___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-22431

ISABEL OSORIO 

Plaintiff,

v.

SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO (“OSORIO”), by and through her undersigned attorney, sues 

Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“SGS”), and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief by OSORIO against 

SGS for sex (pregnancy) discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 

by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”); 

for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 

the FCRA; for unlawful retaliation under Florida’s Workers Compensation Retaliation Law, Florida 

Statutes § 440.205; and for a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, Title VII, the 

ADA, and the FMLA. The Court’s supplemental jurisdiction is invoked for the Plaintiff’s state law 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

3. Venue properly lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), in that the 

Defendant does business within this judicial district, Plaintiff worked for Defendant in this judicial 

district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in this judicial district. 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 1 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

2

PARTIES AND EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

4. OSORIO is a female, sui juris and, at all times material to this action, was a resident 

of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

5. Defendant, SGS, is a foreign corporation with its principle office on Rutherford, New 

Jersey. At all times material, OSORIO worked from her home in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

6. OSORIO was an employee of SGS as that term is defined under Title VII, the FCRA, 

the ADA, and the FMLA.

7. SGS was OSORIO’s employer as that term is defined under Title VII, the FCRA, the 

ADA, and the FMLA.

8. OSORIO has complied with all conditions precedent to jurisdiction under Title VII, 

the FCRA, and the ADA in that she filed her Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Florida Commission on Human Relations 

(“FCHR”) within 300 days of the unfair employment practices alleged in this Complaint; OSORIO

has filed this suit within 90 days of receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC; 180 days have 

elapsed since the Charge of Discrimination was filed with both the EEOC and the FCHR and FCHR 

has not issued a determination in that time period; and OSORIO is filing this Complaint within the 

FCRA’s four (4) year statute of limitations for the alleged discriminatory acts. Thus, all administrative 

prerequisites have been satisfied and this suit is timely filed. True copies of OSORIO’s Charge of 

Discrimination and Notice of Right to Sue are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectfully.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. OSORIO began working for SGS on August 14, 2017 as the Lead Medical Device 

Auditor.

10. OSORIO remained as a Lead Medical Device Auditor throughout her employment, 

and, in June 2019, she received a promotion to also become a Training Manager. 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 2 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

3

11. After her promotion, OSORIO was responsible for SGS’s onboarding process for new 

hires while also working as a lead auditor performing on-site and off-site certification and surveillance 

audits. 

12. OSORIO worked from home throughout her employment. Her job required a lot of 

travel to perform on-site audits; however, audits were and could be conducted remotely as well. 

13. OSORIO never received any disciplinary action or negative performance reviews until 

the final months of her employment with SGS.

14. On June 28, 2019, two (2) weeks after receiving a promotion to become a Training 

Manager, OSORIO found out she was pregnant. 

15. OSORIO’s physician ordered her not to fly until her first trimester was over as frequent 

flying can have an adverse effect on early pregnancies. 

16. OSORIO disclosed her pregnancy to her supervisor, Joseph Jones, Technical Director 

Medical Devices NAM, and informed him of her no-fly restriction and need for accommodation. 

17. Mr. Jones was upset by OSORIO’s request and initially told her SGS could not 

accommodate her request; however, because there were only six (6) weeks left in the first trimester, 

Mr. Jones ultimately agreed to the no-fly accommodation. 

18. OSORIO also informed the Human Resources Director, Damarys Reyes, of her 

pregnancy and need for accommodation. 

19. Mr. Reyes agreed to accommodate OSORIO’s request and assigned her audits that 

could be conducted remotely.

20. In August 2019, after the completion of her first trimester, OSORIO was cleared to fly 

and it appeared that she would be able to, for the most part, return to normal Performance of her job 

duties. 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 3 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

4

21. On August 16, 2019, however, OSORIO was involved in an accident during work 

hours while traveling to an audit wherein she significantly damaged her left ankle. 

22. Because she was pregnant, the Worker’s Compensation doctor and OSORIO’s OBGYN agreed she should not take any pain medications, anti-inflammatory medications, or steroids 

for the ankle injury. 

23. Left to endure the pain without medication, OSORIO’S blood pressure rose and she 

was prescribed blood pressure medication which delayed the healing of her ankle as the medication 

caused her hands and feet to swell. 

24. Consequently, OSORIO was required to sit for extended periods of time, which raised 

concerns about possible blood clots. 

25. OSORIO’s pregnancy was then classified as high risk and she was placed under a 

preeclampsia watch, which, in turn, significantly increased OSORIO’s doctor visits. 

