UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.:

BRYAN RAMOS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

THOMAS MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a 

THOMAS CUISINE,

a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, BRYAN RAMOS (“Mr. Ramos” or “Plaintiff”) files this Complaint against 

Defendant, THOMAS MANAGEMENT LLC, (“Thomas” or “Defendant”), and states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“the FMLA”), Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

12101 et seq, (“ADA”), and Chapter 760 of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) to recover 

from Defendant back pay, an equal amount as liquidated damages, other monetary damages, 

equitable relief, front pay, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND FMLA COVERAGE

2. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and 

the FMLA and the authority to grant declaratory relief under the FMLA, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2201 et seq.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 15
2

3. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 as they arise under 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

4. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, as it 

arises out of the same operative facts and circumstances as his FMLA/ADA claims.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.

6. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Palm Beach County, Florida, and this venue, 

therefore is proper.

7. Defendant is a foreign limited liability company that provides foodservice in, 

among others, Palm Beach County, Florida, and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court.

8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was an employer covered by the FMLA, 

because it was engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce that employed 50 or 

more employees within 75 miles of where Plaintiff worked, for each working day during each of 

20 or more calendar workweeks, prior to seeking leave under the FMLA.

9. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee entitled to leave under the 

FMLA, based on the fact that he: (a) suffered from a serious health condition as defined by the 

FMLA which necessitated FMLA leave; and (b) was employed by Defendant for at least 12 months 

and worked at least 1,250 hours during the relevant 12-month period prior to him seeking to 

exercise his rights to FMLA leave.

10. Plaintiff is a disabled male. At all times material, Plaintiff was protected during his

employment with Defendant by the FCRA and ADA because:

a. Plaintiff was a disabled or “perceived as disabled” employee who suffered 

discrimination and harassment because of his disability or “perceived disability” by 

Defendant; and

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 15
3

b. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action and was subjected to an 

increasingly hostile work environment as a result of his disability or “perceived 

disability.”

11. Defendant was at all times an “employer” as envisioned by the ADA as well as 

§760.02(7), Fla. Stat.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

12. On or around March 20, 2019, Plaintiff dual filed a Charge of Discrimination with 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Florida Commission on 

Human Relations (“FCHR”) alleging disability discrimination and retaliation against Defendant.

13. More than 180 days have passed since the filing of the Charge of Discrimination.

14. On March 9, 2020, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue against 

Defendant, giving Plaintiff the right to bring a civil action on his claims within 90 days of his receipt 

of the same.

15. Plaintiff timely files this action within the applicable period of limitations against 

Defendant.

16. All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied and/or waived. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

17. Plaintiff worked as a Sous Chef for the Defendant from January 5, 2017, until his

adverse employment action on June 5, 2018.

18. Mr. Ramos was an excellent employee, with no significant history of attendance, 

performance or disciplinary issues.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 15
4

19. Unfortunately, Plaintiff suffered a severe ankle injury requiring surgery, which

permanently affected his major life function of walking. As such, it is considered a protected 

disability under the FCRA/ADA.

20. Further, Plaintiff’s severe ankle injury is considered a serious health condition 

under the FMLA due to his required surgery scheduled for March 14, 2018.

21. As such, Mr. Ramos filed/was approved for continuous FMLA from April 1, 2018 

to May 18, 2018.

22. Mr. Ramos’ post-surgical visit with his surgeon cleared him early with a return to 

work date for “light duty” on May 8, 2018.

23. On May 8, 2018, Mr. Ramos was met by Senior Food Service Director, Thomas 

Nicholson (“Mr. Nicholson”) who informed him that Thomas was not going to accommodate him 

for “light duty” work and that he should go home until he is cleared to work without restrictions.

24. An employer is required to provide its disabled with a reasonable accommodation, 

if that reasonable accommodation would allow that employee to perform the essential functions of 

his job, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Smith v. Avatar Properties, Inc., 714 

So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

25. This failure to provide the requested accommodation to Mr. Ramos is a clear 

violation of the ADA/FCRA.

26. The accommodation Mr. Ramos required was a 15-minute break to rest his ankle, 

when needed and/or every two (2) hours of standing.

27. This accommodation would not amount to a hardship for Thomas as many of its 

employees take similar “cigarette breaks” every few hours of work.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 15
5

28. Mr. Ramos is an individual with a disability who, with minimal reasonable 

accommodation, was fully capable of performing the essential functions of his job as a Sous Chef.

29. Mr. Ramos returned to work, on or about May 9, 2018, with another note from his 

surgeon clearing him for full work duties.

30. At the start of his shift, Supervisor, Anthony Cammarano (“Mr. Cammarano”) 

stopped Mr. Ramos to discuss Mr. Ramos’ need to take it easy as he transitioned back to work 

post-surgery.

31. Mr. Ramos completed most of his full-day shift but required to go home two (2) 

hours early due to the pain and discomfort of his ankle. He again informed Mr. Cammarano of 

this required accommodation prior to leaving work.

