UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.

EDIT GONCZI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOLLYWOOD BEACH, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company,

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

The plaintiff, EDIT GONCZI, by her undersigned attorney, makes the following 

Complaint against the defendant, HOLLYWOOD BEACH, LLC:

1. This is an action to redress violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act 

of 1992, as amended (“FCRA”), Fla. Stats. § 760.01 et seq.

Parties

2. The plaintiff, Edit Gonczi (“Gonczi”), is and at all times relevant to this 

Complaint was an adult resident of Florida.

3. The defendant, Hollywood Beach, LLC (“Hollywood Beach”) is a limited 

liability company organized and doing business pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida 

with a principal place of business in Delray Beach, Florida.

4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Hollywood Beach had 15 or more 

employees on each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks.

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 1 of 9
Jurisdiction and Venue

5. Plaintiff’s claims to redress violations of Title VII arise under federal law. This 

court has jurisdiction of those claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 

1331.

6. This court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims arising under the 

FCRA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the federal and state claims are so related that 

they form part of the same case or controversy.

7. The claims asserted in this action arose within this district and the alleged 

statutory violations occurred in this district. Venue of this action is proper pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Procedural Requirements

8. Gonczi filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) on or about February 18, 2020 alleging sex 

discrimination (sexual harassment) and retaliation by Hollywood Beach. The Charge of 

Discrimination was cross-filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The

Charge of Discrimination alleged facts giving rise to the same claims brought in this action. 

The EEOC assigned charge number 510-2020-02580 to Gonczi’s administrative proceeding.

9. The EEOC issued and mailed a Notice of Right to Sue letter with regard to 

Gonczi’s Charges of Discrimination on or about May 7, 2020. A copy of the Notice is 

attached as Exhibit A.

10. Gonczi commenced this action within 90 days of the EEOC’s issuance and 

mailing of its Notice of Right to Sue.

11. All other conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed 

or waived.

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 2 of 9
General Allegations

12. Gonczi is a female.

13. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Hollywood Beach operated a hotel 

and related amenities in Delray Beach, including a hotel restaurant.

14. Beginning in approximately 2009 and until her resignation in approximately 

March 2020, Hollywood Beach employed Gonczi as a server in its hotel restaurant.

15. Gonczi consistently performed her job duties to the satisfaction of her 

employer.

16. On a regular and frequent basis during the course of Gonczi’s employment, 

Gonczi’s male supervisor, Food and Beverage Director John Naughton, made sexual 

advances to Gonczi and communicated that she would lose her job or would be denied 

favorable employment opportunities if she did not comply with his wishes.

17. On a regular and frequent basis during the course of Gonczi’s employment, 

Naughton touched Gonczi on the buttocks despite being told that he should keep his hands 

to himself. 

18. On a regular and frequent basis during the course of Gonczi’s employment,

Naughton subjected Gonczi to sex-based remarks that were offensive, degrading, and 

insulting, including but not limited to:

a. sitting at the bar with friends and making sexual comments about the 

physical attributes of female servers;

b. telling a female server that she should wear a tighter shirt so he could 

see her nipples;

c. commenting that he needed to go to the beach to check out two offduty female employees to see which one had bigger boobs;

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 3 of 9
d. telling Gonczi in a text that she was a good woman because she was 

home cooking and cleaning; and

e. telling Gonczi in a text that he hoped she was doing her chores naked.

19. Naughton’s above-described behavior was so severe and pervasive that it 

created a hostile, intimidating, and abusive work environment that made it substantially 

more difficult for Gonczi to perform her work.

20. Gonczi did not welcome or invite any of Naughton’s above-described conduct 

and she made it clear to Naughton that his conduct was unwelcome.

21. Although Naughton’s conduct was unwelcome, Gonczi tolerated it because 

she needed income and feared that she would lose her job if she reported his sexual 

harassment.

22. When in 2019 Gonczi finally told Naughton that he was engaging in unlawful 

sexual harassment and needed to stop, he retaliated by finding fault in Gonczi’s job 

performance where none existed, imposing unwarranted discipline upon her, and giving her 

less favorable job assignments that resulted in a reduction of her tip income.

23. On or about November 25, 2019, Gonczi made a written complaint of sexual 

harassment to the management of Hollywood Beach.

24. After conducting a sham investigation of Gonczi’s sexual harassment 

investigation, Hollywood Beach’s General Manager and HR Manager falsely advised 

Gonczi on December 18, 2019 that no sexual harassment had ever occurred. Hollywood 

Beach did not act in good faith in reaching that conclusion but instead acted to protect its 

management-level employees, including Naughton.

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 4 of 9
25. In response to and because of Gonczi’s complaint of sexual harassment, 

Hollywood Beach regularly took adverse actions against Gonczi that continued until her 

resignation in March 7,2020, including but not limited to:

a. assigning her to work a 13-hour Thanksgiving shift with no break;

b. making unwarranted complaints about her job performance;

c. assigning her to extra duties that were not assigned to other servers;

d. giving scrutiny to her job performance that it did not give to other 

servers;

e. alleging that customers had complained about her service when no 

such complaints were made;

f. changing her schedule to require her to work at the pool on 

consecutive weeks in violation of preexisting scheduling policy, resulting in a 

reduction of her tip income;

g. assigning Gonczi to tables where customers were less likely to sit, 

resulting in a reduction of her tip income;

h. reducing Gonczi’s hours and sending her home early, resulting in a 

reduction of her wages and tips.

