M

UNITED STATES DISTRIG COURT SOUTHERN DISTRIG OF FLQRIDA

Case No. - Civ (Judge's Last Name/Magistrate's Last Name)

LEE P SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff

VS.

FILED BY D

.C.

MA$/ 1 i 2220

CANGELA E LEBK , NOBLE

U s, DIS . s. D, OF Ft T c-r .

.A, - F'rt LAUD.

TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPOM TION,

Form erly know n as

Branch Banking & Trust Company (BB&T),

now known as

Truist Financial Corporation

and

Lisa Lebron, form er Sales Service Leaderfor BB&T,

x-fcurrently known as

Truist Financial Corporation

Defendantts)

COM PG INT

Plaintiff, LEE P SHAPIRO, ad ing in a pro se capacity, hereby sues

Defendants, TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION FORM ERLY KNOW N

As Branch Banking & Trust Company (BB&T), now known as

Truist Financial Corporation and Lisa Lebron, Sales Service

Leader for BB&T, now em ployed w ith Truist Financial

Corporation and alleges:

JURISDIW ION AND VENUE

20cv60961 WPD

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 1 of 16
1. Jurisdidion of this Court is invoked pursuant to the com plaints involving federal statutes and

Iaws.

2. Defendant's facility where Plaintiffwas employed is located within the jurisdiuion of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Florida Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, LEE SHAPIRO (hereinafter ''Plaintifr or ''SHAPIRO'''') is a citizen of the State of Flor # ida

and is legally com petent to handle his own affairs.

4. Branch Bank & Trust now known as Truist Financial Services ( Truist ) is a corporation whose

principal address and corporate headquarters are in Charlotte North Carolina, w ith a Iarge

num ber of facilities nationw ide, including but not lim ited to the facility w here Plaintiff was

employed, Iocated at 1834 W Hillsboro t lvd. Deedield Beach, Florida 33442 Broward County,

Florida

5. Truist (formerly Branch Banking & Trust Company, also known as BB&T), at aII material times

conducted and continues to conduct business in Broward County, Florida.

6. Defendant Truist is engaged in the financial services industry and has had fifty (50) or more

employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more weeks in the current or preceding

calendar year.

BACKGROUND

7. June 8, 2008 Defendant Truist hired Shapiro as a Branch Manager (various titles of his job

changed during his em ployment with BB&T, now Truist, but his title was Vice President

Community Banking Market Leader IV during the period covering this complaint).

8. Shapiro performed his duties as a Financial Center Manager/ Community Banking Market

Leader IV for over llyears for Branch Banking & Trust Com pany, aka BB&T, and is now known as

Truist Financial Services. He m anaged the W est Hillsboro Financial Center for his entire

em ploym ent with BB&T nka Truist, and in or around Septem ber 2013 until February of 2019, he

became a ''Cluster'' market Ieader (which meant he was managing two financial centers) and also

concurrently managed the 101 N Federal Hwy Deerfield Beach FI. financial center. Additionally,

he also had responsibility for the ''101 Street and M ilitary Trail'' Financial Center's deposits and

clients, when it was merged in to his financial center in or around June of 2018. Therefore, in

essence at one period of tim e he w as actually m anaging three financial centers.

10. During his employment with Defendant BB&T/-rruist, Shapiro received ONLY positive Annual

and Sem i-Annual pedormance evaluations, was consistently awarded pay raises and was overall

an excellent em ployee. Only until Lisa Lebron Sales and Service Leader for BB&T became M r.

Shapiro's Boss in early 2018, did he begin to receive any type of perform ance corred ive actions

neitherverbal orwritten, during his entire tenure with BB&-r/-rruist.

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 2 of 16
(Copies of the performance evaluations are kept electronically and can be obtained from the

Human Sytems/Human Resources department upon request)

1, Lee P Shapiro, ''Shapiro'', plaintiff, in the above styled cause, sue defendantls): Truist and Lisa

Lebron.

This action is w ith resped to the allegations covered by the accom panying Laws below :

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AND FAW S PROVIDING PROOF

6. Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Au of 1967, (Pub. L. 90-202)

(ADEA), as amended, as it appeais in volume 29 of the United States Code, beginning at

sed ion 621.

February 7, 2020, the EEOC issued a Right-To-sue Letter to Mr. Shapiro with respect io his claims

of Age Discrimination under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. (Exhibit 2).

M r Shapiro had always received favorable annual and sem i-annual reviews, until M s Lebron

becam e his direct supervisor in or around the beginning of 2008. M r Shapiro in his 11 plus years

at BB&Ts ruist had never received any corrective action warnings, neither verbal or written, but

under M s Lebron's direct supervision had been given two verbal and three written warnings

(Exhibits X, Z, Y, and Q).

M r. Shapiro provided rebuttals to aII of the corrective ad ion warnings, as he could prove with

facts lExhibits C, 1, Y, T, 0, E) that the data contained in these corrective action performance

warnings, was false and contrived.