32. Mr. Ramos was then scheduled to work on May 16, 2018 and he began the shift 

without incident working diligently at his duties without issue.

33. However, Mr. Cammarano pulled Mr. Ramos aside during the work shift and 

instructed him to go home.

34. Mr. Cammarano advised Mr. Ramos that Thomas refused the accommodation that 

Mr. Ramos required to complete his work, namely the ability to rest his ankle when he felt pain or 

discomfort.

35. Mr. Ramos in fact, was not feeling any pain or discomfort that day and had made 

no mention of the need for a break or other accommodation during the shift.

36. Mr. Cammarano made it clear that Thomas was not going to allow Mr. Ramos to 

work and that he would have to take more unpaid time off until he could provide additional 

reevaluation from his surgeon.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 15
6

37. Despite having the ability to perform the essential functions of his job, Mr. Ramos 

was not allowed to continue to work.

38. Mr. Ramos wore supportive footwear and even an ankle brace provided by the 

surgeon to minimize the pain, discomfort and rest breaks required, yet Thomas failed to properly 

accommodate Mr. Ramos’ disability as required by law.

39. Thomas retaliated further by blocking Mr. Ramos from performing his work duties; 

changing the passwords for his account and blocking Mr. Ramos’ access to the Thomas database, 

while he was on federally protected medical leave.

40. Without the system passwords, Mr. Ramos could not access recipes, order supplies 

or schedule staff.

41. Mr. Ramos was punished by Thomas for taking the time off he was entitled to under 

the FMLA, and further retaliated against him when he attempted to return to work with his 

federally protected disability requiring reasonable accommodation.

42. Ultimately, Mr. Ramos was stopped by Thomas from performing any of his job 

duties because Thomas refused to provide him with the passwords required for access the system 

to place food orders or schedule staff. Such action constitutes actionable interference and 

retaliation under the FMLA. See 29 C.F.R. 825.220(a)(2).

43. As a result of these discriminatory and retaliatory acts, Mr. Ramos had no choice 

but to prepare a letter of resignation, dated June 5, 2018.

44. This discriminatory/retaliatory treatment, which resulted in Mr. Ramos’ 

constructive discharge, violated the FMLA, the ADA and the FCRA.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 6 of 15
7

45. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant’s actions, and non-actions, affected the 

“terms, conditions or privileges” of Plaintiff’s employment as envisioned by the ADA and the 

Florida Civil Rights Act. 

46. “Reasonable accommodation” under the ADA may include “job restructuring, parttime or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification 

of equipment or devices . . .and other similar accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B)

47. Mr. Ramos’ constructive discharge stemmed from Defendant’s discriminatory 

animus toward his use of FMLA leave and need for accommodation under the ADA/FCRA. 

48. The timing of Plaintiff’s adverse employment action makes the causal connection 

between his use of FMLA, his request for reasonable accommodations under the ADA/FCRA, and 

his adverse employment action sufficiently clear.

49. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s FMLA rights.

50. Also, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for utilizing 

proper and authorized FMLA leave.

51. Any other reason given for Plaintiff’s termination is a pretext, designed to cover up 

FMLA interference and retaliation and disability discrimination and retaliation.

52. Defendant did not have a good faith basis for its actions.

53. Defendant’s actions are the exact type of unfair and retaliatory employment 

practices the ADA, FCRA, and FMLA were intended to prevent. 

54. Additionally, the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s adverse employment action also 

create a strong inference of disability discrimination/retaliation in violation of the ADA/FCRA.

55. The Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s ADA/FCRA-protected medical condition 

and need for accommodation.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 7 of 15
8

56. Defendant, however, being well-aware of Plaintiff’s condition, discriminated 

against Plaintiff for taking FMLA leave to seek treatment and for requesting reasonable 

accommodations. 

57. At all material times hereto, Plaintiff was ready, willing and able to perform his job 

duties and otherwise qualified for his position, with “reasonable accommodation.”

58. Defendant perceived Plaintiff as being “disabled,” and therefore, unable to perform 

the essential functions of his position, despite the fact that Plaintiff could perform same with 

reasonable accommodation.

59. Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiff’s impairment did not substantially limit a major 

life activity but was treated by Defendant as if it did.

60. Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiff’s medical condition constituted an impairment 

that limited a major life activity only because of Defendant’s attitude toward the impairment.

61. Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiff had no impairment, whatsoever, but was treated 

by Defendant as having a disability as recognized by the ADA/FCRA.

62. Plaintiff suffered sufficiently severe and pervasive treatment, because of his

disability and/or “perceived disability.”

63. As a result of this illegal conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including loss of 

employment, wages, benefits, and other remuneration to which he is entitled.

COUNT I

UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE UNDER THE FMLA

64. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-

9, 17-22, 39-44, 47-53, 56, and 63 above.

65. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected by the FMLA.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 8 of 15
9

66. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff by having an 

aggressive and hostile demeanor in response to Plaintiff’s request and use of FMLA.

67. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected from interference under the 

FMLA.