26. OSORIO regularly updated SGS on her medical status, though she was advised that 

pregnancy related issues were outside the scope of her worker’s compensation injury. 

27. During September and October 2019, OSORIO was suffering negative side effects 

from her pregnancy and her health continued to decline. 

28. OSORIO’s physician directed her to restrict her activities to sedentary job functions 

given that her pregnancy was now considered high-risk and was told her ankle would not fully heal 

until the baby was born.

29. In or around September and October 2019, OSORIO advised SGS of the status of her 

declining health and, thereafter, it became increasingly clear that SGS was looking for reasons to 

terminate her employment.

30. Specifically, in October 2019, OSORIO was told for the first time that her performance

was subpar and was ordered to provide progress reports. 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 4 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

5

31. While she strongly disagreed with SGS’s opinion as to her performance, OSORIO 

complied with SGS’s requests and worked two weeks straight without any issues. 

32. On October 26, 2019, OSORIO underwent her next review, at which time she was told 

she was being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) for an indefinite period of time 

without explanation. 

33. OSORIO completed the tasks assigned to her and did so two days ahead of her next 

scheduled review meeting. 

34. Thereafter, OSORIO was provided with additional tasks that were also timely 

completed.

35. On November 11, 2019, without any warning or notice, OSORIO was informed that 

her employment was terminated for purportedly violating SGS’s Code of Conduct for allegedly 

actively seeking consulting work. 

36. OSORIO had never engaged in any consulting work during her employment with SGS. 

37. In December 2018, nearly a year before her termination, OSORIO created an entity 

called MDR Consultants. 

38. At the time she created MDR Consultants, OSORIO notified her supervisor, Mr. Jones, 

that she had done so and that she would not be doing any consulting work through MDR Consultants 

while she is employed by SGS, and he did not take issue with this.

39. But for OSORIO becoming pregnant, requesting accommodations related to her 

pregnancy, and becoming injured and filing a claim for worker’s compensation benefits, she would 

not have been terminated.

40. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to represent her in this action and is 

obligated to pay her attorney a reasonable fee for his services. 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 5 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

6

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII - SEX (PREGNANCY) DISCRIMINATION

41. This is an action for discrimination based upon sex (pregnancy) under Title VII.

42. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the allegations herein by this reference. 

43. Defendant violated Title VII by discriminating against Plaintiff based upon her sex 

(pregnancy) and pregnancy-related conditions by placing her on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment. 

44. But for her pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions, Plaintiff would not have been 

placed on a Performance Improvement Plan or terminated.

45. Defendant’s stated reason for placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment is pretextual. 

46. As a result of Defendant’s violations of Title VII, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. to remedy the pregnancy

discrimination of Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii.Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension, and retirement Plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages;

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages;

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Title VII.

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 6 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

7

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA – SEX (PREGNANCY) DISCRIMINATION

47. This is an action for discrimination based upon sex (pregnancy) under the FCRA.

48. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the allegations herein by this reference. 

49. Defendant violated the FCRA by discriminating against Plaintiff based upon her sex 

(pregnancy) and pregnancy-related conditions by placing her on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment. 

50. But for her sex (pregnancy) and pregnancy-related conditions, Plaintiff would not have 

been placed on a Performance Improvement Plan or terminated.

51. Defendant’s stated reason for placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment is pretextual. 

52. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. to remedy the pregnancy

discrimination of Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii.Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension, and retirement Plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages;

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages;

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the FCRA.

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 7 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

8

COUNT III 

VIOLATION OF THE ADA – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

53. This is an action for disability discrimination under the ADA. 

54. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the same herein by this reference. 

55. Plaintiff was a disabled person or perceived to be a disabled person as a result of her 

high-risk pregnancy and ankle injury.

56. Defendant violated the ADA by placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment because of her disabilities and need for accommodations. 

57. But for her disabilities and need for accommodations, Plaintiff would not have been 

placed on a Performance Improvement Plan or terminated.

58. Defendant’s stated reason for placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment is pretextual. 

59. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the ADA, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. to remedy the disability discrimination 

of Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension, and retirement Plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages;

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages;

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 8 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

9

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

60. This is an action for disability discrimination under the FCRA. 

61. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the same herein by this reference. 

62. Plaintiff was a disabled person or perceived to be a disabled person as a result of her 

high-risk pregnancy and ankle injury.

63. Defendant violated the FCRA by placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement

Plan and terminating her employment because of her disabilities and need for accommodations.