The Negative ratings and corrective actions began in early 2018. M s Lebron rated Shapiro a

''Meets Expectations'' status on his 2018 annual review (Exhibit Y). However, oddly Ms Lqbron

rated him below expedations on several categories within the reviqw .

In the past' when M r Shapiro received the overall performance rating of a m eets or exceeds

expectations, there were never any negative com ments contained within.

These below expectations ratings did not make sense or have merit. As an exam ple, M r Shapiro

was given a below expectations on his productivity categorw even though he received a bonus in

2018, BECAUSE OF HIS PRODUCTIVIW .

Another odd rating was that he received a negative below expectations com ment on this review

with respect to the Ieadership category (Exhibit Y), but her comments in the Summary sedion of

the review said he was ''well suited in his position''.

Yhese comments on the review also were totally opposite of the responsibilities he was given in

his position: he was given three branches to m anage at one tim e, his staff was loyal and had been

with him since he became manager, he w as given problem em ployees to m anage and provide a

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 3 of 16
safe haven (as they could not co-exist in other branches and requested a transfer to his financial

center).

Another insensitive and odd com ment M s Lebron constantlytold M rshapirowasthat his personal

situation w as not unique and that many people go through w hat he went through. This was in

response to when on January 19, 2017, M r Shapiro suddenly and tragically Iost his wifê of 37 years

to cancer only ten days after being adm itted in the hospital. Her death catapulted his daughter in

to a downw ard spiral of substance abuse, with several overdose attempts, and the necessity of

him to be primary caregiver for his grandson as well as m anage his daughter's recovery.

M s Lebron, w ho was well aw are of his personal situation, comm ented about this on his 2018

review, stating that although he endured this personal tragedy, his personal and work balance

needed to improve. (Exhibit C)

During her tenure as M r Shapiro's boss, he was never offered any official prom otions for the

additional duties she had asked him to take on, yet he was told he w as Iacking in certain key

qualities that market Ieaders should possess (mentioned in his 2018 review, as well as in the

performance corrective actions that followed).

IN 2019, BB&I- announced a merger with SunTrust Bank. The atmosphere was very tense, as with

aII m ergers, the employees of both merging com panies were not sure of theirfuture with the new

organization that would be form ed.

M os't of the newer m arket leaders that had been hired to replace retiring or fired market Ieaders

at BB&T in the Iast few years from 2017 forward, w ere m uch younger than M r Shapiro.

ln Early 2018, M r Shapiro began noticing that M s Lebron was blatantly treating him differently in

m arket leader m eetingswhethertheywere held on the phone, W ebex, or in person. Her behavior

w as condescending, rude, dem eaning, unprofessional, her responses w ere short authoritative,

and her tone was angry. She denied a request to purchase a $4.00 ethernet cable to run M r

Shapiro's Iaptop computer, necessary for use in his position. He could not work w ithout it.

She accused him of always taking off Fridays as sick days during the 2018 calendar year. (Exhibit

C, EMAIL dated M ay 29, 2019 outlines the entire situation)

This behavior prom pted M r Shapiro to arrange a m eeting to see w hy this is taking place, and to

see if this treatm ent could end. He contacted M s Kelly Bilancione the Regional Associate Relations

Manager, as her position would be the corred objective mediator needed to moderate this

m eeting. M s Bilancione refused, to conduct the m eeting, saying that she did not perform this

function (even though BB&T procedure mentioned her role as one of the people to see in such a

situation). She suggested arranging the meeting with Ms Lebron himself. He did this and after a

m arket Ieader m eeting, he and M s Lebron met to discuss her treatm ent of him .

M r. Shapiro did not waste any time at the m eeting and im m ediately asked M s Lebron w hy she

wastreating him dilerentlythan the other m arket Ieaders she m anaged, and she did not hesitate,

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 4 of 16
answ ering that she believed that M rshapiro was Iyingw hen he said he w as on business calls aw ay

from the financial center. She told him she did not believe he was doing what his reports said. He

told her im m ediately that she was com pletely incorrect, he was a very hard w orker, and further

replied that if lhis were true, she would have discovered concrete proof, and he would have been

fired by now .

In conclusion of the meeting M r Shapiro asked M s Lebron if this ''cleared the air''. She replied,

NO! (Exhibit C, EMAIL dated May 29, 2019 outlines the entire situation)

Other exam ples of her discrim inatow treatment toward him included but were not Iim ited to:

- Levying a verbal warning to him for being absent on June 22, 2018, because on M ay 4, 2018

(Exhibit X) he texted his absence notification to her, rather than verbally calling her. There was no

form al procedure set up to notify everw ne in her region of her preference to be called until 6

months later in a memo to her entire team (Exhibit W January 9, 2019 email to aII of her Market

Leaders) Why was I being singled out and given a verbal warning in my personnel file on June 22,

2018, for a policy not instituted until January 9, 2019. The BB&T policy and procedure m anual

specifically states that an absence or tardiness notification need must be communicated in a

manner previously established by the manager. This was not.

