1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

NIKOL HAVRANEK,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.:

vs.

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, NIKOL HAVRANEK (hereinafter “HAVRANEK”), by and 

through the undersigned Counsel, and sues the Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES (hereinafter “UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA”), and alleges the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil action with damages that exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars 

($15,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

2. This Court is vested with federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (Title VII). This Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related claims arising under state and local laws, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367, under the following: The Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.01 (FCRA); the 

Florida Worker’s Compensation Law, Fla. Stat. § 440.205; and the Florida Public Whistleblower’s 

Act (“FPWA”), Florida Statute, § 112.3187.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 1 of 32
2

3. Venue lies within the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all actions relevant giving rise to this claim arose in this 

Judicial Circuit.

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

4. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been met.

5. On or about May 14, 2019, Plaintiff, HAVRANEK, timely filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with both the Palm Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity (“OEO”) and the 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). A copy of said Charge is attached 

hereto as Exhibit “A.”

6. More than 180 days have passed since HAVRANEK filed her Charge of 

Discrimination with the Palm Beach County OEO and the EEOC.

7. On or about February 20, 2020, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue, 

acknowledging that more than 180 days had passed since HAVRANEK’s filing of her Charge. 

This Complaint is being filed within ninety (90) days of receipt of that notice. A copy of said 

Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, HAVRANEK is an individual who at all times relevant resided in Palm 

Beach County, Florida, including during the time of her employment with UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA. At all times herein mentioned, HAVRANEK was employed at the Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences (“IFAS”) at the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA with the Everglades 

Research and Education Center (“EREC”), located at 3200 East Palm Beach Road, Belle Glade, 

FL 33430.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 2 of 32
3

9. HAVRANEK was and is a member of a group protected under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. 

§ 760.01 (FCRA)'s prohibitions against gender discrimination and retaliation, namely:

a. She is a female;

b. She was subjected to a hostile work environment as a result of her gender; and

c. She suffered an adverse employment action shortly after making a formal complaint 

regarding the discriminatory treatment she was experiencing in the workplace and 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s unlawful business practices.

10. HAVRANEK sues defendant University of Florida Board of Trustees. The Board 

of Trustees governs and oversees the operations of the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA and is an 

employer within the meaning of Title VII and the FCRA. The UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a 

public university in the State university system. The Board of Trustees is a corporate body with 

the ability to sue and be sued. § 1001.72, Fla. Stat. (2019). The Board of Trustees’ established 

powers and duties include controlling certain terms and conditions of employment for the 

University’s employees.

11. Plaintiff was a protected “employee” under the FPWA during the times relevant to 

this Complaint.

12. All of the acts complained of herein were committed or omitted by employees of 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA while working within the scope of their respective employment.

13. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to filing this action.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 3 of 32
4

14. HAVRANEK was employed as a biological scientist (formal title Biological 

Scientist II) by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on a continuous basis from September 2003 through 

January 11, 2019.

15. From the beginning of her employment with UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 

HAVRANEK was responsible for conducting field, greenhouse, and laboratory experiments. 

Additionally, HAVRANEK served as Safety Coordinator for UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA and 

was responsible for ensuring compliance with federal and state safety regulations and the handling 

of hazardous waste pursuant to requirements of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”).

16. HAVRANEK’s supervisors were Dr. Calvin Odero, the Extension Weed Specialist 

& Associate Professor, and Dr. Gregg Nuessly, the Center Director and Professor. 

17. By all accounts, HAVRANEK excelled at her position, having only ever received 

excellent performance reviews (100%), and she never received any disciplinary warnings 

throughout the over fifteen (15) years that she was employed by the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

18. From the inception of her employment with UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 

HAVRANEK always experienced some level of gender discrimination or disparity. Beginning in

September 2015 when Dr. Greg Nuessly assumed his permanent role as Center Director and 

continuing through the end of her employment with UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, however,

HAVRANEK noticed a practice of discrimination based on her gender by UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA.

19. From the time Dr. Nuessly assumed his role forward, no women were ever hired or 

considered for any positions at the EREC, and those women who were already employed at the 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 4 of 32
5

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, including but not limited to HAVRANEK, were employees who 

had been hired by former directors.

20. Dr. Nuessly constantly would harass HAVRANEK with expectations for her 

employment that went far beyond her documented job description and held HAVRANEK to a 

different standard than her male counterparts.

21. Dr. Nuessly would contact HAVRANEK after work hours with expectations for 

work to be completed by the next morning, he would humiliate HAVRANEK during meetings in 

front of male employees, and, on various occasions, he threatened to lower her pay and to take 

action against her if she was not completing all of his unfounded expectations. Specifically, on one 

such occasion on February 28, 2018, Dr. Nuessly contacted HAVRANEK after her employment 

hours requesting her to bring important protective gear from the lab to him at a conference center 

by 10 a.m. the following day. 

22. Despite repeated perfect performance ratings, HAVRANEK was still held to a 

different standard than her male counterparts and was still repeatedly belittled to the point of tears 

and embarrassment.

23. HAVRANEK would repeatedly voice complaints regarding her mistreatment as 

compared to her male counterparts to her direct supervisor, Dr. Calvin Odero.

