UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JOSHUA SHEPARD Case No.: 

Plaintiff,

v. COMPLAINT

CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

Plaintiff, JOSHUA SHEPARD, through his counsel, Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, 

hereby complains of the Defendant, CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, upon information and 

belief, as follows:

NATURE OF CASE

1. Plaintiff complains pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”) and Florida Civil Rights

Act of 1992, Section 760.10 et seq. (“FCRA”) seeks damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff 

suffered as a result of being exposed to national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, 

and retaliation for complaints made as a whistleblower and for his exercise of paternity leave. 

2. This action is to redress Defendants’ unlawful employment practices against Plaintiff, 

including Defendants’ unlawful discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff because of his 

national origin and Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiff due to his complaints of discrimination, 

all leading to his constructive discharge. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for monetary damages and injunctive relief pursuant to FCRA § 760.10, and 

Section 1981. 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

4. This Court has jurisdiction of the claims herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as 

this action involves federal questions regarding deprivation of Plaintiff’s civil rights under Section 

1981. 

5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related claims arising under state law 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because Defendants were 

located in this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this 

action, including the unlawful employment practices alleged herein occurred in this district.

7. Plaintiff filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

8. Plaintiff’s right to sue was issued on February 7, 2020. This Complaint is filed within ninety 

(90) days of the issuance of the right to sue. 

9. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.

PARTIES

10. At all material times, Plaintiff JOSHUA SHEPARD (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is 

an individual British man residing in the State of Florida.

11. At all material times, Plaintiff identifies himself as a British man. 

12. Plaintiff is a married man who has a child. 

13. At all material times, Defendant, CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH (hereinafter referred to 

as “Defendant” or “Sunny Isles”), is a municipality duly existing by the virtues and laws of 

the State of Florida that does business in the State of Florida.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

14. At all material times, Plaintiff identifies himself as a British man. 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

15. Plaintiff is a married man with a child. 

16. On or about November 15, 2014 Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a maintenance employee. 

17. Throughout the course of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate 

treatment. While other non-British employees were given appropriate pay and title increases/ 

promotions, Plaintiff was required to do various jobs outside his job description without any 

additional pay or amendment to his title. 

18. Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff, but rather promoted other less-qualified non-British 

individuals over Plaintiff. 

19. Plaintiff complained of the disparate treatment on several occasions, but no action was ever 

taken to remedy the situation. Rather, the treatment became worse following Plaintiff’s 

complaints. 

20. Plaintiff was told he should just “be happy [Plaintiff] has a job”. 

21. Plaintiff was also threatened with termination should he continue to complain or seek better 

paid positions. 

22. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff applied for the Road Sweeper Truck position. Defendant 

advised Plaintiff he needed a CDL Class A driver’s license to have that position, so he earned 

that certification. However, Defendant still promoted another non-British person who hadn’t 

complained to Human Resources over Plaintiff. The person who was promoted did not have 

a CDL Class A license and was otherwise less qualified. 

23. On multiple occasions, other employees who were less qualified than Plaintiff were promoted 

to the Road Sweeper Truck position over Plaintiff – those individuals were not British and 

had not complained to Human Resources. 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

24. By way of example, an employee who worked for Defendant for one week was promoted over 

Plaintiff when Plaintiff had been with the company for approximately one and a half years at 

the time. 

25. At all material times, non-British employees in a similar position as Plaintiff were treated 

much better than Plaintiff despite Plaintiff being more qualified. 

26. Throughout his course of employment with Defendant (approximately five years), comments 

were made about Plaintiff’s national origin. By way of example, supervisors and other 

employees would say “Gooday mate” or “hello mate” to Plaintiff while laughing in an attempt 

to embarrass Plaintiff. 

27. When Plaintiff’s direct supervisor left his employment with Defendant, he advised Plaintiff to 

“be careful” because they are “going to come for [Plaintiff]”. 

28. Plaintiff complained of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct to the City Attorney but 

was subsequently passed over for additional potential promotions and no action was taken to 

remedy the situation. 

29. Following his complaints, Plaintiff’s wife became pregnant and gave birth to their child. 

Plaintiff exercised his paternity leave but was threatened with termination for doing so. 

30. Defendant’s leave rules allow for conversion of vacation time to sick leave time for paternity 

leave, which is what Plaintiff did. However, Plaintiff was written up for doing so while other 

employees were able to do the same thing with no ramifications. 

31. The above are just some of the examples of unlawful and discriminatory conduct to which 

Defendant subjected Plaintiff. 

32. The discriminatory and retaliatory conduct was of an ongoing and continual nature. 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

33. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff felt extremely humiliated, degraded, victimized, 

embarrassed, and emotionally distressed. 

34. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory and intolerable treatment, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer severe emotional distress and physical ailments.

35. As a result of the acts and conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will 

continue to suffer the loss of income, the loss of a salary, bonuses, benefits and other 

compensation which such employment entails. Plaintiff has also suffered future pecuniary 

losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 

AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII

36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation made in the above 

paragraphs of this complaint.

37. Title VII states in relevant parts as follows: § 2000e-2. [Section 703](a): 

“Employer practices: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – (1) 

to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate 

against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges 

of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national 

origin.”

38. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §2000e et 

seq., by discriminating against Plaintiff because of his national origin. 

