IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CIVIL ACTION NO 

ERIC ROSARIO, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

OLD NAVY, LLC ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

________________________) 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ERIC ROSARIO, by counsel, sues the Defendant OLD NAVY LLC and for his 

Complaint alleges: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

This is an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and under the Florida 

Civil Rights Act to correct unlawful disability-based employment practices and to provide relief 

to Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with 

greater specificity below, Defendant, OLD NAVY, LLC subjected Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO to 

disability discrimination and retaliation for opposing said discrimination. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Page 1 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 15
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. This 

action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

12101, et seq. (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4. The Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over the claims arising under the Florida Civil Rights Act. 

2. The unlawful employment practices alleged in this Complaint were committed 

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1391, venue is appropriate in this Court. 

PARTIES 

3. Plaintiff, ERIC ROSARIO (“Plaintiff” or “ROSARIO”), is an employee of Defendant 

OLD NAVY, LLC (“OLD NAVY” or “Defendant”), resides in Miami-Dade County, Florida 

and the cause of action accrued in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida. 

4. Defendant, OLD NAVY, LLC is a Delaware emitted liability company operating retail 

clothing stores in Miami-Dade County, Florida and employed ROSARIO. 

5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been doing business in the State of 

Florida and employs in excess of 500 persons. 

6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer within the meaning 

of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A) and Fla. Stat. § 760.02(7). At all relevant times, Defendant has 

been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

Page 2 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 15
8. ROSARIO has exhausted all the requisite administrative remedies prior to bringing this 

action. Specifically, but not as a limitation, ROSARIO timely filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against 

Defendant. Pursuant to a work sharing agreement, the Charge was dual filed with the Florida 

Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”). 

9. The EEOC sent Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue on or about May 15, 2020. ROSARIO 

timely commenced this action. As to the claims arising under the Florida Civil Rights Act, 

more than one hundred eighty days has passed and the Florida Commission on Human 

Relations has not issued either a “cause” or “no cause” finding. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

10. During all times material, Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO is a disabled individual who is 

legally blind. 

11. ROSARIO began employment with Defendant on or about September 2011. 

12. ROSARIO was hired by Defendant as a sales associate at Defendant’s Miami 

International Mall store location. 

13. During approximately 2014, ROSARIO overheard supervisor Juana say that ROSARIO 

would never be promoted due to his aforementioned disability. 

14. During approximately 2015, ROSARIO was given the key holder position. That position 

required ROSARIO to do the following: let customers into Defendant’s store, supervise the 

unloading of delivery trucks containing store items, and to confirm that store products were 

placed properly in the store. 

15. ROSARIO received no complaints regarding his performance as a key holder. 

Page 3 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 3 of 15
16. ROSARIO held the key holder position for approximately four months. 

17. During approximately 2016, a manager, Rosaimee, went on maternity leave. Rather than 

promote ROSARIO to that position, ROSARIO’s co-worker, Idania Ramos, was promoted to 

manager while Rosaimee was on leave. 

18. Idania Ramos was far less experienced than ROSARIO, and Ms. Ramos was not 

disabled. 

19. Afterwards, ROSARIO started seeing co-workers, such as Reny Cedeno, getting 

promoted above sales associate despite working for Defendant for less than two years. 

20. Those co-workers, such as Reny Cedeno, were unaware of any higher job position 

openings. Instead, they were told by Defendant’s management that an opening was 

forthcoming and management told said co-workers to apply to the higher job positions and 

that they will get the positions once applied for. 

21. Due to his disability, managers, such as Jenny Perez, never told ROSARIO about any job 

openings that were forthcoming and never recommended that he apply for higher job 

positions. 

22. During 2017, a co-worker, Eslover Sanchez-Baquero, told ERIC that he overheard 

manager Yaneya Rodriguez say, “ERIC wasn’t going to get that position.” Yaneya Rodriguez 

was referring to a Grade 3 position that ROSARIO was interested in. 

23. That Grade 3 position was given to ROSARIO’s co-worker, Daniel, who was far less 

experienced than ROSARIO and Daniel was not disabled. 

24. During 2017, ROSARIO then made a complaint to Defendant’s human resources 

department for disability discrimination. 