- Placing Shapiro on written warning (Exhibit Q) M arch 6, 2018, for buying Iunch for the staff

Iocated at 101 N Federal Hwy, Deerfield Beach Fl 33442, in an effort to thank them for their

service, telling him he was offering ap employee cash. This is not true and as the employees knew

that M r Shapiro was there to buy them Iunch with the money given to Lauren Berlin. This Branch

Banker called corporate investigations to accuse M r Shapiro of offering her money. M s Berlin w as

placed on final corrective action by M er Shapiro for her perform ance and other policy violations

and w as very angry at M r Shapiro. Furthermore, there is no policy w hich psohibits M r Shapiro

from buying Iunch for his team .

- M r Shapiro w as also admonished in the M arch 6, 2019 w ritten w arning for not comm unicating

his absences from prior discussions according to the policy she set up. However, there w:re no

further instances of M r Shapiro violating her procedure of notification preference to be noted in

this written warning, and BB&T Policy (Exhibit X) indicates that it is acceptable for an employee

to have Iatitude in the com m unication of these occurrences if it involves the illness of the

em ployee or person he is a caregiver fpr.

- M r Shapiro's 2018 Annual review rated him as Meets Expectations (Exhibit Y), but Ms. Lebron

incorredly stated that I only attended one market Ieader meeting, and that attendance at these

meetings was his job responsibility. Exhibit l proves this completely wrong with Kelly Bilancione

Regional Associate Relations m anager, confirm ing that it is false in this exhibit's em ail.

- 32 hours of available vacation and sick time was taken away by M s Lebron, who forced Shapiro

to dedud 1, 2, and 4 hours from this tim e that he used to take care of appointm ents for his

daughter and her personal issues, as w ell as attending to the needs of his grandson, w ho he had

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 5 of 16
pre-need care of (Exhibit I). This deduction was improper according to the Fair Labor Standards

Act W age and Hour division (Exhibit E) sedion 541.602, 603 and 604). To the best of his

knowledge no other M arket Leader had to deduct time for being one to two hours late for

personal appointm ents or m atters.

- These incidences Ied him to believe M s Lebron was trying to force his exodus from the bank and

w;s trying to provide evidence convey to him that he was too oId to do the job. Mr Shapiro knew

that his productive performance contributed to the portion of the region under her direct control.

He knew he contributed a great deal to her regionàl success' and was told in his 2018 review

(Exhibit Q-Therefore he thought that if she wanted him to succeed she would have been the one

to arrange the m eeting Iong before it reached this com bative state, and that she would have been

anxious to get this m atter behind them so he could concentrate on him being as productive as

possible, to continue his contribution to her regional success. The behavior she w as exhibiting

was more geared to wanting him gone from the com pany.

W hen M r. Shapiro finally requested to retire, his boss Lisa Lebron forced him to take an earlier

retirement date than he had planned (Exhibit C).

Plaintiff, Lee P Shapiro, reasserts and reaffirm s the allegations of Sedion 6 further states that this

is an action against Truist for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Ad (ADEA), as

am ended, 29 U.S.C.

At aIl tim es relevant to this adion, Shapiro was an employee within the

meaning of 29 U.S.C. j630(f), 29 U.S.C. 96232 and 29 U.S.C. j631.

'

W hen Shapiro retired from his employm ent w ith BB&T on October 18, 2019, he was 7 days short

of being sixty-three (63) years old.

At aII timej relevant to this ad ion, Shapiro was an individual covered by the

ADEA, 29 U.S.C. j631(a), in that Shapiro was at Ieast forty (40) years of age.

Defendant, Truist (BB&T then) at aII times relevant to this action, had twentv (20) or more

employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar week: in the current or

preceding calendar year.

Defendant Truist was, at aIl tim es relevant to this action, an employer and/or Shapiro's employer

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 99623 and 630(b).

Defendant Truist, w ith the aid and assistance of M s Lisa Lebron know ingly and w illfully

discrim inated against Shapiro because of his age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. j623(a)(1), so as to

discourage Shapiro, from continuing his em ploym ent with the com pany and risking further

corrective ad ion including termination and Ioss of his retirem ent benefits and pension from the

com pany, decided to retire on October 18, 2019

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 6 of 16
Moreover, Defendant Truist treated employees who were Iess than forty (40) years oId and had

less orsim ilar qualificatidns as Shapiro, not disciplining orterm inating otherem ployeesw ho often

comm itted similar or far worse actions in the workplace than that w hich Shapiro had supposedly

com m itted and forwhich he w as accused of and sum m arily placed on several differentverbal and

w ritten warnings of corredive adion.

Furthermore, despite the fact that Shapiro had over 11 years with the com pany, a history of

positive pedormance evaluations, was consistently awarded pay raises, was overall an excellent

em ployee, because of Shapiro's age, in violation of the Age Discrim ination act, Shapiro's age w as

a motivating fador in the Defendants' actions forcing him to retire before he had ever intended

to.

