1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 0:20-cv-61136 

JULISA SUAREZ-LAU, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS, LLC, 

d/b/a PDKN RESTAURANT GROUP, 

 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, Julisa Suarez-Lau ("Suarez-Lau"), by and through her undersigned attorney, 

hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, P.D.K.N. Holdings, LLC, d/b/a PDKN Restaurant 

Group ("PDKN"), for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 

et seq., as amended, including by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e(k) (the "PDA") (collectively "Title VII"); Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as amended, including by the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (collectively the "ADA"); and the Florida 

Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. § 760.10, et seq. ("FCRA"), as amended. 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Suarez-Lau was employed by PDKN, which operates several restaurant and bar 

brands and concepts in the South and Southwest Florida regions, including Bokampers Sports 

Bar & Grill (with locations in Estero (Fort Myers area), Fort Lauderdale, Miramar, Naples and 

Plantation, Florida); Bo's Beach (located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida); Bo's Pub & Sports Bar 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 1 of 36
2 

(located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida); and The Balcony Tapas & Live Music ("The Balcony") 

(located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida). 

2. Suarez-Lau initially worked as a server at Bo's Beach in early 2019. Suarez-Lau 

subsequently worked as a server and, later, a bartender at The Balcony. 

3. Suarez-Lau was adversely impacted and otherwise damaged by PDKN when it 

violated Title VII, the ADA and the FRCA when it discriminated against Suarez-Lau by 

terminating her because of her race, ethnicity and color (i.e., Asian), as well as her thenpregnancy1

. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. Suarez-Lau, who is a current resident of Broward County, Florida, is a former 

employee of PDKN. Suarez-Lau worked as a server and, later, a bartender, at The Balcony from 

approximately March 2019 to on or about July 27, 2019. 

5. PDKN is a Florida limited liability company with its principle place of business in 

Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. PDKN operates restaurants and bar brands and 

concepts in Florida. PDKN owns and operates The Balcony, which is a New Orleans-inspired 

tapas, craft cocktail and live music restaurant located at 1309 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At all times relevant herein, PDKN employed at least fifteen persons, 

and was therefore an "employer" within the meaning of federal and state discrimination laws. 

6. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this case 

involves questions of federal law. Further, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state 

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those claims form part of the same case or 

controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Suarez-Lau's state law claims 

also share all common operative facts with her federal law claims, and the parties are identical. 

 

1

 On January 29, 2020, Suarez-Lau gave birth to her child. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 2 of 36
3 

Further, this Court's resolution of Suarez-Lau's federal and state claims in a single action serves 

the interests of judicial economy, convenience, consistency and fairness to the parties. 

7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), wherein: (a) the violations of federal and state statutes 

occurred in this District; and (b) PDKN operates The Balcony, as well as conducts business 

operations and operates other restaurant facilities, in this District. 

FULFILLMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND 

STATUTORY PREREQUISITES 

8. Suarez-Lau timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). 

9. On March 11, 2020, the EEOC issued Suarez-Lau a Notice of Right to Sue. 

10. Suarez-Lau has timely filed this action and has complied with all administrative 

and statutory prerequisites to bring this lawsuit. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

Employment Start at The Balcony and the Pregnancy 

11. In March 2019, Suarez-Lau, who was previously employed as a server at PDKNoperated Bo's Beach in early 2019, started employment as a server at The Balcony. 

12. On or about May 5, 2019, Suarez-Lau was promoted to the position of, and 

started working as, a bartender. Suarez-Lau was informed of the promotion by bar "manager"2

Jessica Messina. Due to the promotion, Suarez-Lau's last shift as a server occurred on or about 

May 27, 2019. [Note: Katie Bishop, server manager and event planner, prepared the schedules 

for the servers. Bishop stopped scheduling Suarez-Lau as a server after a recommendation from 

general manager Jon O'Neil for Messina and Bishop to resolve the scheduling issues involving 

 

2

 In this position, Messina only possessed the authority to set the bartender schedules. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 3 of 36
4 

me. As a result of a discussion with Bishop, Messina scheduled Suarez-Lau to work bartender 

shifts full-time after approximately May 27, 2019.] 

13. On May 12, 2019, Suarez-Lau learned she was pregnant. 

14. On June 15, 2019, Suarez-Lau's boyfriend, shift key manager and server Anthony 

Dellatto, informed O'Neil about Suarez-Lau's pregnancy (Dellatto previously informed Messina, 

Bishop and assistant manager Charlie Pierra about the pregnancy). 

15. In late June 2019, during a bar shift, Messina made an unsolicited pregnancyrelated comment to Suarez-Lau: "You look like you're showing a little bit." A few days later, 

when Suarez-Lau was working at the first-floor Main Bar, she requested Pierra to re-assign her 

to hosting duties during her final trimester. Pierra informed Suarez-Lau that "we would figure it 

out when the time comes." 

16. Suarez-Lau was not scheduled to work on June 28, 2019. However, in a series of 

text messages sent from Messina on June 27, 2019, at approximately 2:58 pm ET, Messina 

informed Suarez-Lau: "You'll be volume3" for the "World Cup quarter finals and USA plays" 

since "Johny [O'Neil] said to add someone." See Exhibit A. Thus, due to the anticipated large 

crowd for the 2019 Women's World Cup quarter-final contest between the United States of 

America and the French Republic, Messina scheduled Suarez-Lau to cover the Main Bar.4

Suarez-Lau later observed on the HotSchedules app5

 that her shift was scheduled to begin at 

10:30 am and conclude to "volume." See Exhibit B. 

 

3

 A shift that concludes "to volume" means after the rush of customers or when the high volume of customers slows 

down at the restaurant. 

