UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.:

EDWIN C. LEGUE,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, EDWIN C. LEGUE, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through 

the undersigned counsel, hereby sues Defendant CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (hereinafter 

“Defendant”), and in support avers as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This is an action by the Plaintiff for damages, race discrimination, in violation the Florida 

Civil Rights Act, § 760.01, et seq., Florida Statutes (“FCRA”), 42 U.S.C. §1983 - Civil Action 

for Depravation of Rights, to redress injury done to Plaintiff by the Defendant for 

discriminatory treatment and for redress of Plaintiff’s depravation of rights in violation of these 

laws.

2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff is a Caucasian (“white”) male and is a member of a class protected under § 1983

and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) because the terms, conditions, and privileges of his 

employment were altered because of his race and/or color.

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

4. Defendant has, at all times material hereto, employed 15 or more employees for each working 

day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in accordance 

with the FCRA (Fla. Stat. § 760.02(7)).

5. Venue is proper in Miami Dade County because all of the actions that form the basis of this 

Complaint occurred within Miami Dade County.

6. Plaintiff was an employee covered by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the FCRA in that he was subjected 

to negative, disparate treatment by his employer based on his race and/or color. 

7. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the FCRA as a result 

of the adverse treatment to which Defendant subjected Plaintiff, including but not limited to 

termination. 

8. On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) which was dually filed with the Florida 

Commission on Human Relations.

9. The Florida Commission on Human Relations did not issue a finding on Plaintiff’s charge 

within 180 days of the filing of said charge. 

10. All conditions precedent for the filing of this action before this Court have been previously 

met, including the exhaustion of all pertinent administrative procedures and remedies.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

11. Plaintiff, a white Caucasian male was employed by Defendant from June 2008 through June 

30, 2016 as a Marina Manager.

12. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked without negative reviews.

13. Plaintiff’s position was outsourced, resulting in his termination on or about June 30, 2016.

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

14. Other similarly situated non-Caucasian employees of the City of Riviera Beach were not 

outsourced and terminated like Plaintiff.

15. Furthermore, in July of 2016, Plaintiff requested from the City of Riviera Beach, through its 

City Council and City Manager for the right to purchase remaining time on his retirement 

plan which would have allowed his retirement to vest. Plaintiff’s request was tabled and 

subsequently rejected while other non-White, non-Caucasian former employees were 

allowed to purchase the remaining time on their retirement plan and were allowed for their 

retirement to vest.

16. Defendant has an unwritten pattern and practice of discriminating against non-black 

employees. 

17. Upon his termination, Plaintiff was not afforded proper notice or the ability to allow for his 

retirement benefits to vest in violation of Chapter 14 of the City Ordinances.

18. No actions were taken by the City Council or the City Manager to address Plaintiff’s 

complaints of discrimination and disparate treatment to allow Plaintiff to have his retirement 

plan vest after his unlawful termination.

19. Defendant’s stated reason for termination—downsizing in the workforce—is without merit 

and is pretextual. 

COUNT I

Race and Color Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

20. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1–19 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

21. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under § 1983.

22. The City Manager, acting under color of law and vested with the final decision-making 

power, and in disregard of Plaintiff’s due process rights, discharged Plaintiff arbitrarily and 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

without cause and without prior notice on or about June 30, 2016 ratifying the unlawful 

conduct of Defendant’s managerial employees or officials.

23. By the conduct describe above, Defendant has engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff 

because of Plaintiff’s race and color and subjected the Plaintiff to race and color-based 

animosity. 

24. Such discrimination was based upon the Plaintiff’s race in that Plaintiff would not have been 

the object of discrimination but for the fact that Plaintiff is a white Caucasian. 

25. Defendant’s conduct complained of herein was willful and in disregard of Plaintiff’s 

protected rights. Defendant and its supervisory personnel were aware that discrimination on 

the basis of race was unlawful but acted in reckless disregard of the law. 

26. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibiting discriminatory conduct towards 

Plaintiff possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

employment with the Defendant. 

27. Defendant retained all employees who exhibited discriminatory conduct toward the Plaintiff 

and did so despite the knowledge of said employees engaging in discriminatory actions.

28. As a result of Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, 

has been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and 

damage. 

29. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

federal law. 

30. The actions of the Defendant and/or its agents were willful, wanton, and intentional, and with 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s statutorily protected rights, thus entitling 

Plaintiff to damages in the form of compensatory damages pursuant to federal law, to punish 

the Defendant for its actions and to deter it, and others, from such action in the future. 

31. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer both irreparable injury and compensable 

damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless and until this Honorable 

Court grants relief. 

32. So that Plaintiff’s rights may be protected, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel who 

is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Civil Rights Attorneys Fee 

Award Act. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has done so 

willfully, intentionally, and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter a judgment requiring that Defendant pay Plaintiff appropriate back pay, benefits' 

adjustment, and prejudgment interest at amounts to be proved at trial for the unlawful 

employment practices described herein;

C. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for 

mental anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the 

full benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by 

Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

COUNT II

Race Discrimination in Violation the FCRA

33. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1–19 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

34. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the FCRA because he is Caucasian.