24. Notwithstanding her complaints, HAVRANEK’s poor treatment continued and her 

complaints were not addressed.

25. On March 6, 2018, HAVRANEK sent a letter to Dr. Nuessly voicing her 

complaints. She explicitly expressed the following actions of Dr. Nuessly: 

a. Dr. Nuessly repeatedly belittled HAVRANEK; 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 5 of 32
6

b. Dr. Nuessly verbally harassed and embarrassed HAVRANEK in front of her 

cohorts during meetings, through email, and in conversations; 

c. Dr. Nuessly constantly threatened to reduce her pay without justification and 

despite in fact being long overdue for a promised raise; and 

d. Dr. Nuessly consistently required her to perform tasks that were not part of her job 

responsibilities.

Additionally, HAVRANEK referenced a verbal agreement with her former supervisor regarding 

an additional 10% raise that she was never given by Dr. Nuessly, despite her achieving the role of 

“senior biologist.” 

26. Following her letter to Dr. Nuessly, HAVRANEK was confronted by Dr. Nuessly 

and Dr. Odero about her complaint and her concerns regarding Dr. Neussly’s conduct. In an effort 

to “resolve the issue”, on or about March 27, 2018, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA retaliated against 

HAVRANEK and removed HAVRANEK from her role as “Safety Coordinator,” resulting in a 

pay reduction for HAVRANEK—revoking a previous 10% pay increase for her hard work and 

efforts.

27. Interestingly, this 10% pay reduction ($49,059.94 was decreased to $45,219.56) 

which should have reflected a 10% reduction in her workload, only removed 5% of her 

responsibilities. 

28. On March 14, 2018, HAVRANEK contacted Leticia Forster in Human Resources 

for UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA to seek recourse for the unjust reduction in her pay. These 

complaints to Human Resources provided no relief to HAVRANEK.

29. Thereafter, Dr. Odero’s treatment of HAVRANEK worsened steadily throughout 

2018. Dr. Odero was often verbally hostile towards HAVRANEK, and he often made outrageous 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 6 of 32
7

and impossible demands upon HAVRANEK as to her work product to make her fail and thus 

create items for which he could reprimand HAVRANEK.

30. Additionally, following HAVRANEK’s removal as Safety Coordinator at the 

EREC in March of 2018 and removal of her keys to access the area where the hazardous waste 

was stored, no person was appointed to assume the responsibilities and tasks performed by 

HAVRANEK as Safety Coordinator.

31. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is, and at all times material hereto was, subject to 

both Federal and State regulation of chemical and radioactive waste pursuant to requirements of 

the United States EPA and the State of Florida DEP. 

32. Following HAVRANEK’s removal as Safety Coordinator, UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA and the EREC failed to be in compliance with the EPA and DEP requirements. 

Specifically, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA violated these policies through the following actions

at the EREC:

a. Hazardous Waste containers were not properly marked with the specific words 

“Hazardous Waste;”

b. Hazardous Waste containers were either not labeled at all or labeled incorrectly. 

c. EREC was classified as a “small quantity generator” meaning every 180 days 

Hazardous Waste containers had to be removed. Notwithstanding, Hazardous 

Waste containers were not removed during their scheduled removal in May 2018, 

but rather the Hazardous Waste remained in the EREC until December 2018.

d. Biohazardous or Radioactive Waste was not separated and segregated from 

Hazardous Waste. 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 7 of 32
8

e. EREC did not have a Safety Coordinator after HAVRANEK was removed from the 

position. As a result, staff accumulating Hazardous Waste could not take the 

accumulated Hazardous Waste to the allocated Satellite Accumulation Area. 

f. Hazardous Waste was leaking and/or spilling out of its containers and packaging 

because of the heat and building conditions (hot and humid) at the EREC. 

g. The Hazardous Waste Satellite Accumulation Area was often left unlocked and 

wide open. This area is supposed to be accessible only to authorized personnel with 

specific trainings held only by the Safety Coordinator.

33. Because of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s violations, there existed a backload of 

hazardous waste stored incorrectly at the EREC which caused leaks and spills and, resultingly, an 

unquestionable health issue for numerous employees, including HAVRANEK.

34. In June 2018, HAVRANEK began to feel effects on her health due to the hazardous 

waste buildup in the EREC building in which she worked, Building 69. Specifically, HAVRANEK

began experiencing a bad cough and throat irritation.

35. On June 6, 2018, because of her poor health symptoms, HAVRANEK was forced

to visit her primary care physician for an opinion on her health issues. HAVRANEK’s physician 

recommended she visit an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Specialist because of the unusual 

persistence and causes of her symptoms.

36. Thereafter, because of her ongoing health condition caused by the hazardous waste 

buildup, on August 13, 2018, HAVRANEK alerted her supervisor, Dr. Odero, by email stating 

that she was taking a sick day because of an ongoing sore throat. HAVRANEK visited an ENT 

Specialist on August 13, 2018 in the hopes of resolving her health issues without any further 

suffering.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 8 of 32
9

37. On September 29, 2018, HAVRANEK visited an ENT Specialist for a third time in 

relation to her suffering with an ongoing and persistent cough and throat irritation. 