Defendant's violations of the ADEA w ere and continue to be willful and in&entional.

Shapiro has suffered and continues to suffer loss of earnings, em otional distress, loss of selfesteem and other injuries as a dired result of Defendant's violatiohs of the

ADEA.

7. Violation of the Religious Discrimination Ad of 1964 w ith respect to requiring

em ployers to reasonably atcom modate the religious beliefs and practices of

applicants and em ployees. business. '

A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will

allow the em ployee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling .......is an exam ple of

accom m odating an em ployee's religious beliefs.

The Defendant BB&-r/Truist scheduled Market Leader Meetings on the Yom Kippurlewish

Holiday in 2018, and again in 2019. (Exhibit W )

Mr Shapiro's 2018 Annual review rated him as Meets Expectations (Exhibit Y), but Ms. Lebron

incorred ly stated that I only attended one m arket Ieader meeting, and that attendance at these

meetings was his job responsibility. Exhibit I proves this completely wrong with Kelly Bilancione

Regional Associate Relations m anager, confirm ing that it is false in this exhibit's em ail.

Additionally, although it was proven that l only m issed two m arket Ieader m eetings for illness,

the 2018 review was not changed to correct M s Lebron's error.

On or around August 16, 2019, M r Shapiro had been placed on a final written warning (exhibit

Q) for absences on July 19,22, 23,24, 31, and August 1,2, 9, and 15.

As M r Shapiro stated in the final warning; AlI of these absences were necessaw to care for

personal issues w ith his daughter and child care issues with his grandson.

However, The Final written noticed stated that any further unacceptable job performance could

result in term ination.

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 7 of 16
Prior to this Shapiro had subm itted an application for FM LA status on the 6tb of August, 2019

(exhibit D), but it wasn't until September 24, 2019 that it was approved.

32 hours of available vacation and sick time was taken away by M s Lebron, w ho forced Shapiro

to deduct 1, 2, and 4 hours from this tim e that he used to take care of appointm ents for his

daughter and her personal issues, as well as attending to the needs of his grandson, who he had

pre-need care of (Exhibit I). This deduction was improper according to the Fair Labor Standards

Act W age and Hour division (Exhibit E) section 541.602, 603 and 604).

Shapiro had no vacation or sick time available to observe the October 9, 2019 Yom Kippur

Jewish Holiday.

As stated above, there was a Market Leader meeting scheduled on Yom Kippur, Octèber 9,

2019. If Shapiro missed this meeting, he would be subject to further corrective action and

possibly term inated.

In order to be able to observe the Jew ish high holiday of Yom Kippur, he w as forced to schedule

surgery in the m orning of October 9, 2019 to remove a cancerous tum or on his ear, then he was

able to attend religious services in the afternoon.

The M arket Leader M eeting, was a ''fun'' trip to Key W est. This was not the usual venue, but

Shapiro felt m anagement would require him to attend and failure to do so may bring additional

corrective action or term ination.

Not only was the meeting scheduled two years in a row on Yom Kippur, there were no

accom modations m ade available to M r Shapiro to observe the holiday. On the contrary,

obstacles were m ade w hich m ade it very difficult for him to observe this holiday.

To the best of his know ledge, he w as the only Jewish M arket Leader.

The deduction of this available tim e, created a situation w here M r Shapiro had no time available

for other needed time off. This resulted in a series of escalated corredive actions Ievied against

M r Shapiro forthis reason. Then w hen time was needed to accom modate the Jew ish Holiday, he

had none available.

The above factual information proves that the Defendant Truist (formerly BB&T) did not provide

the accomm odations necessaw for M r Shapiro to observe the Yom Kippurlewish holiday, thus

violating the religious discrim ination act.

8. Unlaw ful treatm ent of w orkers w ith caregiving responsibilities, also know n as

fam ily responsibilities distrim ination, proteus those under the Americans wi'h

Disabilities Ad, The Fam ily M edical Leave Ad, and Title VII of The Civil Rights Att.

Mr Shapiro meets the definition of caregiver for his daughter (Exhibit X) and for his grandson

(forwhom he has pre need guardian authority, Exhibit A).

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 8 of 16
M s Lebron contihuously told M r Shapiro that m any people go through the same caregiving

situation as he w as going through, m inim izing the im portance of his role to his children,

adopting an attitude that in her m ind dim inished the im portance of his role since his w ife died,

thereby causing her to be reludant to provide him the Ieeway and flexibility to accom plish his

responsibilities of the role. Further M s Lebron penalized M r Shapiro for taking this tim e to fulfill

the caregiver role.