4

 Generally, due to the average low customer volume on The Balcony's first floor on Friday afternoons, the 

managers did not schedule a bartender to work the Main Bar until 5:00 pm. However, the Women's World Cup 

game (as well as any other significant sporting events that occurred in the early afternoon on Fridays) generated 

larger-than-normal customer volume on the first floor of the restaurant. 

5

 HotSchedules is an employee scheduling app used by The Balcony. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 4 of 36
5 

The June 28, 2019 Shift 

17. On June 28, 2019, Suarez-Lau began her shift at 10:30 am. Messina scheduled 

two additional bartenders to work the Main Bar on June 28, 2019: (1) a second bartender (Alice 

Lizardi) was scheduled to start her shift at 5:00 pm; and (2) a third bartender (Daniel Ortiz) was 

scheduled to start his shift at 6:00 pm. See Exhibit B. Messina, who rarely works evening/night 

shifts, was working as a bartender at one of the bars on the second floor. 

18. The Balcony's standard operating policy, procedure or protocol is for the manager 

who is closing the restaurant to determine when "volume" concluded during a shift. 

19. Due to the USA-France World Cup contest, "volume" concluded at approximately 

4:50 pm when customers began leaving the restaurant at the conclusion of the game. 

20. At approximately 5:00 pm, Suarez-Lau cleaned up the Main Bar and "closed-out" 

the World Cup-viewing customers who wanted to pay and leave The Balcony. 

21. At approximately 5:15 pm, Bishop came to the Main Bar to "cash" Suarez-Lau 

out. Suarez-Lau asked Bishop if her shift had concluded. Bishop informed Suarez-Lau that her 

shift had concluded. Suarez-Lau clocked-out and proceeded to leave through the back of the 

building. Messina (who had walked down from the second floor for an unknown reason) saw 

Suarez-Lau begin to exit and asked "Where do you think you're going?" Suarez-Lau informed 

Messina that she was "going home" since she was supposed to stay until the conclusion of 

volume. Messina claimed Suarez-Lau was scheduled to leave after the "dinner" volume (which 

would occur approximately after 11:00 pm).6

 Suarez-Lau replied that interpretation would mean 

she would work a double shift and that was not the original intent of the schedule. Messina 

 

6

 Messina's rationale is inconsistent with The Balcony's general scheduling protocols on Fridays. Specifically, if 

Suarez-Lau was scheduled to work a double shift until "dinner" volume on Friday, then the HotSchedules app would 

have displayed her schedule as consisting of two shifts—an "AM" shift that started at 10:30 am and a "PM" shift 

that started at 5:00 pm. See Exhibit B. Further, The Balcony rarely schedules a bartender to work a double shift 

beginning at 10:30 am and then to join two other bartenders to work a "PM" shift on the Main Bar. Instead, if three 

bartenders are necessary to staff the Main Bar, then the third bartender would normally start at 5:00 pm. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 5 of 36
6 

directed Suarez-Lau to remain at work. However, Messina, under The Balcony operating policy, 

procedure or protocol, did not possess the authority to do so. 

22. At approximately 5:30 pm, Bishop, who was in the doorway during the 

discussion, walked Suarez-Lau back inside the building. Bishop advised Suarez-Lau to ask Pierra 

for permission to leave since he was the evening manager. Suarez-Lau subsequently approached 

Pierra and informed the manager: (1) she had been working since 10:30 am; (2) volume had 

passed; and (3) the second Main Bar bartender (Alice Lizardi) had started her shift at 5:00 pm 

and the third Main Bar bartender (Daniel Ortiz) was starting his shift at 6:00 pm. See Exhibit B. 

Pierra responded: "Yes, it's fine if you left." The manager also asked Suarez-Lau to "[t]ake a load 

off tonight." 

23. Suarez-Lau left The Balcony at 5:37 pm. After Suarez-Lau arrived home, she 

received a text message from Messina. In the text, Messina informed Suarez-Lau that if she did 

not return to the restaurant, then Messina would not place Suarez-Lau on the schedule. SuarezLau, who was authorized to end her shift by Pierra, did not return to The Balcony. 

The Constructive Discharge 

24. On June 30, 2019, Suarez-Lau was scheduled to work a shift. However, Messina 

removed Suarez-Lau from the schedule. Later, Demmi Hernandez, who is a White Hispanic 

female bartender, was terminated a second time7

 for not showing up for her shift. 

25. During the weekend of June 30, 2019, Hernandez and Suarez-Lau were removed 

from The Balcony's bartender group chat on WhatsApp. 

26. On or about July 1, 2019, The Balcony management re-hired (or revoked the 

termination decision regarding) Hernandez. 

 

7

 The first occasion occurred on May 5, 2019, when Hernandez was terminated for being drunk at the bar. The 

management subsequently re-hired (or revoked the termination decision regarding) Hernandez after the May 2019 

incident. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 6 of 36
7 

27. On July 2, 2019, Suarez-Lau called the restaurant to speak with O'Neil. SuarezLau briefed O'Neil on what occurred on June 28, 2019. O'Neil informed Suarez-Lau that he 

would talk to the other managers and promised to call Suarez-Lau the next day. However, O'Neil 

did not call Suarez-Lau on July 3, 2019. 

28. On July 4, 2019, Suarez-Lau texted O'Neil. However, O'Neil did not respond. 

29. On July 5, 2019, Dellatto talked to O'Neil about Suarez-Lau's situation. O'Neil 

told Dellatto to advise Suarez-Lau to apologize to Messina. 