38. HAVRANEK first notified UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA of the EREC’s failure to 

be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations because of hazardous waste buildup and the 

resulting health problems/findings of her doctors in June 2018, first turning to Dr. Odero in the 

hopes that the hazardous waste buildup could be managed appropriately. HAVRANEK

continuously alerted Dr. Odero in the following months, but when nothing was done to rectify the 

situation, HAVRANEK was forced to notify other parties at the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 

namely the Environmental Health & Safety Hazardous Material Program Manager and the Human 

Resources Department, for the desired assistance.

39. Specifically, it was not until October 12, 2018 that HAVRANEK was contacted for 

the first time by Matthew Doty, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s Environmental Health & Safety 

Hazardous Material Program Manager. In his email, Doty requested to speak with HAVRANEK

so he could “better assist the new person taking over.” 

40. Following contact from Mr. Doty, HAVRANEK voiced her concerns regarding the 

hazardous waste conditions.

41. Specifically, on October 16, 2018, HAVRANEK emailed Mr. Doty stating that 

since she was removed as Safety Coordinator, the EREC was in turmoil as a result of the hazardous 

waste and was out of compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous waste. 

HAVRANEK informed Mr. Doty of her health concerns and the horrible conditions regarding the 

storage and improper disposal of hazardous waste. HAVRANEK was met with no response from 

Mr. Doty.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 9 of 32
10

42. On November 8, 2018, HAVRANEK followed up with Mr. Doty and again emailed 

him, stressing the lack of qualified individuals at the EREC in handling the waste, identifying the 

facility’s continuing violations of EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous waste, and stating that 

nothing had been done to rectify the situation. Mr. Doty, rather than address the issue, forwarded 

the issue to the Human Resources department.

43. Almost two weeks later, on November 19, 2018, Ms. Leticia Forster of 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s Human Resources department emailed HAVRANEK to schedule 

a call with HAVRANEK to discuss her health concerns.

44. On November 26, 2018 and November 27, 2018, HAVRANEK had an email 

conversation with Ms. Forster in order to schedule a phone call with her, emphasizing the ongoing 

health and safety concerns and the failure to be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on 

hazardous waste at the EREC. 

45. On November 29, 2018, HAVRANEK had a phone call with Ms. Leticia Forster in 

relation to the ongoing situation with the hazardous waste buildup at the EREC and 

HAVRANEK’s health issues.

46. On November 30, 2018, and in accordance with a request from Human Resources, 

HAVRANEK forwarded photographs of the unsafe work conditions to Ms. Leticia Forster to 

address the hazardous waste.

47. Thereafter, the hazardous chemicals which HAVRANEK had alerted to Human 

Resources were moved from the area in which they were to another room at the EREC, but still in

Building 69, the building in which HAVRANEK works. 

48. On December 10, 2018, HAVRANEK advised Ms. Leticia Forster via email of the 

ongoing effect of the hazardous chemicals due to their leaking in an area where she works every 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 10 of 32
11

day. On December 11, 2018, Ms. Forster indicated that UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA was 

researching the whole situation, which included involving the Department of Environmental 

Health & Safety. HAVRANEK, however, was never provided any evidence that further efforts 

were being made to rectify the situation with the hazardous waste nor that the UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA was making efforts to be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous 

waste.

49. In dealing with HAVRANEK’s personal health issues, on November 29, 2018, 

Human Resources had referred HAVRANEK to a Workers’ Compensation Specialist, Tara 

Hetsler, to address her health concerns and her need to see a specialist with her health issues.

50. Pursuant to the requests of the workers’ compensation specialist, on November 29, 

2018, HAVRANEK emailed the approval for her medical records to be released and cancelled her 

privately scheduled follow-up appointment because Ms. Hetsler had stated that UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA would send HAVRANEK to a specialist. 

51. After hearing nothing from worker’s compensation, HAVRANEK again emailed 

Ms. Leticia Forster in Human Resources on December 10, 2018. HAVRANEK advised Ms. 

Forster that she had to reschedule her privately-scheduled follow-up appointment and see her 

personally-obtained specialist, who in turn placed HAVRANEK on another medication due to her 

health issues.

52. Additionally, after advising Dr. Odero of her need to attend a doctor’s appointment 

on December 10, 2018, Dr. Odero became visually irritated with HAVRANEK, leading to more 

retaliation against HAVRANEK. 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 11 of 32
12

53. In response to HAVRANEK’s complaints, on December 11, 2018 Ms. Forster 

stated that she requested an update on HAVRANEK’s worker’s compensation claim and asked 

HAVRANEK to alert her if any additional incidents of retaliation occurred against HAVRANEK. 

54. Despite her requests for a referral to an ENT Specialist to better assist with her 

health issues, the Workers’ Compensation specialist claimed that worker’s compensation was still 

working on HAVRANEK’s case, and the Workers’ Compensation specialist ignored 

HAVRANEK’s request for a referral citing to the rarity of requests for ENTs in workers’ 

compensation.

