UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT

FILED BY fz . .

SO UTHERN DISTRICTOF FLO RIDA

JdL 32 2021

ct7UJ1'lî?'#.

S.D.OFFLA.-F'EPIEBCE

Delta DahieleHarris

lllêkil,tifç

h/.

U.S.Depadmentofthe Interior

DebHaaland,Secretal oftheInterior

Defendant

CASE NO.20-CV-14195-

ROSENBERG/MAYNARD

JuIy28,2021

AM ENDED COM PLIANT

Comesnow,Plaintiff,filesthisAmendedComplaintwhichisamixedcase,pursuantto

F.R.C.P.15(a)(2),andpursuanttomtleIoftheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990,

asamended,42U.S.C.jj12101,etseq.,42U.S.C.j2000eetseq.lmtleVIofthe

CivilRightsActof1964)asamendedbytheCivilRightsActof1991,andthe

RehabilitationActof1973,forem ploym entdiscrim ination.

Plaintiffwasdiscriminatedagainstandsubjectedtoahostileworkenvironmentbased

ondisability(adverseactionsandfailuretoprovidereasonableaccommodation),

reprisal(twoincidentsofoppositiontodiscrimination,deniedreasonable

accommodationsrequestedsince2015),priorsexualharassmentcomplaint,and

ongoingEEO activity,anddisparatetreatm entw hen Plaintiffreceiveda noticeof

removalandw assubsequentlyremovedfrom federalservice.

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 1 of 14
GENERALALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff,DELTA HARR IS isataIItimesan em ployeeofU.S.Departmentofthe

Interior/Fish&WildlifeServiceCtheemployef').

2. DefendantisataIItime's materialhereto DefendantU .S.Departm entofthe

InterioranddoingbusinessasFish& W ildlifeSeNice,Plaintiff'sEmployer.

3. Plaintiffappealsa m ixed case forw rongfulterm inationandw rongful

discrim inationagainstDefendant.

4.

documentrelatingto Ieaverestriction byintim idation/duressorDefendantbyand

AtaItimes materialhereto Defendanteitherobtainedan allegedinitialsona

throughDefendant'ssupervisorymanagementforgedDefendant'sname/initialson

companydocum ents.

5. ThisCourthasjurisdictionpursuanttoz8U.S.C.jj1331,CivilRightsActof

1964,Title VII.;theunlawfulem ploymentpractices allegedwere com mitted or

executedby supervisorypersonnel/managementoftheU.S.Departmentofthe

Interior/Fish&W ildlifeServiceCtheemploye/'l.,andthisCourthasjurisdiction

pur>uantto42U.S.C.jj12112to12117,AmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990.

6. PlaintifperformedalIcondition:precedenttobringthisamendedcomplaintfor

amixedcase inkolvingwrongfulterminationandwrongfuldiscrimination.

W rongfulTerm ination

7.

8. DefendantataIItim esisobligated to com plyw ith Iocal,State and Federalrules

andIawsregardingterminationofafederaleTployeesuchasPlaintiff.

Pjaintifrepeatsandrestatesparagraphs1-6above.

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 2 of 14
9.

Defendant'semployeewhoataItimesisinaprojectIead.

In2015,PlaintiffnotifiedDefendantofsexualharassmentperformedby

1o. ThesexualharassmentintheworkpiacecausedorcreatedPlaintiffmedical

trauma requiringPlaintifftoseekm edicaltreatment.

11. PlaintiffprovidedDefendantcopiesofmedicalrecordsandphysiciansnotes

including butnotlim itedto physiciansdiagnosisofPlaintiffsufferingfrom anxiety

arisingfrom sexualharassment,andarisingfrom anxietyfrom hostilework

environm ent.

12. DefendantandM SPB discountedthe multiplepagesofPlaintifrsmedical

records,physiciansnotes,m edicaldiagnosis,therapyand m edicaltreatm entof

Plaintiffsanxiety,Plaintifrsphysicianstatedthe Plaintiffbloodpressurewasso high

puttingPlaintiffinseveredamageofastroke both arising/resultingfrom thesexual

harassm:ntintheworkplaceandthepervasivehostileworkenvironment.