30. On July 6, 2019, in an attempt to resolve the situation and resume work, SuarezLau texted Messina and apologized.8

31. During the July 8-9, 2019, period, Suarez-Lau attempted to communicate with 

O'Neil to inquire about her status, but O'Neil did not respond. 

32. On July 10, 2019, Suarez-Lau attempted to communicate with O'Neil to inquire 

about her status, but O'Neil did not respond. Later, Suarez-Lau traveled to the restaurant and 

talked with O'Neil. The general manager asked Suarez-Lau if she had talked with Messina. 

Suarez-Lau informed O'Neil of her apology to Messina. O'Neil stated that Suarez-Lau should 

speak with Messina about placing Suarez-Lau on the schedule since "it doesn't matter to me 

either way" and that the scheduling decision was up to Messina. 

33. Suarez-Lau texted Messina and told her of Suarez-Lau's conversation with O'Neil. 

Messina informed Suarez-Lau that bartender shifts were not available. Messina asked SuarezLau if she had talked to Bishop. Suarez-Lau informed Messina that she had not talked with 

Bishop because Bishop was not her manager. Messina informed Suarez-Lau that she was 

 

8

 Suarez-Lau did not believe she was at fault. However, due to her need to maintain a sound financial base for the 

duration of her pregnancy, Suarez-Lau elected to pursue a strategy to preserve her employment. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 7 of 36
8 

supposed to be working as a server and bartender. This information was previously not disclosed 

to Suarez-Lau. 

34. Suarez-Lau texted Bishop, who informed Suarez-Lau that server shifts were not 

available.9

35. On July 12, 2019, Suarez-Lau tried to pick-up a bar shift (using the HotSchedules 

app) for July 13, 2019. However, Messina quickly denied it. 

36. On July 27, 2019, in response to Suarez-Lau's question about her inability to login the HotSchedules app, Bishop texted Suarez-Lau: "Cause you don't work here." Bishop's text 

message was the first time a manager advised Suarez-Lau of her work status. 

37. On or about August 17, 2019, Kevin Lee Galvez, who is a Hispanic male 

bartender at The Balcony, continued to be employed by PDKN although he failed to show up for 

a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

38. Since June 28, 2019, PDKN hired numerous new bartenders, including, but not 

limited to, two non-pregnant White females, one non-pregnant Hispanic female and one White 

male. 

COUNT I 

TITLE VII (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

39. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

40. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on Title VII, against PDKN's 

discriminatory decision to terminate her employment at The Balcony. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who was a woman affected by pregnancy, was not treated by PDKN the same for all 

 

9

 Messina and Bishop, during their respective communications with Suarez-Lau, suggested Suarez-Lau apply at one 

of the Bokampers Sports Bar & Grill restaurants or Bo's Beach, which are restaurants owned and operated by 

PDKN. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 8 of 36
9 

employment-related purposes, as other persons not so affected, but similar in their ability or 

inability to work when she was terminated for missing an unscheduled work shift. 

41. Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or 

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

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

such individual's . . . sex. . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 

42. In 1978, the United States Congress amended Title VII with the PDA to explicitly 

extend protection to pregnant women. Specifically, under the PDA, "[w]omen affected by 

pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employmentrelated purposes ... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to 

work...." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). Under the PDA, employers are not required to give pregnant 

women special treatment; instead, employers must only treat pregnant women the same as all 

other prospective or current employees. 

43. Suarez-Lau, who was pregnant at the time of her termination, was a member of a 

group protected by Title VII. 

44. Suarez-Lau, who possessed prior experience as a server and bartender at several 

restaurants, was qualified for the positions of server and bartender at The Balcony. 

45. Suarez-Lau suffered an adverse effect regarding her employment when PDKN 

terminated her employment at The Balcony for alleging missing an unscheduled work shift. 

46. Suarez-Lau suffered from PDKN applying different work and disciplinary rules to 

her circumstances than non-pregnant employees. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 9 of 36
10 

47. Suarez-Lau is aware of at least one PDKN female employee, who was not 

affected by pregnancy, but missed at least two work shifts without being terminated by the 

company. 

48. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was: (a) solely attributable to her pregnancy; 

and (b) totally unrelated to her ability or inability to perform the job or adhere to restaurant 

policies, procedures and protocols. 

49. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was a result of intentional discrimination, 

which is demonstrated by at least four categories of circumstantial evidence. 

50. First, the close timing between PDKN's decision to terminate Suarez-Lau and the 

employer's knowledge of her pregnancy suggests discrimination. In particular, on May 12, 2019, 

Suarez-Lau learned she was pregnant and informed her boyfriend, who is shift key manager and 

server at The Balcony. On June 15, 2019, Dellatto, who was excited about the pregnancy, 

informed O'Neil about Suarez-Lau's pregnancy. Dellatto previously informed Messina, Bishop 

and Pierra about the pregnancy. Fourteen days later (specifically starting on June 29, 2019, and 

continuing to July 27, 2019), Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged by PDKN after she 

allegedly missed an unscheduled work shift. 

51. Second, PDKN provided more favorable treatment of employees of either sex 

who were not affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, but were similar in 

their violation of restaurant policies, procedures and protocols. Specifically: 

a. Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions 

(including terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) 

and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 10 of 36
11 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the 

permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an 

unscheduled work shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a male bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

c. Although PDKN managers informed Suarez-Lau that the restaurant did 

not have available bartending or server shifts, PDKN hired additional nonpregnant employees, including at least three females and one male, as 

bartenders immediately after her discharge. 

52. Third, evidence exists that casts doubts on the credibility of PDKN's explanation 

for the challenged action. Specifically, Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, 

continued to be employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including 

terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and subsequently re-hired while 

Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift 

with the permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work 

shift. 