55. As a result, HAVRANEK was forced to see an ENT Specialist on her own due to 

her ongoing and progressing sickness. After attending appointments on December 10, 2018 and 

December 18, 2018, the ENT Specialist opined that HAVRANEK’s conditions were caused by 

exposure to hazardous waste and that she was working in an unsafe work environment.

56. Additionally, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA refused to reimburse HAVRANEK’s 

medical treatment for the interim time frame when she had to see a specialist while her request for 

a referral from the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA was ignored.

57. Despite the delay in dealing with HAVRANEK’s poor health issues and a refusal 

to assist HAVRANEK when she needed it most, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s Workers’ 

Compensation Specialist Tara Hetsler emailed HAVRANEK on January 17, 2019 stating that “UF 

did offer [her] the option of going through the [worker’s compensation] process. Private visits are 

not covered.” 

58. Additionally, Human Resources reported the situation directly to Dr. Odero, 

resulting in further harassing and retaliatory actions against HAVRANEK. Specifically, Dr. Odero 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 12 of 32
13

created a hostile and retaliatory work environment as indicated by the following harassing actions 

against HAVRANEK:

a. Dr. Odero removed HAVRANEK’s keys such that she no longer had access to her 

major working areas; 

b. Dr. Odero moved HAVRANEK’s office to a room with no window/phone line;

c. Dr. Odero stopped including HAVRANEK in meetings with other staff members;

d. Dr. Odero demanded that HAVRANEK sign falsified documents, specifically 

requesting that HAVRANEK lie in a former student’s letter of recommendation for 

licensure;

e. Dr. Odero emailed tasks to be completed by HAVRANEK when it was known by 

Dr. Odero that she was out of the office and requested the task be completed before 

HAVRANEK was known to be returning to the office;

f. Dr. Odero did not allow HAVRANEK to attend events and meetings, such as 

science fairs and WSSA meetings, that she had attended for years; instead he 

invited students to attend these meetings and events;

g. Dr. Odero forced HAVRANEK to inventory chemicals in an unairconditioned 

room in the heat of summer despite being aware of HAVRANEK’s health 

conditions and the ongoing problem with hazardous waste at the EREC;

h. Dr. Odero removed HAVRANEK’s office privileges; 

i. Dr. Odero denied and thereafter demanded documentation not required of others 

for medical leave for doctor’s appointments, despite knowing this treatment was 

covered under workers’ compensation and as a result of a work-related injury; and

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 13 of 32
14

j. Dr. Odero refused to recommend HAVRANEK for promotions and salary 

increases, despite all other similarly tenured biologists having received multiple 

promotions and salary increases.

59. On December 18, 2018, HAVRANEK again turned to Ms. Leticia Forster in 

Human Resources in an effort to help deal with the retaliation against her by Dr. Odero. In this 

email HAVRANEK cited to the specific acts of retaliation she faced by Dr. Odero and stated that 

the resulting environment was hostile. No action was taken by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA in 

response to HAVRANEK’s email.

60. Even following HAVRANEK’s complaints to Human Resources, on December 18, 

2018, HAVRANEK emailed Dr. Odero to alert him that she would be out sick the remainder of 

the week because her doctor had advised her to not return to work until her throat irritation 

subsides. Rather than empathize with HAVRANEK because of his knowledge of her health issues, 

Dr. Odero responded on December 19, 2018 stating that he required a note from her doctor in order 

to validate her “excuse to miss work for the rest of the week.” 

61. On December 27, 2018, HAVRANEK sent an email to her director, Dr. Nuessly, 

resigning from her position as Biological Scientist II at the EREC. In this email, HAVRANEK

again cited to Dr. Odero’s unprofessional and harassing actions towards her.

62. HAVRANEK, because of the hostile work environment, harassment, and 

retaliation she was subjected to, was left with no choice but to resign from her workplace at 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s EREC. The harassment and retaliation faced by HAVRANEK at 

the hands of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s supervisory personnel ultimately led to her 

resignation.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 14 of 32
15

63. The conditions faced by HAVRANEK were so intolerable that any reasonable 

person would have been compelled to resign. Accordingly, HAVRANEK’s resignation constituted 

a constructive discharge (hereinafter referred to as HAVRANEK’s “termination”).

64. On December 28, 2018, Dr. Nuessly responded accepting HAVRANEK’s letter of 

resignation effective January 11, 2019, yet he failed to address any of HAVRANEK’s allegations 

against Dr. Odero.

COUNT I – RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

THE FLORIDA PUBLIC WHISTLEBLOWER ACT

65. Plaintiff HAVRANEK incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 64 as if fully set forth herein.

66. At all times material, HAVRANEK was a protected employee under the Florida 

Public Whistleblower’s Act (“FPWA”).

67. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA was HAVRANEK’s “employer” as defined by the 

FPWA.

68. The actions and or omissions by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA violate the FPWA. 

See Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187-112.31895.

69. Specifically, the FPWA states that “An agency or independent contractor shall not 

dismiss, discipline, or take any other adverse personnel action against an employee for disclosing 

information on their own initiative in a written and signed complaint. . . or [in] any written 

complaint to their supervisory officials.” See Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187(4) and (7).