Page 4 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 4 of 15
25. During 2017, ROSARIO never received a response from Defendant’s human resources 

department. 

26. Instead, district manager Teresa called and spoke to ROSARIO about his disability 

discrimination complaint. 

27. Teresa told ROSARIO that a manager at Defendant’s Palm Springs Mile store in Hialeah 

(“Hialeah store”) was going on maternity leave, so Teresa asked ROSARIO to transfer to the 

Hialeah store while that manager was on leave. The premise being that if ROSARIO 

performs well in a managerial position, then he could get a merchandiser position at that 

Hialeah store or another store. 

28. However, Teresa deceived ROSARIO: there was no manager going on maternity leave at 

the Hialeah store. Teresa lied to ROSARIO in order to get ROSARIO to transfer to the 

Hialeah store because he is disabled. 

29. Enrique Victorero is the general manager, and Lester is the assistant manager of the 

Hialeah store. 

30. At Defendant’s Hialeah store, ROSARIO received far less work hours. 

31. At Defendant’s Hialeah store, ROSARIO was regulated to not being seen on the store 

floor and instead he mainly unloaded trucks in the back of the store. 

32. ROSARIO then applied to a Grade 7 merchant position and did not receive it due to 

being disabled. 

33. Generally, employees that don’t receive a promotion he or she applied for are put on an 

Action Plan so that the employee will likely get the position the next time he or she applies. 

Page 5 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 5 of 15
Mr. ROSARIO has never been put on an Action Plan despite being an employee for 

Defendant since approximately September 2011. 

34. At all times material, Juana, Reny Cedeno, Jenny Perez, Eslover Sanchez-Baquero, 

Yaneya Rodriguez, Daniel, Idania Ramos, Rosaimee, Edsel Lopez, general manager Jessica, 

Defendant’s human resources department, Teresa, Enrique Victorero, Lester, the district 

manager of the Hialeah store, hiring manager of the Hialeah store, district manager of the 

Miami International Mall store, and hiring manager of the Miami International Mall store, 

were acting within the scope of their employment with Defendant. 

COUNT I 

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA 

(Failure to Promote) 

35. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 are re-alleged as if fully set forth 

herein. 

36. ROSARIO is a qualified individual within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) in that he 

is legally blind, Defendant perceives him to have a disability, he has the requisite education 

to perform and can perform the essential functions of a Grade 7 merchant, and desired to 

hold a position as a Grade 7 merchant. 

37. ROSARIO is an employee of Defendant within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(4). 

38. Prior to and at the time that Defendant failed to promote ROSARIO to a Grade 7 

merchant position he applied for, ROSARIO was qualified for the Grade 7 merchant position. 

39. Defendant’s discriminatory actions include: (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying 

ROSARIO in a way that adversely affected his opportunities or status because of his 

disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(1); (2) utilizing standards, criteria, or 

Page 6 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 6 of 15
methods of administration that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability 

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(3)(A); and (3) using qualification standards, 

employment tests, or other selection criteria that screened out or tended to screen out 

individuals with vision disabilities, despite the fact that doing so was not consistent with 

business necessity, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6). 

40. ROSARIO has been damaged by Defendant’s violation of the ADA inasmuch as 

ROSARIO has been unable to use his education and training as a Grade 7 merchant, and has 

suffered loss of past and future wages and benefits, loss of professional opportunities, 

emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish. 

41. ROSARIO is entitled to her attorneys’ fees and costs and any and all relief permitted 

under the ADA. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands judgment against Defendant for 

compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, interest, emotional distress, punitive damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II 

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA 

(Retaliation) 

(Reduction in hours) 

42. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 are re-alleged as if fully set forth 

herein. 

43. ROSARIO is a qualified individual within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) in that he 

is legally blind, Defendant perceives him to have a disability, he has the requisite education 

Page 7 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 7 of 15
to perform and can perform the essential functions of job positions above sales associate at 

Defendant. 

44. ROSARIO is an employee of Defendant within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(4). 

45. Defendant, in violation of the ADA, prevented ROSARIO from being promoted due to his 

disability. ROSARIO opposed such disability discrimination by contacting Defendant’s human 

resources department with a disability discrimination complaint.