68. As a result of Defendant’s willful and unlawful acts by interfering with Plaintiff for 

exercising his rights pursuant to the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered damages and incurred reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

69. As a result of Defendant’s willful violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for back pay, an equal 

amount as liquidated damages, other monetary damages, equitable relief, declaratory relief, 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all further relief that this Court determines to be 

just and appropriate. 

COUNT II

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION UNDER THE FMLA

70. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-

9, 17-22, 39-44, 47-53, 56, and 63 above.

71. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected by the FMLA.

72. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by firing him for 

his use of FMLA protected leave.

73. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected from retaliation under the 

FMLA.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 9 of 15
10

74. At all times relevant hereto, and for purposes of the FMLA retaliation claim, 

Defendant acted with the intent to retaliate against Plaintiff, because Plaintiff exercised his rights 

to take approved leave pursuant to the FMLA.

75. As a result of Defendant’s intentional, willful and unlawful acts by retaliating 

against, Plaintiff for exercising his rights pursuant to the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered damages 

and incurred reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

76. As a result of Defendant’s willful violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for back pay, an equal 

amount as liquidated damages, other monetary damages, equitable relief, declaratory relief, 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all further relief that this Court determines to be 

just and appropriate.

COUNT III

DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ADA BASED ON DISABILITY

77. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3-7, 10-19, 

22-48, and 51-63 above. 

78. The acts of Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, violated Plaintiff’s 

rights against disability discrimination under the ADA. 

79. The discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on his disability

and/or “perceived disability.”

80. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct toward 

him.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 10 of 15
11

81. The conduct of Defendant was so willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the 

statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle him to an award of punitive damages against Defendant, 

to deter it, and others, from such conduct in the future. 

82. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in his favor and against Defendant for his

actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, emotional 

distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as his costs and attorneys’ fees, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT IV

RETALIATION UNDER THE ADA BASED ON DISABILITY

83. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3-7, 10-19, 

22-48, and 51-63 above. 

84. Plaintiff’s adverse employment action was within close temporal proximity of his

objection to Defendant that he felt he was being discriminated against based on his disability.

85. Plaintiff’s objections constituted protected activity under the ADA.

86. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action as a direct result of his objections 

to what he reasonably believed to be disability discrimination.

87. Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s illegal conduct, and his termination, are 

causally related.

88. Defendant’s stated reasons for Plaintiff’s adverse employment action is a pretext.

89. The conduct of Defendant and its agents and employees proximately, directly, and 

foreseeably injured Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary 

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 11 of 15
12

losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.

90. The conduct of Defendant was so willful and wanton, and in such reckless disregard 

of the statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle him to an award of punitive damages against 

Defendant, to deter it and others from such conduct in the future.

91. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law for the actions of 

Defendant which have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in his favor and against Defendant for his

actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, emotional 

distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as his costs and attorneys’ fees, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT V

DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BASED ON 

DISABILITY

92. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3-7, 10-19, 

22-48, and 51-63 above. 

93. The acts of Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, violated Plaintiff’s 

rights against disability discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida 

Statutes. 

94. The discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on his

disability/handicap, or “perceived disability.”

95. The conduct of Defendant and its agents and employees proximately, directly, and 

foreseeably injured Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary 

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 12 of 15
13

losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. 

96. The conduct of Defendant was willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the 

statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle him to an award of punitive damages against Defendant, 

to deter it, and others, from such conduct in the future. 

97. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes.

98. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law for the actions of 

Defendant, which have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in his favor and against Defendant for his

actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, emotional 

distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as his costs and attorneys’ fees, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT VI

RETALIATION UNDER THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BASED ON 

DISABILITY

99. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3-7, 10-19, 

22-48, and 51-63 above. 

100. Plaintiff’s adverse employment action was within close temporal proximity of his

objection to Defendant that he felt he was being discriminated against based on his

disability/handicap. 

101. Plaintiff’s objections constituted protected activity under the FCRA.

102. Plaintiff’s adverse employment action was a direct result of his objections to what 

he reasonably believed to be disability discrimination.

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 13 of 15
14

103. Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s illegal conduct, and his termination, are 

causally related.

104. Defendant’s stated reasons for Plaintiff’s termination are a pretext.

105. The conduct of Defendant and its agents and employees proximately, directly, and 

foreseeably injured Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary 

losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.

106. The conduct of Defendant was so willful and wanton, and in such reckless disregard 

of the statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle him to an award of punitive damages against 

Defendant, to deter it and others from such conduct in the future.

107. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes.

108. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law for the actions of 

Defendant which have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in his favor and against Defendant for his

actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, emotional 

distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as his costs and attorneys’ fees, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

DATED this 3rd day of June 2020.

Respectfully Submitted, 

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 14 of 15
15

By: /s/ Noah Storch

Noah E. Storch, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0085476

 RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103

Davie, Florida 33324

Telephone: (866) 344-9243

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771

E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

Case 9:20-cv-80889-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 15 of 15