Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-21843

GINETTE LUXAMA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a 

municipality governed under 

the laws of the State of Florida,

Defendant.

____________________________/

COMPLAINT AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff GINETTE LUXAMA, through her undersigned counsel, sues Defendant

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipality governed under the laws of the State of Florida,

for damages, and in support thereof alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended (“Title VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, 

Fla. Stat. § 760.01, et seq., as amended (“FCRA”). Plaintiff suffered as a result of being 

exposed to sex/gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, hostile work 

environment, and wrongful termination.

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 because this action involves federal questions. The Court also has supplemental 

jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As further set forth 

below, this is an action with claims of sex discrimination and unlawful retaliation under 

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

federal and state law.

3. Plaintiff GINETTE LUXAMA is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, 

and is competent to bring this action. 

4. Defendant CITY OF MIAMI BEACH is a municipality governed under the 

laws of the State of Florida, and is sui juris.

5. Venue in the Southern District of Florida is proper because the workplace in 

which the unlawful practices were committed is located in the Southern District of Florida.

6. All conditions precedent to bringing this action, if any, have occurred, have 

been waived, or would be a useless act and are accordingly waived.

7. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from 

the Defendant, including but not limited to the provisions set forth in the FCRA and Title 

VII.

8. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned law firm to represent her in this 

action, and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Plaintiff GINETTE LUXAMA brings this action against the CITY OF MIAMI 

BEACH for sex discrimination in the workplace in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, 

Fla. Stat. § 760.01, et seq., as amended.

10. GINETTE LUXAMA was employed as a financial analyst for the CITY OF 

MIAMI BEACH until she was unlawfully terminated by the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH on or 

about May 1, 2019.

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

11. Ms. Williams has a history of sexually harassing Plaintiff, as well as 

demeaning and harassing her.

12. On Mother’s Day 2017, Ms. Williams sent Plaintiff a message stating “IT’S 

LIKE MY MOM ALWAYS SAID ... ‘What the fuck is wrong with you?’”: 

13. Another instance where Ms. Williams’ sexually harassing comments were 

confirmed in writing stems from a March 2018 conversation in the office, in which Ms. 

Williams referred to Plaintiff’s body as “Secretariat.” Ms. Williams knew Plaintiff was 

offended by her comments and proceeded to text Plaintiff on a weekend about the 

exchange: 

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

14. On or about May 29, 2018, Ms. Williams sent a text message to Plaintiff that 

contained a photograph of Plaintiff that Plaintiff had posted to her social media account in 

October 2014, along with an accompanying statement by Ms. Williams that Plaintiff is “hot 

stuff.”:

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

15. During that same text conversation, Ms. Williams also inappropriately 

indicated that the dress from that photo, “probably fits even better,” and added a winking 

emoji with a tongue hanging out:

16. Moreover, in the weeks and months leading up to her termination, GINETTE 

LUXAMA was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment. This sexual harassment 

adversely affected Plaintiff’s employment, performance, and created an intimidating, 

hostile, and/or offensive work environment for her. The sexual harassment mostly came 

from Plaintiff’s direct supervisor, Ms. Allison Williams.

17. Ms. Williams would regularly make unwelcome sexually harassing 

comments and other conduct of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Touching Plaintiff’s buttocks;

b. Adjusting Plaintiff’s dresses and outfits, including adjusting areas of 

clothing covering Plaintiff’s breasts and buttocks;

c. Instructing Plaintiff that she is never to bend over in the workplace –

even to pick up any item she may have dropped – because Plaintiff’s body is 

sexually arousing and harassing to other employees;

d. Instructing Plaintiff that she is never to stand alone next to employees 

because Plaintiff’s body is sexually arousing and harassing to other employees; 

and

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

e. Making sexually harassing and discriminatory statements to Plaintiff 

such as:

i. “You are a walking sexual harassment case.”

ii. “Your ass is the devil.”

iii. “You look like a call girl.”

iv. “You must have been a stripper.”

v. “You have too much ass.”

vi. If I looked like you, I would not work. I would just let a man 

fuck me and suck his dick.”