53. Fourth, evidence that PDKN violated or misapplied its own policy when it 

decided to terminate Suarez-Lau. Specifically, PDKN terminated Suarez-Lau although she 

adhered to restaurant protocol when she requested and received permission from the shift 

manager and the evening manager to leave after her morning "to volume" shift. Per restaurant 

protocol, Messina, who was serving as a bartender and not a bar manager on June 28, 2019, did 

not have the authority to demand Suarez-Lau to work an unscheduled double shift, especially 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 11 of 36
12 

when the managers on duty had provided Suarez-Lau with permission to leave after her 

scheduled shift. 

54. As a direct, legal and proximate result of PDKN's discrimination, Suarez-Lau 

sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional injuries, resulting in damages in 

an amount to be proven at trial. 

55. PDKN's unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or done with 

reckless disregard to Suarez-Lau's right to be free from discrimination based on pregnancy. 

COUNT II 

TITLE VII (DISPARATE IMPACT) 

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

56. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

57. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on Title VII, against PDKN for its 

disciplinary policy, practice or protocol regarding bartenders who fail to report to the restaurant 

for scheduled work shifts because, although the policy, practice or protocol is facially neutral, 

the policy, practice or protocol has caused a significant discriminatory effect on pregnant 

bartenders. 

58. PDKN schedules its bartenders at The Balcony to work various shifts. PDKN 

informs bartenders of their respective work schedules on HotSchedules, which is an employee 

scheduling app, and in writing, which is composed of a piece of paper that is posted in the 

manager's office. Once scheduled, a bartender is required to report to the restaurant 

approximately 10-15 minutes prior to the start time of the employee's shift. 

59. In the restaurant industry, the phrase "no call, no show" refers to an employee's 

absence from work without notifying the employer. Generally, PDKN managers elected not to 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 12 of 36
13 

impose significant disciplinary actions for non-pregnant employees who "no called, no showed" 

for a work shift. For example: 

a. Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions 

(including terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) 

and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the 

permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an 

unscheduled work shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a male bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

60. Conversely, the policy, practice or protocol disproportionately affected, and 

currently affects, members of a protected group—pregnant women. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who was pregnant at the time of her termination, was a member of a group protected by Title VII 

and was terminated by PDKN for declining the bar manager's demand for her to work an 

unscheduled shift after she was previously authorized by two other managers to leave the 

restaurant after her scheduled shift. 

61. PDKN's reliance on this policy, practice or protocol cannot be justified by a 

substantial legitimate business necessity or reason. 

62. PDKN's business rationale for its termination of Suarez-Lau and others similarly 

situated is pre-textual. 

63. Even if PDKN could justify its policy, practice or protocol based on a business 

necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 13 of 36
14 

64. As a direct result of PDKN's discriminatory policy, practice or protocol as 

described above, Suarez-Lau sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional 

injuries, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

COUNT III 

ADA (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

65. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

66. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on the ADA, against PDKN's 

discriminatory decision to terminate her employment at The Balcony. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who was a woman affected by pregnancy, was not treated by PDKN the same for all 

employment-related purposes, as other persons not so affected, but similar in their ability or 

inability to work when she was terminated for missing an unscheduled work shift. 

67. Suarez-Lau, who was pregnant at the time of her termination, was disabled as 

defined by the ADA since her condition would have involved a substantial limitation on one or 

more of her major life activities include performing manual tasks, walking and working. 

Specifically, as the pregnancy progressed, Suarez-Lau would have been significantly restricted 

as to the condition, manner or duration under which she could have performed her duties as a 

bartender or server as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average 

person in the general population could perform those same activities. For example, Suarez-Lau 

would have been prohibited from lifting heavy items (including retrieving containers containing 

alcohol and buckets of ice between floors) during her pregnancy or operating in confined 

environments (i.e., limited spacing behind the bar with more than one bartender). 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 14 of 36
15 

68. Suarez-Lau is a qualified individual under the ADA. Specifically, Suarez-Lau was 

able to perform the essential functions of the bartender position at the time of her termination 

(and during the remainder of her pregnancy) with reasonable accommodation. In particular, in 

late June 2019, Suarez-Lau requested Pierra to provide her with a light duty assignment 

(specifically, hostess duties) during the last trimester of her pregnancy. Pierra informed SuarezLau that "we would figure it out when the time comes." Alternatively, PDKN could have 

provided Suarez-Lau with other temporary and reasonable accommodations that would not have 

substantially changed the position, including scheduling Suarez-Lau to work alone at a bar 

section; and staffing Suarez-Lau's bar section with a barback/runner who could perform any 

necessary heavy lifting. 

69. Suarez-Lau also was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of her 

pregnancy. Suarez-Lau was terminated by PDKN when it applied different work and disciplinary 

rules to her circumstances than non-pregnant employees when she did not stay to work an 

unscheduled double shift. In contrast, Suarez-Lau is aware of at least one PDKN employee, who 

was not affected by pregnancy, but missed at least two work shifts without being terminated by 

the company. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was based on discrimination due to the 

following factors: 

a. First, the close timing between PDKN's decision to terminate Suarez-Lau 

and the employer's knowledge of her pregnancy suggests discrimination. 

In particular, on May 12, 2019, Suarez-Lau learned she was pregnant and 

informed her boyfriend, who is shift key manager and server Anthony 

Dellatto. On June 15, 2019, Dellatto, who was excited about the 

pregnancy, informed O'Neil about Suarez-Lau's pregnancy. Dellatto 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 15 of 36
16 

previously informed Messina, Bishop and Pierra about the pregnancy. 