70. An employee must disclose information pertaining to “Any violation or suspected 

violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent 

of an agency or independent contractor which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger 

to the public's health, safety, or welfare.” Fla. Stat. § 112.3187(5)(a).

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 15 of 32
16

71. HAVRANEK’s complaints of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s actual or reasonably 

perceived violations of laws, rules, and regulations constitute protected activity which invokes the 

protection of the Florida Public Whistle Blower Statute. See Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187(5)–(7).

Specifically, HAVRANEK regularly complained to her supervisors of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA’s failure to be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous waste—

detailed further in Paragraph 32 of this complaint—in person, by telephone, and in writing on 

numerous occasions. 

72. Additionally, HAVRANEK complained of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s failure 

to be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous waste in numerous emails to 

Matthew Doty, Environmental Health & Safety Hazardous Material Program Manager at 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. HAVRANEK’s complaints to Doty constitute protected activity 

which invokes the protection of the Florida Public Whistle Blower Statute. See Fla. Stat. §§

112.3187(5)–(7).

73. Further, HAVRANEK’s complained of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s failure to 

be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous waste in various phone calls and 

emails to Leticia Forster in Human Resources for UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. HAVRANEK’s 

complaints to Human Resources constitute protected activity which invokes the protection of the 

Florida Public Whistle Blower Statute. See Fla. Stat. §§ 112.3187(5)–(7).

74. HAVRANEK’s termination was retaliation for her activities protected by the 

FPWA, including consistently reporting about illegalities and an unsafe and hostile work 

environment in the workplace to her supervisors, Human Resources, and UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA’s Environmental Health & Safety Hazardous Material Program Manager.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 16 of 32
17

75. HAVRANEK’s complaints as described in Paragraph 73–75 of this Complaint 

constitute protected activities which invoke protections under the FPWA. 

76. HAVRANEK’s termination constituted an adverse employment action against her 

which was causally related to HAVRANEK’s objections to and reporting of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA’s failure to be in compliance with EPA and DEP regulations on hazardous waste.

77. HAVRANEK suffered damages and was injured due to UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA’s violations of the FPWA, to which HAVRANEK is entitled to legal and injunctive 

relief.

78. Any alleged non-retaliatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason of retaliating against 

HAVRANEK because of her statutorily protected expression.

79. As a direct and proximate result of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s willful, 

knowing and intentional retaliation, HAVRANEK has suffered and will continue to suffer 

damages including lost wages and benefits, pain and suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and 

mental anguish; HAVRANEK has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other 

employment related benefits and job opportunities. Thus, HAVRANEK is hereby entitled to 

general compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

80. As a further and direct proximate result of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s 

violation as herein described, HAVRANEK has been compelled to retain the services of the 

undersigned law firm. HAVRANEK will incur and continue to incur reasonable attorney’s fees 

and costs.

81. HAVRANEK requests that attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses be awarded pursuant 

to the FPWA.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 17 of 32
18

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF FLORIDA WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW

(FLA. STAT. § 440.205)

82. Plaintiff HAVRANEK incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 64 as if fully set forth herein.

83. HAVRANEK, by her above-described conduct, was acting in a way consistent with 

the procedures for seeking worker’s compensation benefits under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.

84. HAVRANEK’s worker’s compensation claim is, and all times relevant was, a valid 

claim.

85. Florida Statute Section 440.205 states, “No employer shall discharge, threaten to 

discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for 

compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law.”

86. After HAVRANEK filed a valid worker’s compensation claim, UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA retaliated against her by coercing her and leaving her with no choice but to resign 

(HAVRANEK’s termination), in violation of the Florida Worker’s Compensation Law, Florida 

Statute § 440.205.

87. HAVRANEK’s filing of a valid worker’s compensation claim constituted 

statutorily protected conduct.

88. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA wrongfully and unlawfully took an adverse 

employment action against HAVRANEK for the purpose of retaliating against her for pursuing a 

valid worker’s compensation claim, in violation of HAVRANEK’s rights under § 440.205 and 

Florida common law.

89. HAVRANEK’s termination of employment by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA was 

causally related to her statutorily protected conduct.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 18 of 32
19

90. HAVRANEK has suffered direct pecuniary losses, including lost wages, and will 

suffer future pecuniary losses as a direct result of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s above-described 

violations of Florida Statute § 440.205.

91. HAVRANEK has suffered, is now suffering, and will continue to suffer lost wages, 

emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary 

losses as a direct result of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s violation of Florida Statute § 440.205.

COUNT III –VIOLATION OF TITLE VII -

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

92. Plaintiff, HAVRANEK adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint.

93. HAVRANEK is a member of a protected class of female citizens.

94. At all times necessary, HAVRANEK was qualified to perform her duties as a

Biological Scientist.

95. During the course of HAVRANEK’s employment with UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK was subjected to a discriminatory, hostile and offensive work 

environment because of her gender (female), as more fully described in the General Allegations.

96. The offensive and discriminatory conduct referred to in the General Allegations 

was offensive to HAVRANEK and would be offensive to a reasonable person.