M r Shapiro was still continulng to grieve after his wife of 37 years died very suddenly from

cancer. He was also coping w ith, and aiding in the recovery of his daughter's substance abuse,

which had spiraled out of control, requiring him to save her from death W overdose three

times. He had to Marchman act her three times, ejected her from the household, and became

the prim ary caregiver for his grandson. He was acting in the role of his father, prior to his wife

passing away, but now w ith the passing of his w ife, who was 4 and half years old, he w as the

sole parent and caregiver. '

M r Shapiro and his grandson attended sessions at Tomorrow's Rainbow, a children's grief

counseling group, specifically aimed at helpirig children deal with the Ioss of a Ioved one (Exhibit

B1). Christopher, Mr Shapiro's grandson, was very close to his grandmother, Ioved her dearly,

and this group of children with sim ilar circum stances helped him cope with the loss.

The counselors at Tom orrow's Rainbow em phasized that everyone grieves differently, and there

is no set way, nor any right w ay to grieve. Any and a1I ways are okay and acceptable. This applies

to children as well as adults. Therefore, Ms Lebron's com ments to M r Shapiro m inimizing his

Ioss and the situation he was dealing w ith, cannot be com pared to anyone else.

NO ONE HANDLES THE DEATH OF A LOVED ONE IN THE EXAG SAME MANNER. M QRE

IM PORTANTLY EACH PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL W AY TO GRIEVE IS PERFEW LY OKAK THERE IS NO

CORRECV RIGHT W AY TO HANDLE GRIEF. DIFFERENT STAGES OF GRIEF CAN BE COMMON, BUT

PEOPLE M AY EXPERIENCE THESE STAGES IN DIFFERENT SEQUENCES, OR NOTATALL. THE GRIEF

PROCESS CAN BE LONG OR SHORT, BUTTHE PROCESS ITSELF CANNOT BE SUM M ARILY

DISM ISSED AW AY BY SAYING TO SOM EONE, ''I KNOW M ANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE GONE THOUGH

THE SAM E SITUATION''. THIS COM M ENYTO M R. SHAPIRO IS INCENTIVE AND CONVEYS HER

INTENTTO M INIMIZE THE PROCESS, SUGGESTTHATOTHERS W ENYTHROUGH THIS, W HY CAN'T

YOU, W HAT IS W RONG W ITH YOU, YOU'RE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL, AND

HURRY UP YOU'RE TAKING TOO LONG.

BY TRYING TO MAKE M R SHAPIRO'S SITUATION THAT HE ENDURED SEEM M SOM ETHING THAT

EVERYONE GOESTHROUGH, SHE W AS DISCRIM INATING AGAINST HIM , M AKING A GENDER

BIASED STEREOR PE, ON HOW A MAN IS SUPPOSED TO BEHAVE AND ASSUM E THAT HE IS NOTA

GOOD FATHER IF HE HAS TO W ORK PARTTIME TO BE ABLE TO CARE pOR HIS CHILDREN (Exhibit

X)

This is discrimination ( Exhibit X) according to the Family and Medical Leave Ad which protects

both men and women who need to care for a child, The Am ericans w ith Disabilities Act which

prevents discrim ination against those w ho provide care to disabled fam ily mem bers, and Title

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 9 of 16
VII of the Civil Rights Act w hich prevents discrim ination on the basis of any sex stereotypes and

it applies to both men and wom en. This m eans that an em ployer cannot deny leave or penalize

a man fortaking care of his children because ''that is something a wife should do''. (Exhibit X)

Employees who make théir caregiving responsibilities known on the job to their employers

should be allowed a more flexible work schedule, and not be àubject to retaliation for his

caregiver responsibilities. M s tebron placed M r Shapiro on verbal and written corrective action

for taking care of his family (Exhibit E) Ms Lebron docks his available sick and vacation time,

(Exhibit X) 2018 Verbal Warning dated June 22, 2018 for absqnces and tardiness (tardy for an

exempt employee that works over 50 hours a week , (Exhibit Z) 2018 Mid Year Review dated 8-

23 -18 m entioning his tim e away from the office affed ing his perform ance, although he

achieved excellent performance with respect to his goals and bonused hecause of his

performance in 2018. , (Exhibit Y) 2018 Annual Review, rating him below expedations on several

values and core com petencies that M rshapiro had never been rated below on. These

com ments were odd considering his overall rating was ''M eets Expectations''. The below

expectation: rating on Judgem ent, Know ledge Comm unicatiop, Leadership, was innapropriate

since these are what the com pany based their decision to give him the helm of two and then

three financial centers to m anage. Also the annual review indicated that his sales excellence was

strong and inspiring, and that he contributes to the success of the regional pedormance (Exhibit

T, 2019 Verbal W arning, dated 3-4-19, Exhibit Q. 2019 W ritten W arning dated 5-7-19, and Final

W ritten W arning dated approximately September of 2019, for absences due to caregiving).

M s Lebron is m aking an unlawful refusal to modify his duties and allow him to take his children

to appointm ents and therapy sessions. It is also a form of Sexual Discrim ination, and a violation

of Title Vll of the Civil Rights act of 1964, assum ing that this role should be handled by a female

caregiver. This is a violation of Title V1I, by telling the male em ployee, M r Shapiro that she is

denying him the right to care for his children, and penalizihg him by docking his available sick

and vacation pay, as a penalty (Exhibit E). Further penalization came in the form of pedormance

documentation for missing days in order to fulfill his caregiver responsibilities Exhibit X Q, and

Y).