64. But for her disabilities and need for accommodations, Plaintiff would not have been 

placed on a Performance Improvement Plan or terminated.

65. Defendant’s stated reason for placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment is pretextual. 

66. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, prays that this Court will: 

b. Order Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. to remedy the disability discrimination 

of Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension, and retirement Plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

e. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages;

f. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages;

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 9 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

10

g. Enter an order against Defendant for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs.

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF THE ADA – RETALIATION

67. This is an action for retaliation under the ADA. 

68. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the same herein by this reference. 

69. Plaintiff was a disabled person or perceived to be a disabled person as a result of her 

high-risk pregnancy and ankle injury. 

70. Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and terminated from her 

employment because she sought reasonable accommodations for her disabilities.

71. Defendant violated the ADA by terminating Plaintiff’s employment because she 

sought reasonable accommodations for her disabilities

72. But for seeking reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff would not have been placed on 

a Performance Improvement Plan or terminated.

73. Defendant’s stated reason for placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment is pretextual. 

74. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the ADA, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, prays that this Court will: 

c. Order Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. to remedy the disability retaliation of 

Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension, and retirement Plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 10 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

11

h. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages;

i. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages;

j. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA – RETALIATION 

75. This is an action for retaliation under the FCRA. 

76. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the same herein by this reference. 

77. Plaintiff was a disabled person or perceived to be a disabled person as a result of her 

high-risk pregnancy and ankle injury. 

78. Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and terminated from her 

employment because she sought reasonable accommodations for her disabilities.

79. Defendant violated the FCRA by terminating Plaintiff’s employment because she 

sought reasonable accommodations for her disabilities

80. But for seeking reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff would not have been placed on 

a Performance Improvement Plan or terminated.

81. Defendant’s stated reason for placing Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan

and terminating her employment is pretextual. 

82. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. to remedy the disability retaliation of 

Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 11 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

12

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension, and retirement Plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages;

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages;

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees.

COUNT VII 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION RETALIATION

83. This is an action for retaliation under Fla. Stat. § 440.205. 

84. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the same herein by this reference. 

85. Plaintiff filed a valid worker’s compensation claim against Defendant.

86. Defendant took retaliatory adverse action against Plaintiff by terminating her

employment because of her valid worker’s compensation claim.

87. A causal link exists between the Plaintiff’s protected conduct of claiming worker’s 

compensation benefits and the adverse employment action taken by the Defendant in terminating her 

employment. 

88. As a result of the Defendant’s retaliatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages/

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, demands relief against Defendant, SGS 

NORTH AMERICA, INC. in the form of economic damages, and the value of any lost benefits, with 

interest thereon; non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for 

mental anguish, punitive damages, and any other such relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 12 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

13

COUNT VIII 

VIOLATION OF FMLA – INTERFERENCE

89. This is an action for interference under the FMLA.

90. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in paragraphs 1-40 and 

incorporates the same herein by this reference. 

91. Plaintiff was an eligible employee of Defendant as defined by Section 2611 (2) (A) of 

the FMLA when she notified Defendant of her pregnancy. 

92. Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer pursuant to the FMLA when she notified 

Defendant that she was pregnant, which would qualify her for leave time and benefits under the 

FMLA.

93. Defendant violated Section 2615 of the FMLA by interfering with Plaintiff’s rights 

under the FMLA, to wit Defendant terminated her employment rather than allowing Plaintiff to

exercise her lawful rights under the FMLA.

94. With regard to the unlawful interference described above, Defendant acted willfully 

and in bad faith such that Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to her lost 

wages.

95. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages including lost wages, benefits and other compensation and interest thereon.

96. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to recover liquidated damages pursuant to Section 2617 

(a) (1) (A) and her attorneys’ fees and court costs pursuant to Section 2617 (a) (3).

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ISABEL OSORIO, hereby demands trial by jury on all claims triable by right of jury 

under state or federal law.

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 13 of 14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

GALLUP AUERBACH • 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 265 South • Hollywood, FL 33021• Tel: 954.894.3035 • Web: gallup-law.com

14

Dated this 12th day of June 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

GALLUP AUERBACH

Counsel for Plaintiff 

4000 Hollywood Boulevard 

Presidential Circle-Suite 265 South

Hollywood, Florida 33021

Telephone: (954) 894-3035 

Facsimile: (954) 894-8015

E-mail: dgallup@gallup-law.com

By: /s/ Dana M. Gallup

DANA M. GALLUP

Florida Bar No.: 0949329

Case 1:20-cv-22431-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 14 of 14