97. HAVRANEK was subjected to the conduct referred to in the General Allegations 

of this Complaint because she is a female.

98. Her superiors directed much of the conduct referred to in this Complaint to 

HAVRANEK.

99. HAVRANEK’s termination constituted an adverse employment action against her 

which was causally related to HAVRANEK’s gender (female). 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 19 of 32
20

100. Similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably by HAVRANEK’s 

supervisors at UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA than HAVRANEK. Specifically, the conduct endured 

by HAVRANEK as referred to in the General Allegations of this Complaint was not faced by 

HAVRANEK’s male counterparts.

101. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, HAVRANEK has suffered and 

continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and other forms of damage.

102. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason for discriminating against her 

based on her gender.

103. HAVRANEK has suffered damages on an on-going and continuous nature.

104. As a result of the deprivations of rights at the hands of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK has been forced to hire an attorney and pay him a reasonable fee, which 

she is entitled to recover pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5k and otherwise by law.

COUNT IV -VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACTGENDER DISCRIMINATION

105. Plaintiff, HAVRANEK adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint.

106. At all times material hereto, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA failed to comply with 

the FCRA, which states, in part, that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “[t]o 

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

individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because 

of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.”

107. HAVRANEK is a member of a protected class of female citizens.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 20 of 32
21

108. At all times necessary, HAVRANEK was qualified to perform her duties as a 

Biological Scientist.

109. During the course of HAVRANEK’s employment with UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK was subjected to a discriminatory, hostile and offensive work 

environment because of her gender (female), as more fully described in the General Allegations.

110. The offensive and discriminatory conduct referred to in the General Allegations 

was offensive to HAVRANEK and would be offensive to a reasonable person.

111. HAVRANEK was subjected to the conduct referred to in the General Allegations 

of this Complaint because she is a female.

112. Her superiors directed much of the conduct referred to in this Complaint to 

HAVRANEK.

113. HAVRANEK’s termination constituted an adverse employment action against her 

which was causally related to HAVRANEK’s gender (female). 

114. Similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably by HAVRANEK’s 

supervisors at UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA than HAVRANEK. Specifically, the conduct endured 

by HAVRANEK as referred to in the General Allegations of this Complaint was not faced by 

HAVRANEK’s male counterparts.

115. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, HAVRANEK has suffered and 

continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and economic losses.

116. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason for discriminating against her 

based on her gender.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 21 of 32
22

117. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s actions were malicious and were recklessly 

indifferent to HAVRANEK’s rights pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 760.10.

118. The aforementioned actions of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA were done wantonly, 

willfully, maliciously and with reckless disregard of the consequences of such actions.

COUNT V – RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

119. Plaintiff HAVRANEK incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 64 as if fully set forth herein.

120. The FCRA, Fla. Stat. Chapter 760.10(7), reads in applicable part, as follows: “It is 

an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any person because 

that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under [Section 

760.10].”

121. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is an “employer” as defined by § 760.09(7) of the 

Florida Statutes.

122. HAVRANEK is a forty-three-year-old female, who is guaranteed specific civil 

rights under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. 760.10 et. seq.

123. HAVRANEK engaged in a statutorily protected expression, namely she repeatedly 

voiced complaints of mistreatment because of her gender against the director of the EREC, Dr. 

Nuessly, to her direct supervisor, Dr. Odero.

124. When nothing was done to rectify this harassment and mistreatment, HAVRANEK 

wrote a letter to Dr. Nuessly directly complaining of his harassment and discrimination against 

her.

125. Following her complaints, HAVRANEK suffered an adverse employment action—

namely, she received a 10% decrease in her pay and removal of responsibilities. 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 22 of 32
23

126. HAVRANEK then contacted the Human Resources Department at the 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA with her concerns. Following her complaints, HAVRANEK was 

subjected to hostility by Dr. Odero, resulting in changes to her responsibilities, and ultimately, her 

overall treatment in the workplace.

127. Following the improper storage and leaks and spills of hazardous waste at the 

EREC, HAVRANEK began suffering from health problems and voiced her concerns to Dr. Odero, 

to the Environmental Health & Safety Hazardous Material Program Manager at the UNIVERSITY 

OF FLORIDA, Mr. Doty, and to Human Resources. Nothing was done to rectify the situation.

128. Thereafter, Human Resources again reported HAVRANEK’s complaints to Dr. 

Odero, who resultingly took further harassing and retaliatory actions against HAVRANEK

detailed further above.

129. HAVRANEK, because of the hostile work environment, harassment, and 

retaliation she was subjected to, was left with no choice but to resign from her workplace at 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s EREC.

130. A causal connection exists between HAVRANEK’s complaints of discrimination 

and harassment, i.e. her statutorily protected expression, and her adverse employment action, 

namely her pay reduction and her termination.

131. Similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably by HAVRANEK’s 

supervisors at UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA than HAVRANEK. Specifically, the conduct endured 

by HAVRANEK as referred to in the General Allegations of this Complaint was not faced by 

HAVRANEK’s male counterparts.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 23 of 32
24

132. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason for discriminating against her 

based on her gender.