The above factual inform ation proves that the Defendants discrim inated against M r Shapiro in

his caregiver role.

9. Im proper handling of the dedud ion of available vacation and sitk time for an

exem pt em ployee, as detailed in the Fair tabor Standards AG, governed by the

Departmènt of O bor W age and Hour Division section 541.602, 541.603 and 541.604.

M r Shapiro's available vacation and sick tim e was deducted for appointments and other

obligations he was responsible for in providlng care to his children for whom he was the sole

caregiver (Exhibit E shows that his deductions amounted to 32 hours of vacation and sick time

that was deduded from January 9, 2019, through June 21, 2019)

The tim e M r Shapiro took off was not for sick tim e or disability.

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 10 of 16
According to the Fair Labor Standards Act, W age and Hour Division sections 541.602, 541.603,

and 541. 604. (Exhibit E) Mr Shapiro was exempt from being paid overtime and an hourly wage

because he met the exemption test for the Executive Exem ption: He was a salaried em ployee,

who made at Ieast $684.per week, who's primary duty was to manage a department or unit of

the com pany, and regularly direct the work of at Ieast two or more other full tim e em ployees,

and have the authority to recom mend or suggest the hiring and firing of em ployees.

This exem ption is Iost if the em ployee has deductions from his com pensation for time taken off

from work that is not related to sick tim e or disability, is Iess than one full day, and this

deduction is done repeatedly, and/or after the employee complains about it.

M r Shapiro had 32 hours of available sick time and vacation time deducted from his use, which

could have been used Iater to offset the days he took in July, that he w as w ritten up for, or to be

used to offset the Yom Kippur Holiday time off in which he had to schedule a surgery to have the

time off. This offset would have prevented him from being w ritten up on corrective action.

Loss of the exemption then compels the employer to pay the employee and others Iike him/her

to be paid an hourly wage including overtime for hours worked in excess of &he 40 hours per

week.

M r Shapiro com plained about this to Kelly Bilancione in his grievance for unfair treatment in the

workplace, and nothing was done about it. (Exhibit C).

The above factual inform ation proves that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,

by im properly handling the deduction of available vacation and sick time.

10. Violation of the Family Medical Leave AG 1825.119 (Exhibit D)

(b)....An employee mayalsotake FMLA Ieaveto carefora covered family memberwho is receiving

treatment for substance abuse. The em ployer m ay not take ad ion against an em ployee who is

providing care for a covered fam ily m em ber receiving treatment for substance abuse.

(d) Son ordaughter. For purposes of FM LA leave taken for birth or adoption, orto care for a family

mem ber w ith a serious health condition, son or daughter m eans a biological, adopted, or foster

child, a stepchild, a Iegal ward, or a child of a person standing in Ioco parentis, w ho is either under

age 18, or age 18 or older and ''incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disabilit/'

at the tim e that FM I.A Ieave is to com m ence.

(1) Incapable of self-care means that the individual requires active assistance or supervision to

provide daily self-care in three or more of the activities of daily Iiving (ADB) or instrumental

activities of daily Iiving (ADLs). Adivities of daily Iiving include adaptive activities such as caring

appropriately for one's groom ing and hygiene, bathing, dressing and eating. lnstrum ental

activities of daily Iiving include cooking, cleaning, shopping, taking public transportation, paying

bills, m aintaining a residence, using telephones and diredories, using a post office, etc.

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 11 of 16
825.124 Need to care for a family m em ber or Eovered servicemem ber.

(a) The medical certification provision that an employee is needed to care for a family mem beror

covered servicem ember encom passes both physical and psychological care. It includes situations

where, for exam ple, because of a serious health condition, the fam ily m em ber is unable to care

for his or her ow n basic m edical, hygienic, or nutritional needs or safety, or is unable to transport

him self or herself to the doctor. The term also includes providing psychological com fort and

reassurance which would be beneficial to a child, spouse or parentwith a serious health condition

w ho is receiving inpatient or hom e care.

(b) The term also includes situations where the employee may be needed to substitute for others

w ho normally care for the fam ily m em ber or covered servicem em ber, or to make arrangem ents

for changes in care, such as transfer to a nursing home. The em ployee need not be the only

individual or family m em ber available to care for the family m ember or covered servicem em ber.

(c) An employee's intermittent Ieave or a reduced Ieave schedule necessary to care for a family

mem ber or covered servicem em ber includes not only a situation w here the condition of the

fam ily mem ber or covered servicem ember itself is interm ittent, but also w here the employee is

only needed intermittently- such as where other care is normally available. or care

responsibilities are shared with another member of the family or a third party. See 55825.202-

825.205 for rules governing the use of interm ittent or reduced schedule Ieave.