Fourteen days later (specifically stating on June 29, 2019, and continuing 

to July 27, 2019), Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged by PDKN 

after she allegedly missed an unscheduled work shift. 

b. Second, PDKN provided more favorable treatment of employees of either 

sex who were not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical 

conditions, but were similar in their violation of restaurant policies, 

procedures and protocols. Specifically: 

i. Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions 

(including terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a 

shift) and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with 

the permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an 

unscheduled work shift. 

ii. Galvez, who is a male bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

iii. Although PDKN managers informed Suarez-Lau that the restaurant 

did not have available bartending or server shifts, PDKN hired 

additional non-pregnant employees, including at least three females 

and one male, as bartenders immediately after her discharge. 

c. Third, evidence exists that casts doubts on the credibility of PDKN's 

explanation for the challenged action. Specifically, Hernandez, who is a 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 16 of 36
17 

non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although she was terminated on two occasions (including terminated on 

June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and subsequently re-hired 

while Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, and later discharged, for 

concluding a scheduled shift with the permission of the closing manager 

and not remaining to work an unscheduled work shift. 

d. Fourth, evidence exists that PDKN violated or misapplied its own policy 

when it decided to terminate Suarez-Lau. Specifically, PDKN terminated 

Suarez-Lau although she adhered to restaurant protocol when she 

requested and received permission from the shift manager and the evening 

manager to leave after her morning "to volume" shift. Per restaurant 

protocol, Messina, who was serving as a bartender and not a bar manager 

on June 28, 2019, did not have the authority to demand Suarez-Lau to 

work an unscheduled double shift, especially when the managers on duty 

had provided Suarez-Lau with permission to leave after her scheduled 

shift. 

70. As a direct, legal and proximate result of PDKN's discrimination, Suarez-Lau 

sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional injuries, resulting in damages in 

an amount to be proven at trial. 

71. PDKN's unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or done with 

reckless disregard to Suarez-Lau's right to be free from discrimination based on pregnancy. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 17 of 36
18 

COUNT IV 

ADA (DISPARATE IMPACT) 

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

72. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

73. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on the ADA, against PDKN for its 

disciplinary policy, practice or protocol regarding bartenders who fail to report to the restaurant 

for scheduled work shifts because, although the policy, practice or protocol is facially neutral, 

the policy, practice or protocol has caused a significant discriminatory effect on pregnant 

bartenders. 

74. PDKN schedules its bartenders at The Balcony to work various shifts. PDKN 

informs bartenders of their respective work schedules on HotSchedules, which is an employee 

scheduling app, and in writing, which is composed of a piece of paper that is posted in the 

manager's office. Once scheduled, a bartender is required to report to the restaurant 

approximately 10-15 minutes prior to the start time of the employee's shift. 

75. In the restaurant industry, the phrase "no call, no show" refers to an employee's 

absence from work without notifying the employer. Generally, PDKN managers elected not to 

impose significant disciplinary actions for non-pregnant employees who "no called, no showed" 

for a work shift. For example: 

a. Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions 

(including terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) 

and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 18 of 36
19 

permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an 

unscheduled work shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a male bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

76. Conversely, the policy, practice or protocol disproportionately affected, and 

currently affects, members of a protected group—pregnant women. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who was pregnant at the time of her termination, was a member of a group protected by the ADA 

and was terminated by PDKN for declining the bar manager's demand for her to work an 

unscheduled shift after she was previously authorized by two other managers to leave the 

restaurant after her scheduled shift. 

77. PDKN's reliance on this policy, practice or protocol cannot be justified by a 

substantial legitimate business necessity or reason. 

78. PDKN's business rationale for its termination of Suarez-Lau and others similarly 

situated is pre-textual. 

79. Even if PDKN could justify its policy, practice or protocol based on a business 

necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

80. As a direct result of PDKN's discriminatory policy, practice or protocol as 

described above, Suarez-Lau sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional 

injuries, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 19 of 36
20 

COUNT V 

FCRA (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

81. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

82. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on the FCRA, against PDKN's 

discriminatory decision to terminate her employment at The Balcony. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who was a woman affected by pregnancy, was not treated by PDKN the same for all 

employment-related purposes, as other persons not so affected, but similar in their ability or 

inability to work when she was terminated for missing an unscheduled work shift. 

83. The FCRA (specifically, Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes) makes it 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, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status." 

84. Suarez-Lau, who was pregnant at the time of her termination, was a member of a 

group protected by the FCRA. 

85. Suarez-Lau, who possessed prior experience as a server and bartender at several 

restaurants, was qualified for the position of bartender at The Balcony. 

86. Suarez-Lau suffered an adverse effect regarding her employment when PDKN 

terminated her employment at The Balcony for alleging missing an unscheduled work shift. 

87. Suarez-Lau suffered from PDKN applying different work and disciplinary rules to 

her circumstances than non-pregnant employees. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 20 of 36
21 

88. Suarez-Lau is aware of at least one PDKN female employee, who was not 

affected by pregnancy, but missed at least two work shifts without being terminated by the 

company. 

89. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was: (a) solely attributable to her pregnancy; 

and (b) totally unrelated to her ability or inability to perform the job or adhere to restaurant 

policies, procedures and protocols. 

90. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was a result of intentional discrimination, 

which is demonstrated by at least four categories of circumstantial evidence. 