13. DefendantarguedinfrontofMSPB,withoutsupport,suggestingPlaintiff

sufferedanxietyfrom the deathofherm otherand notdueto sexualharassmentor

ho>tileworkenvironment.

14. Defendant'sargumentisfalse,notsupported byany medicalrecords or

physician'snotes,includingbutnotIimitedto Plaintiff'stherapist'snotes,w hichM SPB

ignoredoroverlooked.

15. AtaIItim es m aterialhereto,whenPlaintiffcom plainedaboutthesexual

harassment,DéfendantthroughDefendant'ssupervisor/managementdidnotaddress

the issues,failedto take properaction including butnotlimited to denyingPlaintiff

reasonableaccom modations,required Plaintifftoremain in close proxim ity,changed

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 3 of 14
Plaintiffsscheduletoherdetriment,deniedpromotion,putPlaintiffonIeave

restrictionsforyears.

16. Defendant,throughDefendant'ssupervisor/management,discriminatedand

retaliatedagainstPlaintiffbyremoval,terminationofemployment.

17. DefendantremovedPlaintifffrom employmentclaiming:1)R eAW OL2)

FailureToFolowLeaveProcedures,3)LackOfCandor,é)MisuseOfGovemmènt

Vehicle(GOV),5)InappropriateConduct.

18. Plaintiffsrem ovalwastheresultofDefendantem ployer'sdiscriminationonthe

basisofdisabilitydiscrim ination,priorEEO activities,sexualharassm ent,and

retaliation,whichisaprohibitedpersonnelpracticeundersU.S.C.2302(b)(1).

AfterPlaintifffiled hercom plaintclaim ingwrongfulterm ination,M SPB decided

infavoroftheagency relyingon Agency'sstatem entsandnotthe facts Ieadingto the

term ination.Pretextto the eventwasdisregarded my M SPB decision.

19. Plaintiffsrem ovalfrom em ploymentwrongfullytookplace base on Defendanfs

failuretotake properactionupongivingnoticeofsexualharassment,failuretomake

reasonableaccom modationPlaintiffrepeatedlyrequested,basedon discrim inating

againstPlaintiffrem ovingherfrom herworkarea insteadoftheoffendingsexual

predator.

20.

RightsActprohibitingretaliationforopposingdiscriminationorengagingin EEO

Defendantactionts)arecontrarytoIawinviolationofmtle7oftheCivil

activity.

21. MSPB failedto recognizeandgivew eightto theevidencePlaintiff

presentedincludingbutnotlimitedto:(1)Plaintiffengagedinaprotectedactivity;(2)

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 4 of 14
theaccusedofficialkneworshouldhaveknownoftheprotectedactivity;(3)the

agencyactionunderreview(removal)ismoreIikelythannottoberetaliatoryconduct

underthecircumstances',and(4)therewasagenuinenexusbetweenthealeged

retaliationandtheagency'sIackofactioninresponsetothecomplaintofsexual

harassmentagainstaIeadprojectmanager.

22.PriortoremovalEmployer(Agency)andMSPBfailedtoconsidermitigating

factorssuchastheemployee'spotentialforrehabilitation,theAgencyfailedto

balancefactorsagainstthe seriousnessoftheoffense,failedto considerfactorsof

the effecton thedutiesofthe positionandthem ission ofthe organization.

23.MSPBfailedto giveproperconsiderableweighttomitigatingfactorsincludingbut

notlimitedto:

Charge 1:AW OL

1. Plaintiffhadnopattem ofsim ilarconduct.

2. Plaintiffsactionswere notmalièiousorintentional.

3. Plaintiffactedoutofnecessitydueto anxiety,duress.

4. Plaintiffsactionswereduetotemporal emotionalstressorsevere

provocation.

5. Plaintiffpresentedevidence ofremorseforactions',Plaintiffexpressed

sincereremokse,and apologized.