35. By the conduct describe above, (reduction in pay and termination) Defendant has engaged in 

discrimination against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race and subjected the Plaintiff to 

animosity based on race. 

36. Such discrimination was based upon the Plaintiff’s race in that Plaintiff would not have been 

the object of discrimination but for the fact that Plaintiff is Caucasian. 

37. Defendant’s conduct complained of herein was willful and in disregard of Plaintiff’s 

protected rights. Defendant and its supervisory personnel were aware that discrimination on 

the basis of race was unlawful but acted in reckless disregard of the law. 

38. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibiting discriminatory conduct towards 

Plaintiff possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

employment with the Defendant. 

39. Defendant retained all employees who exhibited discriminatory conduct toward the Plaintiff 

and did so despite the knowledge of said employees engaging in discriminatory actions.

40. As a result of Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, 

has been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and 

damage. 

41. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

Florida law. 

42. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer both irreparable injury and compensable 

damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless and until this Honorable 

Court grants relief. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated FCRA, and has done so willfully, 

intentionally, and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter a judgment requiring that Defendant pay Plaintiff appropriate back pay, benefits' 

adjustment, and prejudgment interest at amounts to be proved at trial for the unlawful 

employment practices described herein;

C. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for 

mental anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the 

full benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by 

Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorney fees; and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT III

Color Discrimination in Violation the FCRA

43. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1–19 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

44. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the FCRA because he is Caucasian.

45. By the conduct describe above, Defendant has engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

because of Plaintiff’s race and subjected the Plaintiff to animosity based on Color. 

46. Such discrimination was based upon the Plaintiff’s color in that Plaintiff would not have been 

the object of discrimination but for the fact that Plaintiff is white. 

47. Defendant’s conduct complained of herein was willful and in disregard of Plaintiff’s 

protected rights. Defendant and its supervisory personnel were aware that discrimination on 

the basis of race was unlawful but acted in reckless disregard of the law. 

48. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibiting discriminatory conduct towards 

Plaintiff possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

employment with the Defendant. 

49. Defendant retained all employees who exhibited discriminatory conduct toward the Plaintiff 

and did so despite the knowledge of said employees engaging in discriminatory actions.

50. As a result of Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, 

has been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and 

damage. 

51. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under

Florida law. 

52. The actions of the Defendant and/or its agents were willful, wanton, and intentional, and with 

malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s statutorily protected rights, thus entitling 

Plaintiff to damages in the form of compensatory damages pursuant to federal law, to deter 

the Defendant for its actions, and others, from such action in the future. 

53. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer both irreparable injury and compensable 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless and until this Honorable 

Court grants relief. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated FCRA, and has done so willfully, 

intentionally, and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter a judgment requiring that Defendant pay Plaintiff appropriate back pay, benefits' 

adjustment, and prejudgment interest at amounts to be proved at trial for the unlawful 

employment practices described herein;

C. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for 

mental anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the 

full benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by 

Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorney fees; and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT IV

Violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983 of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

115. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1–19 above as if 

set out in full herein. 

116. Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, “Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, 

custom, or usage, of any State...subjects, or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United 

States...to the depravation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 

and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law...” 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

117. Defendant, by virtue of being a municipality and/or local government is a considered a person 

under the 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

118. Defendant has exercised power by virtue of state law because it is clothed with the authority of 

state law, to wit: Defendant terminated Plaintiff and deprived Plaintiff of his property right for 

continued employment. 

119. On or about June 30, 2016, the City Manager, acting under color of law and vested with the 

final decision-making power, and in disregard of Plaintiff’s due process rights, discharged 

Plaintiff arbitrarily and without cause and without prior notice ratifying the unlawful conduct 

of Defendant’s managerial employees or officials.

120. As a result of Defendant’s action who implemented and/or executed a policy statement, 

ordinance, regulation, or decision, Plaintiff was deprived of hisrights to retirement benefits under 

Chapter 14 of the Municipal Ordinances of Rivera Beach.

121. Defendant’s decision in terminating Plaintiff’s employment without notice or a hearing was 

the moving force behind Plaintiff’s depravation of rights. 

122. Defendant deprived Plaintiff of his rights through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause 

which requires that a depravation of life, liberty, or property be preceded by notice and opportunity 

of a hearing. 

123. In the present case, Defendant terminated Plaintiff and ended his retirement benefits without 

notice and/or a hearing depriving Plaintiff of his property right of continued employment with 

Defendant. 

124. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer both irreparable injury and compensable 

damages as a result of Defendant depraving Plaintiff of his rights, unless and until this Honorable 

Court grants relief. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant: 

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the Section 1983 and has depraved Plaintiff 

of his rights; 

B. Enter a judgment requiring that Defendant pay Plaintiff appropriate back pay, benefits' 

adjustment, and prejudgment interest at amounts to be proved at trial for the unlawful 

employment practices described herein; 

C. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental 

anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or in 

lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; 

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

Dated: July 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq. 

Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 188239

pmh@rgpattorneys.com

Daniel J. Bujan, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1017943

Dbujan@rgpattorneys.com

REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC

44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200

Miami, FL 33130

Telephone: (305) 416-5000

Facsimile: (305) 416-5005

Case 9:20-cv-81025-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 11 of 11