91. First, the close timing between PDKN's decision to terminate Suarez-Lau and the 

employer's knowledge of her pregnancy suggests discrimination. In particular, on May 12, 2019, 

Suarez-Lau learned she was pregnant and informed her boyfriend, who is shift key manager and 

server at The Balcony. On June 15, 2019, Dellatto, who was excited about the pregnancy, 

informed O'Neil about Suarez-Lau's pregnancy. Dellatto previously informed Messina, Bishop 

and Pierra about the pregnancy. Fourteen days later (specifically starting on June 29, 2019, and 

continuing to July 27, 2019), Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged by PDKN after she 

allegedly missed an unscheduled work shift. 

92. Second, PDKN provided more favorable treatment of employees of either sex 

who were not affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, but were similar in 

their violation of restaurant policies, procedures and protocols. Specifically: 

a. Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions 

(including terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) 

and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 21 of 36
22 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the 

permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an 

unscheduled work shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a male bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

c. Although PDKN managers informed Suarez-Lau that the restaurant did 

not have available bartending or server shifts, PDKN hired additional nonpregnant employees, including at least three females and one male, as 

bartenders immediately after her discharge. 

93. Third, evidence exists that casts doubts on the credibility of PDKN's explanation 

for the challenged action. Specifically, Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, 

continued to be employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including 

terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and subsequently re-hired while 

Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift 

with the permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work 

shift. 

94. Fourth, evidence that PDKN violated or misapplied its own policy when it 

decided to terminate Suarez-Lau. Specifically, PDKN terminated Suarez-Lau although she 

adhered to restaurant protocol when she requested and received permission from the shift 

manager and the evening manager to leave after her morning "to volume" shift. Per restaurant 

protocol, Messina, who was serving as a bartender and not a bar manager on June 28, 2019, did 

not have the authority to demand Suarez-Lau to work an unscheduled double shift, especially 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 22 of 36
23 

when the managers on duty had provided Suarez-Lau with permission to leave after her 

scheduled shift. 

95. As a direct, legal and proximate result of PDKN's discrimination, Suarez-Lau 

sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional injuries, resulting in damages in 

an amount to be proven at trial. 

96. PDKN's unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or done with 

reckless disregard to Suarez-Lau's right to be free from discrimination based on pregnancy. 

COUNT VI 

FCRA (DISPARATE IMPACT) 

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

97. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

98. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on the FCRA, against PDKN for its 

disciplinary policy, practice or protocol regarding bartenders who fail to report to the restaurant 

for scheduled work shifts because, although the policy, practice or protocol is facially neutral, 

the policy, practice or protocol has caused a significant discriminatory effect on pregnant 

bartenders. 

99. PDKN schedules its bartenders at The Balcony to work various shifts. PDKN 

informs bartenders of their respective work schedules on HotSchedules, which is an employee 

scheduling app, and in writing, which is composed of a piece of paper that is posted in the 

manager's office. Once scheduled, a bartender is required to report to the restaurant 

approximately 10-15 minutes prior to the start time of the employee's shift. 

100. In the restaurant industry, the phrase "no call, no show" refers to an employee's 

absence from work without notifying the employer. Generally, PDKN managers elected not to 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 23 of 36
24 

impose significant disciplinary actions for non-pregnant employees who "no called, no showed" 

for a work shift. For example: 

a. Hernandez, who is a non-pregnant female bartender, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions 

(including terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) 

and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the 

permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an 

unscheduled work shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a male bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

101. Conversely, the policy, practice or protocol disproportionately affected, and 

currently affects, members of a protected group—pregnant women. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who was pregnant at the time of her termination, was a member of a group protected by the 

FCRA and was terminated by PDKN for declining the bar manager's demand for her to work an 

unscheduled shift after she was previously authorized by two other managers to leave the 

restaurant after her scheduled shift. 

102. PDKN's reliance on this policy, practice or protocol cannot be justified by a 

substantial legitimate business necessity or reason. 

103. PDKN's business rationale for its termination of Suarez-Lau and others similarly 

situated is pre-textual. 

104. Even if PDKN could justify its policy, practice or protocol based on a business 

necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 24 of 36
25 

105. As a direct result of PDKN's discriminatory policy, practice or protocol as 

described above, Suarez-Lau sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional 

injuries, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial 

COUNT VII 

TITLE VII (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION 

106. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

107. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on Title VII, against PDKN's 

discriminatory decision to terminate her employment at The Balcony. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who is a woman of Asian descent, was not treated by PDKN the same for all employment-related 

purposes, as other persons of other races, ethnicities and colors. 

108. Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or 

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

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

such individual’s race [and] color. ..." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 

109. Suarez-Lau, as a person of Asian descent, was a member of a group protected by 

Title VII. 

110. Suarez-Lau, who possessed prior experience as a server and bartender at several 

restaurants, was qualified for the position of bartender at The Balcony. 

111. Suarez-Lau suffered an adverse effect on regarding her employment when PDKN 

terminated her employment at The Balcony for missing an unscheduled work shift. 

112. Suarez-Lau suffered from PDKN applying different work and disciplinary rules to 

her circumstances than employees of other races, ethnicities and colors. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 25 of 36
26 

113. Suarez-Lau is aware of at least one PDKN employee, who was not a person of 

Asian descent, but missed at least two work shifts without being terminated by the company. 

114. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was: (a) solely attributable to her race, 

ethnicity and color; and (b) totally unrelated to her ability or inability to perform the job or 

adhere to restaurant policies, procedures and protocols. 

115. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was a result of intentional discrimination, 

which is demonstrated by at least three categories of direct and circumstantial evidence. 

