 9:28 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?244010170022332-L_3...

04/15/2002

35 CONSENT DECREE by U.S. E.E.O.C., Fugleberg Koch, Hector Hocsman (Signed by Judge Presnell on 4/12/02) (nbl) (Entered: 04/15/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/22/2007 10:29:25

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 6:01-cv-00179-GAP 0.24

5 of 5

5/22/2007 9:28 AM