133. As a direct and proximate result of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s conduct and its 

employees’ actions, HAVRANEK has suffered irreparable harm through her loss of gainful 

employment and through the loss of valuable employment benefits, including health insurance, 

life insurance, and dental insurance, all of which she would have continued to receive had she not 

been unlawfully terminated.

134. What is more, the unlawful employment practices complained of above committed 

by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with 

reckless indifference to HAVRANEK’s statutorily protected rights, such that HAVRANEK is 

entitled to punitive damages.

135. HAVRANEK has been required to retain the legal services of the undersigned 

Counsel to enforce her rights under the FCRA and is required to pay her attorney a reasonable fee 

for services rendered in this cause.

COUNT VI – RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

TITLE VII 

136. Plaintiff HAVRANEK incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 64 as if fully set forth herein.

137. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, “it shall be an unlawful 

employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he 

has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because 

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

proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 et seq.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 24 of 32
25

138. HAVRANEK is a forty-three-year-old female who is guaranteed specific civil 

rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

139. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA discriminated against HAVRANEK in violation of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA and its agents or employees 

mistreated HAVRANEK following her repeated complaints. 

140. Namely, HAVRANEK repeatedly voiced complaints of mistreatment because of 

her gender against the director of the EREC, Dr. Nuessly, to her direct supervisor, Dr. Odero.

141. When nothing was done to rectify this harassment and mistreatment, HAVRANEK 

wrote a letter to Dr. Nuessly directly complaining of his harassment and discrimination against 

her.

142. Following her complaints, HAVRANEK suffered an adverse employment action—

namely, she received a 10% decrease in her pay and removal of responsibilities. 

143. HAVRANEK then contacted the Human Resources Department at the 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA with her concerns. Following her complaints, HAVRANEK was 

subjected to hostility by Dr. Odero, resulting in changes to her responsibilities, and ultimately, her 

overall treatment in the workplace.

144. Following the improper storage and leaks and spills of hazardous waste at the 

EREC, HAVRANEK began suffering from health problems and voiced her concerns to Dr. Odero, 

to the Environmental Health & Safety Hazardous Material Program Manager at the UNIVERSITY 

OF FLORIDA, Mr. Doty, and to Human Resources. Nothing was done to rectify the situation.

145. Thereafter, Human Resources again reported HAVRANEK’s complaints to Dr. 

Odero, who resultingly took further harassing and retaliatory actions against HAVRANEK

detailed further above.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 25 of 32
26

146. HAVRANEK, because of the hostile work environment, harassment, and 

retaliation she was subjected to, was left with no choice but to resign from her workplace at 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s EREC.

147. What is more, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA violated Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act when it forced HAVRANEK to resign following her complaints of harassment and hostile 

work environment resulting from gender discrimination.

148. A causal connection exists between HAVRANEK’s repeated complaints of 

discrimination and harassment, i.e. her statutorily protected expression, and her adverse 

employment action, namely her pay reduction and her termination.

149. Similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably by HAVRANEK’s 

supervisors at UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA than HAVRANEK. Specifically, the conduct endured 

by HAVRANEK as referred to in the General Allegations of this Complaint was not faced by 

HAVRANEK’s male counterparts.

150. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason for discriminating against her 

based on her gender.

151. As a direct and proximate result of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s conduct and its 

employees’ actions, HAVRANEK has suffered irreparable harm through her loss of gainful 

employment and through the loss of valuable employment benefits, including health insurance,

life insurance, and dental insurance, all of which she would have continued to receive had she not 

been unlawfully terminated.

152. What is more, the unlawful employment practices complained of above committed 

by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 26 of 32
27

reckless indifference to HAVRANEK’s statutorily protected rights, such that HAVRANEK is 

entitled to punitive damages.

153. HAVRANEK has been required to retain the legal services of the undersigned 

Counsel to enforce her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and is required to pay her 

attorney a reasonable fee for services rendered in this cause.

COUNT VII - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED ON GENDER

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII 

154. HAVRANEK realleges and incorporates herein all of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 64 above as if set forth herein.

155. HAVRANEK brings this action under 42 U.S.C. Sect. 2000(e), et seq. As set forth 

in the paragraphs herein, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA harassed HAVRANEK thereby subjecting 

her to a hostile work environment because of her gender (female) in violation of Section 703(a) of 

Title VII, 42 U.S.C § 2000e-2.

156. To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment and harassment under 

Title VII, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) she belongs to protected group, (2) she has been subject 

to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on protected characteristic of plaintiff, 

(4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter terms and conditions of 

employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment, and (5) the employer is 

responsible for such environment under a theory of vicarious or direct liability. Here, 

HAVRANEK satisfies all five elements.

157. HAVRANEK is a female; therefore, she falls within a protected class. 

158. As set forth above, HAVRANEK has been the subject of unwelcome harassment 

based on her gender and the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms 

and conditions of her employment with UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA and create a discriminatory 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 27 of 32
28

harassing and hostile work environment. The conduct was committed in large part by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s supervisory personnel; therefore, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

is responsible for the hostile environment.

159. This conduct was “severe or pervasive,” so that it created an environment where a 

reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive and HAVRANEK perceived it as abusive.