Charge2:lm properClaim Failureto Follow Leave Procedures

1. PlaintifwaswrongfulyplacedonLeaveRestrictionforoverthree(3)

years dueto beingdisabledandproved disabilitypriorto beingon Ieave

restriction.

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 5 of 14
2.

reasonableaccomm odations.

Plaintiffprovedshecanperform theessentialfunctionsofherjobwith

3.

4.

Plaintiffrequestedreasonableaccommodationtslforyears.

Agencydenied Plaintiff'srepeated accomm odation requests2015 -2018.

Charge3:LackofCandor

1. Plaintiffhadnopattem ofsimilarconduct.

2. Plaintiffwasunderduress,fear.

3. Plaintiffdid notactm aliciousorw ith intentionalactions.

4. PlaintiffusedGOV usedforOfficialUseonlyandasauthorized;policy

statesthatillnessisa validreasonto cancelatripw hile usinga GOV.

5. Carelessaction- apologizedandexpressed sincererem orse.

6.Toldthatexplanationtothechargedactionwouldreducethe

COnSeqUenC@S.

Charge4:MisuseofGovemment-ownedVehicle(GOV)

1. PlaintiffusedtheGOV usedforOfficialUseonlyandas authorized inthe

policy.

2. No evidencesupportthe misuseofthe GOV.

3. PlaintiffprovedviathemileagerecordedontheGOV thatitwasusedfor

govem mentuse.

4. Plaintiffhadnopattem ofsimilarconduct.

5. Plaintiffdid notactm aliciousorintentionalactions.

C harge5:Inappropriate Conduct

Plaintiffhadnopattem ofsimilarconduct.

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 6 of 14
2. Plaintiffhadnomaliciousorintentionalactions.

3. GOV usedforOfficialUse onlyandasauthorized.

4.Plaintiffadmitscarelessaction,poorjudgmentonmypart- apologized

andexpressed sincere remorse.

24.M SPB failed to properly considerPlaintiff's removalwas a resultofreprisalforEEO

activity and opposition to discrimination, including retaliatory harassment/hostile work

environment,whichisaprohibitedpersonnelpracticeunder5U.'S.C.2302(b)(9),thedeciding

officialwasawareofandmotivatedbyEmployer's(Agency's)participationinrecentEEO

activity.

25.M SPB failedtofollow theweightoftheevidenceshowing Plaintiff'sremovalwasa result

of reprisalforEEO activity and oppositionto discrim ination,which isa prohibited personnel

practiceunder5U.S.C.2302(b)49),5andof5U.S.C.j2302(b)(1),whereboththeproposing

and deciding officials

activity.

were aware of and motivated by Appelant's participation in EEO

26.The nextreasonthedecisionofM SPB infavorofDefendantshouldbereconsideredison

the grounds Plaintiffseeks relieffrom denialofherclaim forwrongfulterm ination based on

newlydiscovered evidence,specificaly:forgery.

27.

dated Novem ber17,2017,isnotm ysignature/initials.

28.

Itrecently has com eto my attention,Defendant's Leave Restriction Notice

Before my rem oval,Defendant's em ployee Mr.Breen cam e into my office

for me to sign a Leave Restriction Notice/Letterwhich he discussed a m istake on

other documents pertaining to a Ieave restriction notice and asked for my

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 7 of 14
signature/initials.

29. Defendantfailedto providetheentire docum ent.

30. M r.Breen only handed me,Plaintiff,the Iastpage ofthe Ieave restriction

notice w hich only had a signature Iine. W hen I requested to see the entire

documenVnotice/letter,he refusedto provide methe.entiredocumentandwouldnot

Ieave myofficeuntil/unlessIsigned/initialed.

31.R e Leave Notice/Letteris a documentthatldo notrecognize having my own

handwriting/initialing making the documenta forgery ordocumentsigned under

duress.

32.Plaintiffreceivedanoticeofrem ovalandwassubsequentlyremovedfrom federal

l

seN ice.