116. First, PDKN provided more favorable treatment to at least two employees who 

were not persons of Asian descent, but engaged in similar conduct in violation of restaurant 

policies, procedures and protocols. Specifically: 

a. Hernandez, who is a Hispanic bartender, continued to be employed by 

PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including 

terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and 

subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, 

and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the permission 

of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work 

shift. 

b. Galvez, who is Hispanic, continued to be employed by PDKN although he 

failed to show up for a bartender shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

c. Although PDKN managers informed Suarez-Lau that the restaurant did 

not have available bartending or server shifts, PDKN hired additional nonAsian persons, including two White females, one Hispanic female and one 

White male, as bartenders immediately after her discharge. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 26 of 36
27 

117. Two, evidence exists that casts doubts on the credibility of PDKN's explanation 

for the challenged action. Specifically, Hernandez, who is a Hispanic female, continued to be 

employed by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including terminated on 

June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was 

constructively discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the 

permission of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work shift. 

118. Third, evidence that PDKN violated or misapplied its own policy when it decided 

to terminate Suarez-Lau. Specifically, PDKN terminated Suarez-Lau although she adhered to 

restaurant protocol when she requested and received permission from the shift manager and the 

evening manager to leave after her morning "to volume" shift. Per restaurant protocol, Messina, 

who was serving as a bartender and not a bar manager on June 28, 2019, did not have the 

authority to demand Suarez-Lau to work an unscheduled double shift, especially when the 

managers on duty had provided Suarez-Lau with permission to leave after her scheduled shift. 

119. As a direct, legal and proximate result of PDKN's discrimination, Suarez-Lau 

sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional injuries, resulting in damages in 

an amount to be proven at trial. 

120. PDKN's unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or done with 

reckless disregard to Suarez-Lau's right to be free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity 

and color. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 27 of 36
28 

COUNT VIII 

TITLE VII (DISPARATE IMPACT) 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION 

121. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

122. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on Title VII, against PDKN for its 

disciplinary policy, practice or protocol regarding bartenders who fail to report to the restaurant 

for scheduled work shifts because, although the policy, practice or protocol is facially neutral, 

the policy, practice or protocol has caused a significant discriminatory effect on Asian 

bartenders. 

123. PDKN schedules its bartenders at The Balcony to work various shifts. PDKN 

informs bartenders of their respective work schedules on HotSchedules, which is an employee 

scheduling app, and in writing, which is composed of a piece of paper that is posted in the 

manager's office. Once scheduled, a bartender is required to report to the restaurant 

approximately 10-15 minutes prior to the start time of the employee's shift. 

124. In the restaurant industry, the phrase "no call, no show" refers to an employee's 

absence from work without notifying the employer. Generally, PDKN managers elected not to 

impose significant disciplinary actions for non-Asian employees who "no called, no showed" for 

a work shift. For example: 

a. Hernandez, who is a Hispanic bartender, continued to be employed by 

PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including 

terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and 

subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, 

and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the permission 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 28 of 36
29 

of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work 

shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a Hispanic bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

125. Conversely, the policy, practice or protocol disproportionately affected, and 

currently affects, members of a protected group—Asians. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, who is Asian 

is a member of a group protected by Title VII and was terminated by PDKN for declining the bar 

manager's demand for her to work an unscheduled shift after she was previously authorized by 

two other managers to leave the restaurant after her scheduled shift. 

126. PDKN's reliance on this policy, practice or protocol cannot be justified by a 

substantial legitimate business necessity or reason. 

127. PDKN's business rationale for its termination of Suarez-Lau and others similarly 

situated is pre-textual. 

128. Even if PDKN could justify its policy, practice or protocol based on a business 

necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

129. As a direct result of PDKN's discriminatory policy, practice or protocol as 

described above, Suarez-Lau sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional 

injuries, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 29 of 36
30 

COUNT IX 

FCRA (DISPARATE TREATMENT) 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION 

130. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

131. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on the FCRA, against PDKN's 

discriminatory decision to terminate her employment at The Balcony. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, 

who is a person of Asian descent, was not treated by PDKN the same for all employment-related 

purposes, as other persons of other races, ethnicities and colors. 

132. The FCRA (specifically, Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes) makes it 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, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status." 

133. Suarez-Lau, as a person of Asian descent, was a member of a group protected by 

the FCRA. 

134. Suarez-Lau, who possessed prior experience as a server and bartender at several 

restaurants, was qualified for the position of bartender at The Balcony. 

135. Suarez-Lau suffered an adverse effect on regarding her employment when PDKN 

terminated her employment at The Balcony for missing an unscheduled work shift. 

136. Suarez-Lau suffered from PDKN applying different work and disciplinary rules to 

her circumstances than employees of other races, ethnicities and colors. 

137. Suarez-Lau is aware of at least one PDKN employee, who was not a person of 

Asian descent, but missed at least two work shifts without being terminated by the company. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 30 of 36
31 

138. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was: (a) solely attributable to her race, 

ethnicity and color; and (b) totally unrelated to her ability or inability to perform the job or 

adhere to restaurant policies, procedures and protocols. 

139. PDKN's termination of Suarez-Lau was a result of intentional discrimination, 

which is demonstrated by at least three categories of direct and circumstantial evidence. 

140. First, PDKN provided more favorable treatment to at least two employees who 

were not persons of Asian descent, but engaged in similar conduct in violation of restaurant 

policies, procedures and protocols. Specifically: 

a. Hernandez, who is a Hispanic female, continued to be employed by 

PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including 

terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and 

subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, 

and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the permission 

of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work 

shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a Hispanic bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

c. Although PDKN managers informed Suarez-Lau that the restaurant did 

not have available bartending or server shifts, PDKN hired additional nonAsian persons, including two White females, one Hispanic female and one 

White male, as bartenders immediately after her discharge. 