18. Ms. Allison Williams also threatened Plaintiff to her face by exclaiming, “I will 

fire your ass and the City of Miami Beach has lawyers to make sure you will not win any 

suit against the City. No one will believe you because I have made a file on you.”

19. Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission and Florida Commission on Human Relations. The EEOC issued 

Plaintiff a Right to Sue notice on February 26, 2020.

COUNT I

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

20. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 19

as if fully set forth herein. 

21. Plaintiff belongs to a protected class, as she is a woman. 

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

22. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff by treating her 

unfavorably and/or less favorably because of her sex; including by harassing the 

Plaintiff, sexually and otherwise; making sexually inappropriate and demeaning 

statements to and about the Plaintiff; and inappropriately touching the Plaintiff in a 

sexual manner, among other things.

23. Plaintiff suffered as a result of being exposed to sex/gender discrimination, 

sexual harassment, sexual assault, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination.

24. Defendant treated similarly situated, male employees more favorably than 

Plaintiff.

25. Defendant had no legitimate business reason for their discriminatory 

behaviors and actions against Plaintiff. 

26. Defendant had no legitimate business reason for taking adverse actions 

against Plaintiff. 

27. Alternatively, if Defendant did have any legitimate business reason(s) to 

take any of the aforementioned adverse actions against Plaintiff, then discrimination 

was at least an additional reason for the aforementioned adverse actions against 

Plaintiff, and Defendant, at best, possessed mixed motives.

28. In discriminating against Plaintiff, Defendant acted with malice and 

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 

29. As a result of the Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff has 

suffered damages.

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GINETTE LUXAMA demands judgment against 

Defendant CITY OF MIAMI BEACH for all allowable remedies (equitable and/or at law) 

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all allowable compensatory 

damages, liquidated damages, damages for emotional distress, mental anguish, and 

loss of dignity; and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; taxable costs allowable by law; 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and such other and further relief as this Court 

deems just and proper.

COUNT II

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE

FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992

30. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 19

as if fully set forth herein

31. Plaintiff belongs to a protected class, as she is a woman. 

32. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff by treating her 

unfavorably and/or less favorably because of her sex; including by harassing the 

Plaintiff, sexually and otherwise; making sexually inappropriate and demeaning 

statements to and about the Plaintiff; and inappropriately touching the Plaintiff in a 

sexual manner, among other things.

33. Plaintiff suffered as a result of being exposed to sex/gender discrimination, 

sexual harassment, sexual assault, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination.

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

34. Defendant treated similarly situated, male employees more favorably than 

Plaintiff.

35. Defendant had no legitimate business reason for their discriminatory 

behaviors and actions against Plaintiff. 

36. Defendant had no legitimate business reason for taking adverse actions 

against Plaintiff. 

37. Alternatively, if Defendant did have any legitimate business reason(s) to 

take any of the aforementioned adverse actions against Plaintiff, then discrimination 

was at least an additional reason for the aforementioned adverse actions against 

Plaintiff, and Defendant, at best, possessed mixed motives.

38. In discriminating against Plaintiff, Defendant acted with malice and 

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s statutorily protected rights. 

39. As a result of the Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff has 

suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GINETTE LUXAMA demands judgment against 

Defendant CITY OF MIAMI BEACH for all allowable remedies (equitable and/or at law) 

pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, all allowable compensatory damages, 

liquidated damages, damages for emotional distress, mental anguish, and loss of 

dignity; and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; taxable costs allowable by law; 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and such other and further relief as this Court 

deems just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

40. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

THE BURTON FIRM, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff Ginette Luxama

2875 N.E. 191 Street, Suite 403

Miami, Florida 33180

P: 305-705-0888 | F: 305-705-0008

pleadings@theburtonfirm.com

rb@theburtonfirm.com

mburton@theburtonfirm.com

 By: /s/ Marc A. Burton

Richard J. Burton Fla. Bar No. 179337

Marc A. Burton Fla. Bar No. 95318

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 10 of 10