33.For the reasons stated, Plaintiff seeks damages,com pensatory damages,incidental

dam ages,reim bursem entformedicalcosts,reasonable com pensation forplacing so muqh

stress on m e Ieading me,who is now 47 years oId to nearly have a stroke from anxiety,

havingtotakemedicalprescriptionsforanxietyIneverhadbefore(andhavinganadverse

reaction to the prescription while at work which in turn negatively affected my work

performance),the constanthostile environmentsingling me out,puting me on constant

surveilance, humiliating m e in frontof co-worker,disclosing my m edicalinformation to

m anagementaboutmy medicalnegative reactiontom ymedication- w hichwasbeingtaking

only because ofthe anxiety created from the sexualharassment and the pervasive hostile

work environm ent,com pensation forIoss ofpay forIostworkdays,and any reliefthiscourt

deem sproper,including butnotlim itedtoa new trialfrom MSPB,ifthiscourtdeem sproper.

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 8 of 14
W RO NG FULDISCRIM INATIO N

34.

35. DefendantataI tim es is obligated to notto discrim inate,create a hostile work

environment,com plywithIocal,Stateand FederalrulesandIaws.

Plaintiffrepeatsand statesparagraphs 1 -6above.

36.

em ployee, Defendant's supervisor

Defendant failed to take proper

including butnotIim itedto removingthe offenderfrom Plaintiff'sworkarea,failingto provide

After Plaintiff notified Defendantthrough Defendant's supervisor/management's

in a supervisory personnel/managpment capacity,

action on Plaintiff's com plaint of sexualharassment,

reasonable accomm odations,rem ovalofthe offendingparty.

37. Defendantfailed to comply with Iocal,State and Federalrules,Iaws by engaging

in the practice offailingtom ake reasonableaccomm odationsfordisability basedonanxiety

and otherdiagnosis from Plaintiff's medicalproviders arising afterthe sexualharassment

activityand noticeofsexualharassmentactivityintheworkplace.

38.DefendantdiscriminatedagainstPlaintiffbysubjectingPlaintifftoahostilework

environm entfrom Plaintiffcom plaining aboutthe sexualharassm ent,m anagement

ignored Plaintiff's com plaints, management failed to recognize my diagnosis of

disabilityamongothermanagementfailureswith policy/procedures.

3goDefendantdiscrim inated against Plaintiff by taking adverse actions,failing to

provide reasonable accommodationts), reprisalfor complaining about sexual

harassm entintheworkplaceandongoingEEO activity,disparatetreatment.

Moaplaintiff appeals the Agency's and the M SPB Adm inistrative Judges final

decisions,based onthe factsthe decisionsareflawed andnotbasedonthe com plete

record and the discrimination claim ed w ithin the complaint.Agency and M SPB did

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 9 of 14
notcorrectly analyze the facts in the case and failed to properly apply the Iegal

standard to thefactsin Plaintiff'scase:'

R e initialdecision containserroneousfindingsoffact;

R einitialdecisionisbasedonan erroneousinterpretationofIaw;and/or

The rulingisinconsistentw iththeM SPB'Srulesandproceduresand involved an

abuseofdiscretion.

40. O n March 16,2018,Plaintiffw as proposed forterm ination by m mothy Breen

(SupervisoryFish&W ildlifeBiologist,SouthFloridaEcologicalServicesFieldOffice)to

beremovedandonApril20,2018,Plaintiff/Apm lantwasremovedfrom employmentby

Donald(Bob)Progulske(EvergladesProgram Supervisor)for(1)AbsentwithoutLeave

(AWOL),(2)Failureto Folow Leave Restriction,(3)LaèkofCandor,(4)Misuse of

Govem ment-ownedVehicle(GOV),and(sllnappropriateConduct.

41. Plaintiffcontends thatthe charges were notsupported by evidence;thatthe

purported infractions,even ifproven true,do notw arrantremoval;and thattheAgency

failedtoconsidertherelevantDouglasFacsors.

42.' R e Agency's decision is notsupported by preponderance ofthe evidence

pursuantto5U.s.c.j7701(c)(1)(B).EveniftheAgencycouldproveitscharge,which

itcannot,itstilcannotshowthatthepenaliwaswithintheboundsofreasonableness

w here the deciding officialdid notproperly considerthe Douglas Factors,including

m itigation,làck ofpriordiscipline,disparate treatm ent,and consistency ofthe penalty.