825.220 Proted ion for em ployees who request Ieave or otherwise assert FM LA rights.

(c) The Act's prohibition against intederence prohibits an employer from discriminating or

retaliating against an em ployee or prospective em ployee for having exercised or attem pted to

exercise FM LA rights. For exam ple, if an em ployee on Ieave without pay would otherwise be

entitled to full benefits (other than health benefits), the same benefits would be required to be

provided to an em ployee on unpaid FM LA Ieave. By the sam e token. em ployers cannot use the

taking of FM LA Ieave as a negative factor in em ploym ent actions, such as hiring, promotions or

disciplinary actions; nor can FM LA Ieave be counted under no fault attendance policies.

Mrshapiro was placed on final Written Warning (Exhibit Q), because he tooktime offto take care

of his fam ily. He was written up for this, and subsequently he was approved for FM LA status.

(Exhibit D), This time off that he was written up for should have been covered under the FMLA

approval for time taken to care for his fam ily. The final w ritten warning should have been

reversed, as these absences w ere the reason he applied for the FM LA status, and should have

been covered under the approval.

The above factual information proves that the Defendants violated the Fam ily and M edical Leave

Act.

11. From 2018 through Odober of 2019, Defen'dant BB&T allow ed Lisa tebron Sales and

Servite M anager to create a hostile the violation of their own internal Harassm ent

and Discrim ination polides, page 8 and 9 of their 2019 Policyand Procedure M anual.

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 12 of 16
They allowed Defendant Lisa Lebron to create a hostile w ork environm ent for M r. Shapiro w ho

she continuously harassed intim idated and directed treatm ent toward that was completely

different than how his peers were treated. (Exhibit C).

M s. Lebron utilized false untrue data and accusations to manifest the hostile environment as well

as Ievying a series of verbal and written performance documentations placing his employm ent in

jeopardy as the process escalated to the final written warning Ievied against Mr Shapiro on or

around the end of August and the Beginning of Septem ber, 2019.

The best way to present the history of this unfair treatm ent for w hich M r Shapiro is filing this

specific complaint of the violation of the com panies ow n internal policy on harqssm ent and

discrim ination as well as M s Lebron's hostile aggressive cam paign to rem ove M r Shapiro from his

position, is to paraphrase a series of em ails that are available for scrutiny in Exhibit C.

These em ails unveil and reveal in detail the entire series of harassm ent and discrim ination

behaviors directed toward M r Shapiro which violate BB&T policies, com m itted by and the

responsibility of both Defendants.

They also provide factual evidence that M s Lebron produced false data as w ell as exaggeration

and the fabrication of scenarios that did not take place, purposefully placing M r Shapiro in a

negative guilt-ridden status, totally void of any truth, for the sole purpose of processing him out

of a position.

In response to M s Lebron's continued cam paign to efforts to discredit and remove him from his

position within the bank, she exaggerated any negative data that may have affeded M r. Shapiro

or manifested com pletely false information to suit her needs. M r Shapiro quickly and routinely

subm itted rebuttal responses, either on the actual review or corrective ad ion, or sent via em ails

to BB&T personnel that he felt should have know ledge of her ad ivities. His correspondence of

rebuttals contained the actual fad ual evidence to disprove her accusations and charges, as well

as som e verbiage showingthat she actually violated BB&T's own internal policies and procedures,

as well as Federal Laws protecting employees (e.g. Age. Religiousz and Caregiver discrimination,

im proper procedures that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act w ith respect to the W age and Hour

Division statutes, and FMLAI. (Exhibit C, D, E, X Q, Y, 0, 1)

This final corrective action Ievied against M r Shapiro show ed him that the allow ance of these

behaviprs to have credibility and weight, he had better retire before he m ight be term inated.

To add insult to injury, he was not even allowed to retire on the date he finally decided would be

the most beneficial and suited to his personal financial position (Exhibit C October 12, 2019 email

to Kelly Bilancione). Lisa Lebron forced him to take a retirement date almost one month prior to

his desired and approved date (Human Resources approved his choice of date for M r Shapiro's

retirement on Septem ber 19, 2019, but Lisa Lebron over-rode this date two w eeks Iater in a

memo delivered by Kelly Bilancione to Ms Shapiro).

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 13 of 16
M r Shapiro filed a new grievance of unfair treatment in the workplace on Septem ber 4, 2019,

after the first grievance was found to be without merit on August 19, 2019- (Exhibit C Septem ber

4, 2019 email). Mr Shapiro was requesting this grievance to be reviewed by an independent

mediator. However, feeling that this second grievance request would not be acted upon by the

com pany, on Septem ber 6, 2019, M r Shapiro requested to retire from the com pany on Decem ber

31, 2019

ln fear of being term inated if his request for FM LA was denied, on September 17, 2019, he

éhanged his retirem ent date to October 18, 2019, on m onth as required by the policy and

procedure m anual, as the m inim um am ount of tim e to form ally request to retire, as an officer of

the bank.