First Claim: Sexual Harassment in Violation of Title VII

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2)

26. Gonczi realleges and incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 to 25

of this Complaint.

27. Gonczi was sexually harassed in her workplace because of her gender.

28. The sexual harassment that Gonczi experienced created a hostile work 

environment that unreasonably interfered with her work performance.

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 5 of 9
29. Gonczi was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment at her workplace 

when her supervisor threatened to condition terms and conditions of her employment, 

including future employment opportunities, on Gonczi’s willingness to provide sexual 

favors to him.

30. Hollywood Beach was aware that Gonczi was being victimized by sexual 

harassment and that the sexual harassment was creating a hostile work environment, but 

took no effective action to correct the problem.

31. Hollywood Beach’s participation in and tolerance of sexual harassment of 

Gonczi was an unlawful employment practice that violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

32. The sexual harassment of Gonczi by Hollywood Beach was intentional, 

outrageous, and malicious.

33. As a direct, substantial, and proximate result of the sexual harassment 

described in this Complaint, Gonczi suffered a loss of wages, tips and benefits and has 

suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, anxiety, 

loss of dignity, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Second Claim: Sexual Harassment in Violation of FCRA

(Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1))

34. Gonczi realleges and incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 to 25

of this Complaint.

35. Gonczi was sexually harassed in her workplace because of her gender.

36. The sexual harassment that Gonczi experienced created a hostile work 

environment that unreasonably interfered with her work performance.

37. Gonczi was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment at her workplace 

when her supervisor threatened to condition terms and conditions of her employment, 

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 6 of 9
including future employment opportunities, on Gonczi’s willingness to provide sexual 

favors to him.

38. Hollywood Beach was aware that Gonczi was being victimized by sexual 

harassment and that the sexual harassment was creating a hostile work environment, but 

took no effective action to correct the problem.

39. Hollywood Beach’s participation in and tolerance of sexual harassment of 

Gonczi was an unlawful employment practice that violated Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a).

40. The sexual harassment of Gonczi by Hollywood Beach was intentional, 

outrageous, and malicious.

41. As a direct, substantial, and proximate result of the sexual harassment 

described in this Complaint, Gonczi suffered a loss of wages, tips, and benefits and has 

suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, anxiety, 

loss of dignity, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Third Claim: Retaliation in Violation of Title VII

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3)

42. Gonczi realleges and incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 to 25

of this Complaint.

43. Gonczi engaged in activity protected by Title VII by opposing unlawful 

discrimination each time she complained to her supervisor and Hollywood Beach 

management about sexual harassment in her workplace.

44. Gonczi made her complaints in the good-faith belief that the harassment she 

experienced constituted unlawful sex discrimination.

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 7 of 9
45. Hollywood Beach discriminated against Gonczi in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 

2000e-3(a) by taking adverse actions against her because she engaged in the protected 

activity described above.

46. Hollywood Beach’s retaliation against Gonczi because she engaged in 

protected activity was intentional, outrageous, and malicious.

47. As a direct, substantial, and proximate result of Hollywood Beach’s 

retaliation, Gonczi suffered a loss of wages and benefits and has suffered and will continue 

to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, anxiety, loss of dignity, and loss of 

enjoyment of life.

Fourth Claim: Retaliation in Violation of FRCA

(Fla. Stat. § 760.10(7))

48. Gonczi realleges and incorporates the allegations made in paragraphs 1 to 25

of this Complaint.

49. Gonczi engaged in activity protected by the FCRA by opposing unlawful 

discrimination each time she complained to her supervisor and Hollywood Beach 

management about sexual harassment in her workplace.

50. Gonczi made her complaints in the good-faith belief that the harassment she 

experienced constituted unlawful sex discrimination.

51. Hollywood Beach discriminated against Gonczi in violation of Fla. Stat. § 

760.10(7) by taking adverse actions against her because she engaged in the protected activity 

described above.

52. Hollywood Beach’s retaliation against Gonczi because she engaged in 

protected activity was intentional, outrageous, and malicious.

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 8 of 9
53. As a direct, substantial, and proximate result of Hollywood Beach’s 

retaliation, Gonczi suffered a loss of wages and benefits and has suffered and will continue 

to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, anxiety, loss of dignity, and loss of 

enjoyment of life.

Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edit Gonczi requests the entry of judgment against 

Defendant Hollywood Beach, LLC as follows:

a. For an award of lost wages, tips and benefits in an amount to be determined 

at trial;

b. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at 

trial;

c. For an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. For an award of actual costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee as authorized by 

Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and

e. For such other and further relief as is just and necessary.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Dated: June 18, 2020

Plantation, Florida

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Robert S. Norell

Robert S. Norell, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 996777)

E-Mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.

300 N.W 70th Avenue

Suite 305

Plantation, Florida 33317

Telephone: (954) 617-6017

Facsimile: (954) 617-6018

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:20-cv-80961-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 9 of 9