39. The discriminatory conduct directed at Plaintiff resulted in disparate treatment of the 

Plaintiff compared to those non-British employees. 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional discriminatory conduct in 

violation of the Title VII, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages including 

lost wages and benefits, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, suffering, loss of dignity, 

humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary 

losses.

41. Conduct of Defendant and/or its agents deprived Plaintiff of his statutory rights guaranteed 

under federal law.

42. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendant.

AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII

43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation made in the above 

paragraphs of this complaint.

44. Plaintiff was repeatedly passed over for promotions compared to those non-British, less 

qualified employees. 

45. Following Plaintiff’s complaints of the disparate and discriminatory treatment, Plaintiff was 

further discriminated against. 

46. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) 

provides that it shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer:

“(1) to ... discriminate against any of their employees ... because [s]he has opposed any 

practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because [s]he has 

made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, 

proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

47. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practice prohibited by 42 U.S.C. $2000e et seq. by 

retaliating against Plaintiff with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment

because she opposed Defendants’ unlawful employment practices.

AS A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

DISCRIMINATION UNDER STATE LAW

48. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations stated in the above 

numerated paragraphs.

49. As a result of his national origin, Defendant subjected and permitted its employees to expose 

Plaintiff to discrimination. 

50. The FCRA prohibits Defendant Company from discriminating against Plaintiff because of his 

national origin with regard to discharge, employee compensation, and other terms, conditions, 

and privileges of employment. 

51. On a consistent basis throughout the course of his employment, Plaintiff’s coworkers and 

supervisors made discriminatory comments about Plaintiff pertaining to his national origin. 

52. Defendant violated the FCRA by discriminating against Plaintiff and subjecting Plaintiff to an 

unlawful discriminatory and harassing environment based his national origin, of which the 

Defendant were fully aware of as Plaintiff made Defendant aware of this conduct. 

53. The discrimination directed at Plaintiff was sufficiently severe and pervasive so as to 

unreasonably interfere with Plaintiff’s physical and/or psychological health, work 

performance and to create and intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment.

54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional discriminatory conduct in 

violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages including lost 

wages and benefits, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, suffering, loss of dignity, 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary 

losses.

55. Defendant’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard 

of Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA.

56. Conduct of Defendants and/or their agents deprived Plaintiff of his statutory rights guaranteed 

under state law.

57. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendants.

AS A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

RETALIATION UNDER STATE LAW

58. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations stated in the above 

numerated paragraphs.

59. Plaintiff complained of discriminatory treatment based on his national origin. Following those 

complaints, Plaintiff was treated worse by Defendant. 

60. Plaintiff complained to Human Resources and to the City Attorney. 

61. At all times relevant, Plaintiff acted in good faith and with the objective and subjective belief 

that violations by Defendant’s employees of FCRA had occurred. 

62. At all times material, Defendant allowed the discriminatory practices to continue in the work 

environment.

63. At all times relevant, the unlawful discrimination by Defendant’s employees against Plaintiff 

in the terms and conditions of his employment because she opposed a practice made unlawful 

by FCRA which would not have occurred but for that opposition.

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

64. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practice prohibited by the FCRA by retaliating 

against Plaintiff with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of 

his opposition to the unlawful employment practices of Defendants. 

65. At all times relevant, Defendant’s employees acted intentionally and with reckless disregard 

of Plaintiff’s rights protected by FCRA.

66. At all material times, the employer exhibiting discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff 

possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

employment with Defendant.

67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional retaliatory conduct in violation 

of the FCRA, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages including lost wages and 

benefits, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, suffering, loss of dignity, humiliation, 

embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

68. Defendant’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard 

of Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA.

69. Conduct of Defendant and/or its agents deprived Plaintiff of her statutory rights guaranteed 

under federal law.

70. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendant.

AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

PATERNITY DISCRIMINATION

71. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations stated in the above 

numerated paragraphs.

72. On or about NEED DATE, Plaintiff asked his supervisor about paternity leave. Plaintiff was 

told, in line with Defendant’s policies, that he can convert vacation time to sick leave, which 

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

he did. While other non-British employees were not punished for doing so, Plaintiff was 

written up. 

73. Defendant further threatened to terminate Plaintiff upon his return from paternity leave in 

retaliation for his use of leave he was entitled to. 

74. Conduct of Defendant and/or its agents deprived Plaintiff of her statutory rights guaranteed 

under federal law.

75. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendant.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against Defendant SUNNY 

ISLES for damages, including reinstatement, compensatory, and consequential damages if 

subsequently permitted by this Court, and all equitable relief, in addition to all litigation expenses 

and costs, including attorneys' fees. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues to be tried. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment against the Defendant for all 

damages including compensatory, emotional distress, statutory, punitive damages, attorneys fees 

and costs in an amount to be determined at the time of trial and awarding Plaintiff such other and 

further relief as the Court may deem equitable, just and proper to remedy the Defendant’s unlawful 

conduct.

Dated: May 7, 2020

 Miami, Florida 

Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC

By: _/s/ Sarah Waters ______

Sarah Waters, Esq. 

FL Bar No. 118496

701 Brickell Avenue

Suite 1310 

Miami, FL 33131 

swaters@dereksmithlaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-21926-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 11 of 11