160. The harassment occurred frequently, was severe and humiliating and unreasonably 

interfered with HAVRANEK’s ability to perform her job as a biological scientist.

161. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is liable because, as set forth above, their 

supervisory personnel, Dr. Odero and Dr. Nuessly, were responsible for the discriminatory actions 

complained of, which actions were in violation of law, and no corrective action to stop and/or 

prevent them were undertaken by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, including the human resources 

department.

162. The hostile work environment forced to be endured by HAVRANEK as referred to 

in the General Allegations of this Complaint was not faced by similarly situated male employees 

of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

163. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason for creating this hostile work 

environment based on her gender.

164. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or omissions of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK has sustained those damages set forth above, all of which she is entitled 

to recover by law.

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 28 of 32
29

165. As a result of the deprivations of rights at the hands of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK has been forced to hire an attorney and pay him a reasonable fee, which 

she is entitled to recover pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5k and otherwise by law.

COUNT VIII - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED ON GENDER 

IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

166. HAVRANEK realleges and incorporates herein all of the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 64 above as if set forth herein.

167. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief brought pursuant to the Florida 

Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11.

168. HAVRANEK belongs to a protected class within the meaning of the Florida Civil 

Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11, because she is a female.

169. To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment and harassment under 

the FCRA, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) she belongs to protected group, (2) she has been subject 

to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on protected characteristic of plaintiff, 

(4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter terms and conditions of 

employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment, and (5) the employer is 

responsible for such environment under a theory of vicarious or direct liability. Here, 

HAVRANEK satisfies all five elements.

170. HAVRANEK is a female; therefore, she falls within a protected class. 

171. As set forth above, HAVRANEK has been the subject of unwelcome harassment 

based on her gender and the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms 

and conditions of her employment with UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA and create a discriminatory 

harassing and hostile work environment. The conduct was committed in large part by 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 29 of 32
30

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s supervisory personnel; therefore, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

is responsible for the hostile environment.

172. This conduct was “severe or pervasive,” so that it created an environment where a 

reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive and HAVRANEK perceived it as abusive.

173. The harassment occurred frequently, was severe and humiliating and unreasonably 

interfered with HAVRANEK’s ability to perform her job as a biological scientist.

174. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is liable because, as set forth above, their 

supervisory personnel, Dr. Odero and Dr. Nuessly, were responsible for the discriminatory actions 

complained of, which actions were in violation of law, and no corrective action to stop and/or 

prevent them were undertaken by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, including the human resources 

department.

175. The hostile work environment forced to be endured by HAVRANEK as referred to 

in the General Allegations of this Complaint was not faced by similarly situated male employees 

of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

176. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of HAVRANEK by 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA is a mere pretext for the actual reason for creating this hostile work 

environment based on her gender.

177. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or omissions of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK has sustained those damages set forth above, all of which she is entitled 

to recover by law.

178. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or omissions of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA to HAVRANEK, HAVRANEK has sustained those damages set forth above, all of 

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 30 of 32
31

which she is entitled to recover under the terms of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as 

established, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11.

179. As a result of the deprivations of rights at the hands of UNIVERSITY OF 

FLORIDA, HAVRANEK has been forced to hire an attorney and pay him a reasonable fee, which 

she is entitled to recover pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NIKOL HAVRANEK, demands judgment against Defendant, 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, and requests the following relief:

1. Enter judgment in favor of HAVRANEK for UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s 

violations of the FPWA, Florida Worker’s Compensation Law, Title VII, and the 

FCRA. 

2. Award HAVRANEK actual damages suffered;

3. Award back pay and value of lost employment benefits to HAVRANEK;

4. Award front pay to HAVRANEK for the years she would have worked absent 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’s discriminatory treatment;

5. Enter judgment in favor of HAVRANEK for compensatory damages for the

embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation and emotional distress HAVRANEK has 

suffered and continues to suffer;

6. Award HAVRANEK punitive damages;

7. Award to HAVRANEK all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in 

connection with this action;

8. Award prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained;

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 31 of 32
32

9. An injunction permanently enjoining UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, its officers, 

agents, employees, assigns and all persons in active concert of participation with 

them from engaging in any employment practice which violates the FPWA;

10. An injunction permanently enjoining UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, its officers, 

agents, employees, assigns and all persons in active concert of participation with 

them from engaging in any employment practice which violates the Florida 

Worker’s Compensation Law;

11. An injunction permanently enjoining UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, its officers, 

agents, employees, assigns and all persons in active concert of participation with 

them from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis 

of gender; and

12. Grant such additional or alternative relief as may appear to the court to be just and 

equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff, NIKOL HAVRANEK demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated May 19, 2020.

Sconzo Law Office, P.A.

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 729-0940

Facsimile: (561) 491-9459

By: /s/ Gregory S. Sconzo 

GREGORY S. SCONZO, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 0105553

ANDREA C. SCONZO, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 0105578

Primary Email: greg@sconzolawoffice.com

Primary Email: andrea@sconzolawoffice.com

Case 9:20-cv-80816-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 32 of 32