141. Two, evidence exists that casts doubts on the credibility of PDKN's explanation 

for the challenged action. Specifically, Hernandez, who is Hispanic, continued to be employed 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 31 of 36
32 

by PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including terminated on June 30, 2019, 

for failing to show up for a shift) and subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively 

discharged, and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the permission of the 

closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work shift. 

142. Third, evidence that PDKN violated or misapplied its own policy when it decided 

to terminate Suarez-Lau. Specifically, PDKN terminated Suarez-Lau although she adhered to 

restaurant protocol when she requested and received permission from the shift manager and the 

evening manager to leave after her morning "to volume" shift. Per restaurant protocol, Messina, 

who was serving as a bartender and not a bar manager on June 28, 2019, did not have the 

authority to demand Suarez-Lau to work an unscheduled double shift, especially when the 

managers on duty had provided Suarez-Lau with permission to leave after her scheduled shift. 

143. As a direct, legal and proximate result of PDKN's discrimination, Suarez-Lau 

sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional injuries, resulting in damages in 

an amount to be proven at trial. 

144. PDKN's unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or done with 

reckless disregard to Suarez-Lau's right to be free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity 

and color. 

COUNT X 

FCRA (DISPARATE IMPACT) 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION 

145. Suarez-Lau re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-38, as 

if they were fully set forth herein. 

146. Suarez-Lau asserts this claim, which is based on the FCRA, against PDKN for its 

disciplinary policy, practice or protocol regarding bartenders who fail to report to the restaurant 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 32 of 36
33 

for scheduled work shifts because, although the policy, practice or protocol is facially neutral, 

the policy, practice or protocol has caused a significant discriminatory effect on Asian 

bartenders. 

147. PDKN schedules its bartenders at The Balcony, to work various shifts. PDKN 

informs bartenders of their respective work schedules on HotSchedules, which is an employee 

scheduling app, and in writing, which is composed of a piece of paper that is posted in the 

manager's office. Once scheduled, a bartender is required to report to the restaurant 

approximately 10-15 minutes prior to the start time of the employee's shift. 

148. In the restaurant industry, the phrase "no call, no show" refers to an employee's 

absence from work without notifying the employer. Generally, PDKN managers elected not to 

impose significant disciplinary actions for non-Asian employees who "no called, no showed" for 

a work shift. For example: 

a. Hernandez, who is a Hispanic bartender, continued to be employed by 

PDKN although she was terminated on two occasions (including 

terminated on June 30, 2019, for failing to show up for a shift) and 

subsequently re-hired while Suarez-Lau was constructively discharged, 

and later discharged, for concluding a scheduled shift with the permission 

of the closing manager and not remaining to work an unscheduled work 

shift. 

b. Galvez, who is a Hispanic bartender, continued to be employed by PDKN 

although he failed to show up for a shift on or about August 17, 2019. 

149. Conversely, the policy, practice or protocol disproportionately affected, and 

currently affects, members of a protected group—Asians. Specifically, Suarez-Lau, who is 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 33 of 36
34 

Asian, is a member of a group protected by the FCRA and was terminated by PDKN for 

declining the bar manager's demand for her to work an unscheduled shift after she was 

previously authorized by two other managers to leave the restaurant after her scheduled shift. 

150. PDKN's reliance on this policy, practice or protocol cannot be justified by a 

substantial legitimate business necessity or reason. 

151. PDKN's business rationale for its termination of Suarez-Lau and others similarly 

situated is pre-textual. 

152. Even if PDKN could justify its policy, practice or protocol based on a business 

necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity. 

153. As a direct result of PDKN's discriminatory policy, practice or protocol as 

described above, Suarez-Lau sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic and emotional 

injuries, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

154. WHEREFORE, Suarez-Lau requests this Court issue judgment against PDKN as 

follows: 

a. Declaring PDKN's policies, practices, protocols and other decisions as 

alleged in this Complaint are unlawful; 

b. Reinstating or re-hiring Suarez-Lau as a bartender, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-5(g); 42 U.S.C. § 12117; Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5); and any other 

applicable federal or state law; 

c. Awarding back and front pay; lost or unpaid wages; and other 

compensation, in an amount to be proven at trial, pursuant to, 42 U.S.C. § 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 34 of 36
35 

2000e-5(g); 42 U.S.C. § 12117; Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5); and any other 

applicable federal or state law; 

d. Awarding compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven 

at trial; pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12117; Fla. Stat. § 

760.11(5); and any other applicable federal or state law; 

e. Awarding interest on pay, compensation and damages, including pre- and 

post-judgment interest and an upward adjustment for inflation; 

f. Enjoining PDKN from engaging in the unlawful acts complained in this 

Complaint; 

g. Awarding attorney's fees, costs and expenses to Suarez-Lau's legal 

counsel, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); 42 U.S.C. § 12205; Fla. Stat. 

§ 760.11(5); and any other applicable federal or state law; and 

h. Granting such other relief (in law or equity) to Suarez-Lau as this Court 

may deem just and proper. 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 35 of 36
36 

JURY DEMAND 

155. Suarez-Lau demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 38. 

Dated: June 9, 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Michael L. Buckner 

__________________________________ 

Michael L. Buckner, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 106331 

Email: michaelbucknerlaw@gmail.com 

Michael L. Buckner Law Firm, P.A. 

4977 NW 67th Avenue 

Lauderhill, Florida 33319 

Office: +1-954-347-0112 

Facsimile: +1-954-578-1440 

Attorney for the Plaintiff, Julisa Suarez-Lau 

Case 0:20-cv-61136-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 36 of 36