DouglasB.VeteransAdmin.,5M.S.P.R.280,305-06(1981).

42. Plaintiffpresented evidence showing thatthe penalty ofPlaintifrs removalwas

extreme,severe,andexcessive,incomparisontootheremployee'sinfractions(suchas

a m ale em ployee who wasgiven retirem entafterproofthatthe em ployeew asdivinga

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 10 of 14
GOV toastripjoint,IefttheGOV unlockedandthekeysinthecar,Iiedabouthistime

sheet;oranothermaleemployeewhostole$40,000.00worthofgovernmentequipment

andwasgiven retirement',thirdly,amaleemployeewhowasAW OLoveramonth,was

chargedwithsellingcrackcocaine,heroinandaIlthemalesweregivenretirement.

43. In my case,MSPB ignored ordid notgive considerable weightto the excessive

penalty.

43. Appelantshowed M SPB DefendantAgencyfailedtotake intoconsideration the

extenuating circumstances and the m itigating factors involving my m edicalconditions

andmy em otionalproblemsatvarioustimes ofabsencein question.

44. Plaintiffshowed thatthe mission ofthe sewice wasnotadverselyim pacted by her

conduct.

45. Plaintiff/Appellantshowed my absenc: did notaffectco-worker's job

performance,didnotaffectmanagement'strustandconfidenceinherjobperformance,

anddid notinterferew ithoradversely affecttheAgency'sm ission.

46. Plaintiff/Appellantshowed,which M SPB ignoredordid notgivethe properweight

thatm y rem ovalw as notbased on my disability,disparatetreatment,andforretaliation

ofmy priorprotected EEO activities.

47. ThedecisioninfavorofEmployer/AgencyisnotinaccordancewithIaw wherethe

Agency disparately em ployed a zero tolerance policyw ith a pre-determ ineddecision to

removePlaintiff/Appelantpursuanttotàepolicyratherthan toconsiderthe Douglas

Factorsandreasonablenessofthepenaltyasrequired by Iaw .

48.R edecisioniscontrarytoIaw wherePlaintiffwassubjectedtodisparatediscipline

in comparison to otherM ALE co-w orkersw ho received no discipline fortheirnegative

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 11 of 14
actionsandaIwerealowedtoretire:i.e.stealing$40,000ingovem mentequipment',

AW OLandarrestedforsalesofcrackcocaine;Iyingon timesheet,takingGOV to strip

jointandIeavingkeysandgovernmentcomputerincarwhichGOV wasstolen.

49. Because this issue was raised,the burden is placedontheAgencyto explain the

disparatetreatment,andtheAgencyhasfailedtodo.

50. Plaintiffwasemployedforalmostten(10)yearswithnopriorissueuntilMr.Breen

becam e Plaintiff's new supervisorand Plaintiffwas sexually harassed by co-worker

John Galvez,who was found to have sexually harassed anotherofDefendant's

em ployee.

51. R e

HillenversusArmyandfailedto follow andim plem entthe Hillen Factors.

M SPB has recourse to w hat's called the Hillen Factors,w hich stem s from

52. DefendantEmployer/Agency'saffidavitsare Iacedwith inconsistentstatements,

contradictions,falseclaims,whichMSPB ignoreàordidnotgiveconsiderableweight.

54 The MSPB AJ sided w ith the Agency despite the Iack ofcandor,inconsistent

statements,andfalse statem entsm ade throughouttheiraffidavits.

55. Agency did notfollow nor implementDOIpolicy and

reasonableaccomm odations.

56. Agency neitherfollow ed norim plemented DO lpolicy and procedures regarding

sexualharassment.

57.Agency created a hostile work environment negatively impacting the Plaintiff's

health.

procedures regarding

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 12 of 14
CertificateofSew ice

Iherebycedifythata trueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoingwasseN edby

Viaem ailto thecounselofrecordontheSeN iceListbelow on 7/29/2021.