46. Defendant’s subsequent reduction of ROSARIO’s work hours was retaliation for 

ROSARIO’s opposition to disability discrimination. 

47. Defendant’s subsequent reduction of ROSARIO’s work hours constitutes a violation of 

the ADA. 

48. As a direct result of the aforesaid unlawful retaliatory reduction of ROSARIO’s work 

hours by the Defendant in violation of the ADA, ROSARIO sustained permanent and 

irreparable harm which caused him to sustain a loss of earnings, plus the value of certain 

benefits, plus loss of future earning power, plus back pay, front pay, and interest due thereon. 

49. As a further direct result of the aforesaid unlawful retaliatory reduction of ROSARIO’s 

work hours by the Defendant in violation of the ADA, ROSARIO suffered severe emotional 

distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands judgment against Defendant for 

compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, interest, emotional distress, punitive damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT III 

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA 

(Retaliation) 

Page 8 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 8 of 15
(Transfer to Hialeah store) 

50. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 are re-alleged as if fully set forth 

herein. 

51. ROSARIO is a qualified individual within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) in that he 

is legally blind, Defendant perceives him to have a disability, he has the requisite education 

to perform and can perform the essential functions of job positions above sales associate at 

Defendant. 

52. ROSARIO is an employee of Defendant within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(4). 

53. Defendant, in violation of the ADA, prevented ROSARIO from being promoted due to his 

disability. ROSARIO opposed such disability discrimination by contacting Defendant’s human 

resources department with a disability discrimination complaint.

54. Teresa told ROSARIO that a manager at Defendant’s Hialeah store was going on 

maternity leave, so Teresa asked ROSARIO to transfer to the Hialeah store while that 

manager was on leave. The premise being that if ROSARIO performs well, then he could get 

a merchandiser position at that Hialeah store or another store. 

55. However, Teresa deceived ROSARIO: there was no manager going on maternity leave. 

Teresa lied to ROSARIO in order to cause ROSARIO to transfer to the Hialeah store. 

56. ROSARIO found Teresa’s aforementioned deception materially adverse and dissuaded 

him from initially making or supporting a charge of discrimination. 

57. A reasonable employee would have found Teresa’s aforementioned deception to be 

materially adverse and would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting 

a charge of discrimination. 

Page 9 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 9 of 15
58. As a direct result of Teresa’s aforementioned deception, ROSARIO sustained permanent 

and irreparable harm which caused him to sustain a loss of earnings, plus the value of certain 

benefits, plus loss of future earning power, plus back pay, front pay, and interest due thereon. 

59. As a direct result of Teresa’s aforementioned deception, ROSARIO suffered severe 

emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands judgment against Defendant for 

compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, interest, emotional distress, punitive damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT IV 

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

(Failure to Promote) 

60. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 are re-alleged as if fully set forth 

herein. 

61. Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the Florida Civil 

Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”) by failing to promote ROSARIO to the Grade 7 merchant 

position that he applied for. 

62. ROSARIO is a qualified individual with a disability under the FCRA in that he is legally 

blind, Defendant perceives him to have a disability, he has the requisite education to perform 

and can perform the essential functions of a Grade 7 merchant and desired to hold a position 

as a Grade 7 merchant. 

63. Prior to and at the time that Defendant failed to promote ROSARIO to a Grade 7 

merchant position he applied for, ROSARIO was qualified for the Grade 7 merchant position. 

Page 10 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 10 of 15
64. Defendant’s discriminatory actions include: (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying 

ROSARIO in a way that adversely affected his opportunities or status because of his 

disability in violation of the FCRA; (2) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of 

administration that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of 

the FCRA; and (3) using qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria 

that screened out or tended to screen out individuals with vision disabilities, despite the fact 

that doing so was not consistent with business necessity in violation of the FCRA. 

65. ROSARIO has been damaged by Defendant’s violation of the FCRA inasmuch as 

ROSARIO has been unable to use his education and training as a Grade 7 merchant, and has 

suffered loss of past and future wages and benefits, loss of professional opportunities, 

emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish. 