However, when the FMl was approved, and he new he could not be fired fortakingtime to care

for his children, he changed the date to Novem ber 15, 2019, as it best fit his financial situation.

This is w hen the Novem ber date was denied.

On Septem ber 17, 2019, M rshapiro also sent out his first request for a settlem ent, to com pensate

him for the unfair treatment he endured in the workplace (Exhibit C), and called it a Severance

offer. This offer was based on alI of the unfair treatm ent he endured w hich is he basis of this suit.

The offer w as denied. However, it is another excellent synopsis of aII of the violations of the

Federal Laws com mitted by M s Lebron against M r Shapiro.

Although the em ails in Exhibit C, provide factual evidence to prove harassment in the workplace,

violation of BB&T's ow n harassment policies, responses to aII of the verbal and written corredive

actions w hich provide fad s that disprove them as being true, and exposing the false data used to

Ievy them against M r Shapiro, below is a Iist of some of the more blatant exam ples of the hostile

and unfair treatment in the workplace, Mr Shapiro was subject to:

- Denial of M r Shapiro's ordering of an ether net cable to connect his Iaptop to the Insite w ebsite

of BB&T.

- Placing M r Shapiro on a written w arning M ay 7, 2019 for buying Iunch forthe staffof the branch

he had managed for over five years. The corrective adion w as motivated by an em ployee of final

written warning, placed there by M r Shapiro. She filed a complaint that M r Shapiro was offering

her m oney. This em ployee was on corrective adion for Iying, and now they believed her.

Corporate investigations was called out to question M r Shapiro and w ith Lisa Lebron's backing M r

Shapiro was placed on a w ritten warning for this gesture of kindness.

- On Septem ber 10, 2019, Lisa Lebron brought Corporate investigations to M r Shapiro's financial

center, after supposedly auditing his sales files and finding that he did not actually go on 4 calls.

M s Lebron Iectured M r Shapiro for 10 M inutes on the violation of getting credit for som ething he

did not do. She told M r Shapiro that he was missing 4 Financial lnsight w rite-ups. M r Shapiro told

M s Lebron he w ould never take crbdit for som ething he did not do, and then asked to go in to his

office to access his com puter. He came out to seconds Iater w ith the call reports she said he was

m issing. They were in his files as he keeps track of evew thing he does. She did not apologize. He

was the only Market Ieader audited. (Exhibit R)

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 14 of 16
- Lisa Lebron Admonished M rshapiro in an em ail dated January 9tb, 2019 for using the Happy Face

Imogee after successfully com pleting the docum entation requirem ents for a business client that

took over two months to obtain. She wrote that it was inappropriate. (Exhibit 1)

- Lisa Lebron wrote in the Annual 2018 performance review that I only attended 1 market Ieader

m eeting that year. Exhibit Actually, l only m issed two meetings for illness. Kelly Bilancione

confirmed this fact, yet it was not removed from the review. (Exhibit Y)

- As dired ed by the BB&T policy and procedural manual, if an em ployee felt that they w ere the

vid im of unfair treatm ent in the workplace, they are im mediately to contact either their

supervisor, their supervisor's supervisor, or the regional associate relations m anager. Given that

M r Shapiro was filing the grievance against his direct supervisor, and although was direded by

Kelly Bilancione to go to Lisa Lebron's boss, Aaron Patience, M r Shapiro decided to subm it the

grievance to Kelly Bilancione. Regional Associate R:lations M anager for BB&T. She becam e the

m ediator and handled the grievance submitted by M r Shapiro for unfair treatm ent in the

workplace on May7 of 2019. However, she wasto prove that she was unable to act in an objective

m anner as she also assisted Lisa Lebron in the constructiön and im plementation of the verbal and

written corrective actions against M r. Shapiro.

' The above factual inform ation proves that Truist Allowed for and M s Lisa Lebron, created and

continued hostile behavior, establishing and maintaining an unfair workplace for M r Shapiro,

which is illegal. Also Illegal is the retaliatory behavior by M s Lebron, w hen he filed the grievance

internally through BB&T to stop this behavior (Exhibit C).

W HEREFORE, Plaintiff, Lee P Shapiro demandsjudgment against Branch Banking & Trust

Company (BB&T), now known as , n/k/a, Truist Financial Services, for three and a half years of

compensation, as he would not have retired until her reached the age of Sixtpsix (66), equitable

relief including but not Iim ited to interest, attorney's fees, costs and such other and further

relief as this Honorable Court deem s proper.

M r. Shapiro demands a trial byjury regarding the resolution of these complaints.

Dated: M ay, 13, 2020

Respectfully subm itted,

e Sha -

3734 Pebblebrook M anor

Coconut Creek Florida 33073

Telephone:lgs4) 857-5763

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 15 of 16
*

EM AlL:Tyke0902@ gmail.com

Case 0:20-cv-60961-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2020 Page 16 of 16