' j

/ 1 ..

Jr ...'y ,e

Slgnature. ,'

x ' 7 q-' w

. Prlntedname..' ( p jStephanieFilder,CounselforDefendant

Email:Stephanie.fidler@ usdoj.gov

Kevin.lean@ usdoi.gov.

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 13 of 14
'q=c.. ir.;.c y: . .

,

'

.

,

i.;.Fiv..)iy, , -.ç.àïMg,'ljj.rg$jjj

t..':-,J,j .'..- j;yunngzalulgjcN:'ùHlnc::'f1 i.'vi'..-.$ .'2'.f).'...'f

tkl:''91.î. :/'-,*.0-:- t' ! l .

-

.

- ' .,

. - -

:

. .,.

.-.:.t i..r. . ,eu;y...,..$..,uL.y

.

.

:!..

:yj.t.. -. . 'tijt ..ki ...I,

., .. k.,.j

.;

.

- ' .g;.. . .. .I.:1

: :

u. .- .

. ';w

'i. #'t.k.''.4'.,.q....:' ' ;xlr . .. a. .e. .

,

..,

. . ... t.- '. ..

'

. ,.. . !.'. #,

. . .t . . . .. .v .)'

... . bk . ..

x' , . t!-.'%ij ,L., ) . . . ... '!:j . k: ... - . .

e. ..... .'$

' ..1 .

.

'

.. ),..j

'.kv.!..7j..' t)..k ..; .?:

.

'-,!l.6.:t.. ?.u .;.> ' %. i',:

..! , . $' ..t'k7, ...

..'i. . ï.

E.7kq1'.?.t...,:. ..

j-t.... %a:.,:1-'..;.. r j .

.:. Li. ,..,'.. j;' . vxk.xi)6,6 -.-&z..-.- < .!.:; j, x

'?..'

'

.;.:'x 'f ... --.--. -... . .- .' *v:;;IL 1.

. ..

.. !' . ...... 'h2.'*t,zlw -.... ..j;.,..-I-w,-9-r.... ).

).'

H.

tr

.N

i.

jJ!

!.*

êr

l

!;!

F

t<6

f

..u

:

$:

i.,

l,

1j';

)%L

'

y.

J.

!.'i

(.L

(t

)'

I ' t.

I! Q(E7L7Da)HsAeRlR- IS g y kgs kyq j gg j j. aeaa '

' THE ZPS STORE #3142 SHP UTILTR 72

12281 R ALAYEDA PKUY DATEI25 ZUL 2221 l1t.

LAKEDQQD CC :e22:-27:1 )) ' ):

0tJ!n >1cnl' nr &nIInT 1

i.k

72lJkIl222122.,228111 f'l. $8Ip . !,

T1. U.S SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF FL $ç'2

' 4o4 s us HIQHW AY 4 ):

R M 4046 ' % t:''

1 9:

# :.4 4** ##: . k.'t

#V. s .4 -- :5k.

. h. g. . ?tl

%..z . . j. ::.'

.

* *.& * * 1.

'

2 ./ . . !.,

.1.*.. . j..4 . t.i-

.' @: t.

.5z : 43... 127725X02407446880 i.

1

$#

'(

):

èt:

TRACKING #: IZ 7V2 5Xe 24 :744 658e Cà. '

l.k

o

.$

t

.

.

,. jt,

:.

'

à

:f ('i

. . j '

'

SILLING:PzP : '

'

..lj

SIGNATURE REQUTRE: -

7

àr

(

l!F12lj! . .)-

l$H 13.::FzZP 46:4e.$: :7/a:2 l'J

,1

V' 5CEe*m..*9NR0ltvx.t-.eP.nuMlTmAe-Adtk%e<ewondN'bMwCOm#-GSwVO#ms-leeP:M'<''=L'>'Dt*OKlbUlKagfxw'e'''U5w::e1E-8m.t1'-'''.!a.%-. '

œ

=

o

>

c

*

*

œ

<

=

X

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2021 Page 14 of 14