66. ROSARIO is entitled to his attorneys’ fees and costs and any and all relief permitted 

under the FCRA. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands judgment against Defendant for 

compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, interest, emotional distress, punitive damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT V 

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

(Retaliation) 

(Reduction in hours) 

67. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 are re-alleged as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Page 11 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 11 of 15
68. ROSARIO is a qualified individual with a disability under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992 (“FCRA”) in that he is legally blind, Defendant perceives him to have a disability, he 

has the requisite education to perform and can perform the essential functions of job 

positions above sales associate at Defendant. 

69. Defendant, in violation of the FCRA, prevented ROSARIO from being promoted due to his 

disability. ROSARIO opposed such disability discrimination by contacting Defendant’s human 

resources department with a disability discrimination complaint.

70. Defendant engaged in unlawful retaliatory employment practices in violation of the 

FCRA by reducing ROSARIO’s work hours because he opposed Defendant’s disability 

discrimination. 

71. As a direct result of the aforesaid unlawful retaliatory reduction of ROSARIO’s work 

hours by the Defendant in violation of the FCRA, ROSARIO sustained permanent and 

irreparable harm which caused him to sustain a loss of earnings, plus the value of certain 

benefits, plus loss of future earning power, plus back pay, front pay, and interest due thereon. 

72. As a further direct result of the aforesaid unlawful retaliatory reduction of ROSARIO’s 

work hours by the Defendant in violation of the FCRA, ROSARIO suffered severe emotional 

distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands judgment against Defendant for 

compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, interest emotional distress, punitive damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Page 12 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 12 of 15
 

COUNT VI 

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

(Retaliation) 

(Transfer to Hialeah store) 

73. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 are re-alleged as if fully set forth 

herein. 

74. ROSARIO is a qualified individual with a disability under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992 (“FCRA”) in that he is legally blind, Defendant perceives him to have a disability, he 

has the requisite education to perform and can perform the essential functions of job 

positions above sales associate at Defendant. 

75. Defendant, in violation of the FCRA, prevented ROSARIO from being promoted due to his 

disability. ROSARIO opposed such disability discrimination by contacting Defendant’s human 

resources department with a disability discrimination complaint.

76. District manager Teresa told ROSARIO that a manager at Defendant’s Hialeah store was 

going on maternity leave, so Teresa asked ROSARIO to transfer to the Hialeah store while 

that manager was on leave. The premise being that if ROSARIO performs well, then he could 

get a merchandiser position at that Hialeah store or another store. 

77. However, Teresa deceived ROSARIO: there was no manager going on maternity leave. 

Teresa lied to ROSARIO in order to get Mr. ROSARIO to transfer to the Hialeah store. 

78. ROSARIO found Teresa’s aforementioned deception materially adverse and dissuaded 

him from initially making or supporting a charge of discrimination. 

Page 13 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 13 of 15
79. A reasonable employee would have found Teresa’s aforementioned deception to be 

materially adverse and would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting 

a charge of discrimination. 

80. As a direct result of Teresa’s aforementioned deception, ROSARIO sustained permanent 

and irreparable harm which caused him to sustain a loss of earnings, plus the value of certain 

benefits, plus loss of future earning power, plus back pay, front pay, and interest due thereon. 

81. As a direct result of Teresa’s aforementioned deception, ROSARIO suffered severe 

emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands judgment against Defendant for 

compensatory damages, back wages, front pay, interest, emotional distress, punitive damages, 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

Plaintiff ERIC ROSARIO demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

BY: /s/ G. Ware Cornell, Jr.

G. Ware Cornell, Jr. 

Fla. Bar. No. 203920 

Cornell & Associates, P.A. 

2645 Executive Park Drive 

Weston, FL 33331 

(954) 618-1041 

ware@warecornell.com 

brittne@warecornell.com 

The Law Office of Nnamdi S. Jackson, P.A. 

Nnamdi S. Jackson 

Page 14 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 14 of 15
Fla. Bar No. 99804 

2645 Executive Park Drive, suite 340 

Weston, FL 33331 

(954) 670-1267 

njackson@nsjlawoffice.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Page 15 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-22629-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 15 of 15