UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

MARIO HERNANDEZ )

)

Plaintiff ) CASE NO.:

)

v. )

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMPLAINT

COMMISSION and JANET DHILLON, CHAIR ) WITH JURY TRIAL DEMAND

OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION )

Defendant(s)

_________________________________________/

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful discrimination in federal employment practices on the basis 

of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Plaintiff Mario Hernandez and a class of 

similarly situated males who were adversely affected by such practices.

As alleged with greater particularity below in paragraphs, Plaintiff MARIO HERNANDEZ 

(“PLAINTIFF” and/or “Plaintiff HERNANDEZ”) and similarly situated male employees 

alleges that he was subjected to ongoing harassment (sexual and non-sexual) and a hostile work 

environment by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Defendant” or “Defendant 

EEOC”) and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Janet Dhillon 

(“Defendant DHILLON) (collectively, “DEFENDANTS”) when Defendants were aware of and 

permitted Enforcement Supervisor Katherine Gonzalez (“Supervisor Gonzalez”) to discriminate 

against Plaintiff, and other similarly situation male employees, on the bases of sex (male), when, 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 24
Page 2 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

from 2012 to the present, which created a hostile work environment. Additionally, Defendants 

retaliated against Plaintiff HERNANDEZ for opposing such practices by, in part, refusing to 

investigate the claims, withholding promotions, changing his schedule, and frustrating his

workload and taking actions that threatened his employment. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, and 

1343. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3), and Section 

717(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. Section 

2000e-16(c), 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) et seq. (“Title VII”) and section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 

1991, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1981, et seq.; and Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 791, the Civil Rights Attorney’s 

Award Act, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1988, et seq.; and Title 29, Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 1614, et seq. and Ch. 760, Florida Statute of the Florida Civil Rights 

Act.

2. Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, Miami Division, pursuant to 42 U.S.C., 2000e-5(f)(3). In addition, venue is proper herein 

as the primary actions complained of either occurred within or were directed within the 

geographical boundaries of the Miami, Florida (Southern District of Florida); and pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. Section 1391(e).

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ is a Hispanic male currently domiciled in Miami, Florida, 

and who for all times relevant herein has been employed on a full-time basis as an employee of 

the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). At those times relevant 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 24
Page 3 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

to the subject of this lawsuit, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was assigned for his professional work to 

the Miami District Office, a field office within the Miami District of the EEOC located at 100 SE 

2nd Street, Suite 1500, Miami, FL 33131 (“MIDO”).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant EEOC has continuously been a Federal Agency

doing business in the State of Florida and within the City of Miami and has continuously had at 

least 15 employees. At those times relevant to the subject of this lawsuit, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ 

was employed by and assigned for his professional work MIDO.

5. Defendant DHILLON is the Chair of the EEOC and, as such, is the Defendant only 

in her official capacity as the Chair of the Defendant EEOC. Defendant DHILLON is the senior 

Executive Branch federal official responsible for the actions of the United States Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, which is the principal subject of the allegations made 

herein, and which is located at 131 M St. NE, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20507.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES/CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

6. From approximately 2012 to the present, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ suffered from 

continuing violations and discrimination by Defendants as outlined in more detail herein. 

7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was misled by Defendants 

into allowing any applicable statutory periods to lapse.

8. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, advised the 

EEOC of complaints of unlawful sexual harassment, discrimination based on sex and retaliation 

since approximately 2012. 

9. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, timely initiated 

the involvement of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office. 

10. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was issued the Notice of Right to File a Formal Complaint. 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 24
Page 4 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

Plaintiff HERNANDEZ timely filed a formal EEO complaint. 

11. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant 

EEOC.

12. Plaintiff submitted charges of discrimination to Defendant EEOC within 180 days 

of the discrimination against them. 

13. Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Defendant EEOC and Defendant DHILLON 

issued letters of determination on April 6, 2020 finding reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ was subjected to harassment and retaliation by Defendants. 

14. Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Defendant EEOC, Defendant DHILLON 

and/or representatives failed/refused to attempt to eliminate the unlawful employment practices 

alleged below and to effect Defendant’s voluntary compliance with Title VII through informal 

methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of Section 706(b) of Title 

VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-5(b). 

15. Thus, all conditions precedent to bringing this action have been performed or 

occurred.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Harassment

16. In April 2009, the Agency hired Plaintiff HERNANDEZ as a GS-12 Investigator 

at the MIDO.

17. Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to 

Robert Tom and Juan Nieves, was subjected to ongoing harassment (sexual and non-sexual) and a 

hostile work environment by Supervisor Katherine Gonzalez (“Supervisor GONZALEZ”), a 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 24
Page 5 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

former MIDO Enforcement Supervisor and Defendants, on the bases of sex (male); national origin 

(Hispanic) and disability (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from 2012 to the present.

18. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to Robert 

Tom and Juan Nieves, was subjected to unwanted, unsolicited sexual advances and Supervisor 

GONZALEZ. Indeed, Supervisor GONZALEZ would engage in “grooming,” in which she would 

use her position as a Supervisor and Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s disability to force him and other 

similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to Robert Tom and Juan Nieves, into a 

non-consensual sexual relationship.

19. Specifically, Supervisor GONZALEZ’s offensive conduct was severe and pervasive 

enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment for Plaintiff HERNANDEZ at 

MIDO. Specifically, the offensive conduct included but was not limited to the following:

a. In September 2012, when Supervisor GONZALEZ became Plaintiff’s manager, she 

began to express romantic interest in him.

b. Between 2012 and 2013, Supervisor GONZALEZ began to engage in flirtatious 

behavior, using her position as his supervisor to pressure him to attend happy hours 

and long lunches (lasting two to three hours each).

c. In late 2013, Supervisor GONZALEZ scheduled a number of on-site visits with 

Plaintiff in Key Largo and Key West, Florida. During the trip Plaintiff and 

Supervisor GONZALEZ began a nonconsensual sexual relationship.

d. Supervisor GONZALEZ continued to engage in unwanted conduct towards 

Plaintiff HERNANDEZ following the Key West trip.

e. Supervisor GONZALEZ began going into Plaintiff’s office and would engage in 

sexual acts. Initially, Plaintiff resisted Supervisor GONZALEZ attempts at sexual 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 24
Page 6 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

contact at the office. Plaintiff was afraid of losing his job and further jeopardizing 

his marriage.

f. Supervisor GONZALEZ would touch Plaintiff, and when he would remove her hand, 

Supervisor GONZALEZ would quickly place her hand on another part of his body or 

unzip his pants.

g. Supervisor GONZALEZ would touch Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s leg or put her hands 

on his shoulders during lunches and happy hours. 

h. Supervisor GONZALEZ would kiss Plaintiff HERNANDEZ.

i. Supervisor GONZALEZ would send Plaintiff HERNANDEZ repeated test messages 

and “manic displays of affection.”

j. Supervisor GONZALEZ would visit Plaintiff’s office for lengthy periods of time if he 

would not go out with her. When Supervisor GONZALEZ’s frequent visits to 

Plaintiff’s office for sexual contact drew the attention of other managers, Supervisor 

GONZALEZ began calling Plaintiff into her office. As such, Plaintiff felt forced and 

trapped by Supervisor GONZALEZ.

k. Supervisor GONZALEZ would appear at events Plaintiff was attending, including his 

children’s school. Furthermore, Supervisor GONZALEZ demanded all of Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s attention and would punish him if he spoke to other women at work. 

l. Supervisor GONZALEZ entered Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s office at MIDO, locked the 

door and performed oral sex on him.

m. Supervisor GONZALEZ would constantly touch Plaintiff HERNANDEZ all over his 

body and unzip his pants. 

n. On multiple occasions, Supervisor GONZALEZ would appear at events Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ was attending or at his children’s school. 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 24
Page 7 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

o. Supervisor GONZALEZ would visit his office at MIDO for lengthy periods of time

and refuse to leave

p. On one occasion, Supervisor GONZALEZ appeared at the hospital where Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s daughter was being treated because he refused to return her multiple 

phone calls.

q. Supervisor GONZALEZ sent nude photographs to Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s phone.

20. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ subjectively perceived Supervisor GONZALEZ’s offensive 

conduct as abusive. 

21. As a result thereof, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ broke off sexual relations completely 

when Supervisor GONZALEZ came to the hospital where his daughter was being treated because 

he was not returning her calls. 

22. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ communicated his opposition to Supervisor 

GONZALEZ’s unwanted advances. Specifically, he:

a. Rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ’s flirting;

b. Rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ’s touching.

c. Rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ’s invitations to nightclubs.

d. Confirmed that they, “[W]ere not in a relationship;”

e. Blocked Supervisor GONZALEZ from his social media accounts;

f. Stopped carpooling with Supervisor GONZALEZ.

g. Declined her invitations to lunch, and. 

h. Continuously complained to various levels of management to no avail. 

23. Eventually, Supervisor GONZALEZ began bothering Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s

less often, after she sent a nude photo of herself to Plaintiff’s phone, which his wife intercepted.

24. At the time, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s who has been diagnosed Post Traumatic 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 24
Page 8 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

Stress Disorder (PTSD) was “vulnerable” and utilized poor coping mechanisms (e.g., excessive 

drinking) when Supervisor GONZALEZ was harassing him. Supervisor GONZALEZ’s 

harassment exacerbated Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s pre-existing condition of PTSD.

25. Supervisor GONZALEZ was aware of Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s PTSD and used 

her knowledge of the symptomology of his condition to trigger him. Supervisor GONZALEZ

would play “head games” with Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, attempting to manipulate him to make 

him believe “it was all his fault.” 

26. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s accepted the fact that if he did not have sex with 

Supervisor GONZALEZ, she would make his life difficult and he would continue to use “poor 

coping mechanisms.” 

27. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was negatively affected as result of rejecting Supervisor 

GONZALEZ’s advances and unwanted conduct.

B. Retaliation

28. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ did not solicit or incite the conduct and, instead, informed 

Supervisor GONZALEZ that said conduct was unwelcomed, undesirable and offensive. 

29. When Plaintiff HERNANDEZ rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ’s unwanted and 

offensive conduct, Supervisor GONZALEZ retaliated against him. Specifically:

a. When Plaintiff Hernandez rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ, she would strictly 

enforce the 30-minute lunch break rule against him, only.

b. When Plaintiff Hernandez rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ, she would force

Plaintiff HERNANDEZ to take leave even if he returned five minutes late.

c. When Plaintiff Hernandez rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ, she would overly 

scrutinize Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s work and would make comments such as, “I 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 24
Page 9 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

have to look at your work more closely since you took a little too long at lunch.”

d. Supervisor GONZALEZ would punish Plaintiff HERNANDEZ if he spoke to other 

female employees at work. 

e. After being transferred to Enforcement Supervisor Peters (“Ms. Peters”) team, 

Supervisor GONZALEZ began to provide Ms. Peters with information about him such 

as arrival time. 

f. Supervisor GONZALEZ, on multiple occasions, attempted to speak to Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ after they were instructed to stay away from each other by Director 

Farrell

g. When Plaintiff HERNANDEZ confirmed that he was going to tell Director Farrell 

about her communication attempts, Supervisor GONZALEZ threatened Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ by claiming that if he did not go along with her, it would affect his

family, that he would get in trouble and that he would be terminated. 

h. Supervisor GONZALEZ interfered with Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s application for 

a Mediator position and used her influence with MIDO management to prevent him 

from being selected for the position because she did not want him to be selected for 

the position. 

i. Supervisor GONZALEZ would access Plaintiff HERNANDEZ computer and 

delete files and applications to leave her division.

j. Supervisor GONZALEZ confronted Plaintiff HERNANDEZ after the photograph 

incident and questioned whether he was “still on her side” and confirmed that if he

did not go along with her Plaintiff HERNANDEZ would be terminated. 

30. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ interpreted Supervisor GONZALEZ’s behavior as 

punishment for refusing her unwelcomed conduct. 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 24
Page 10 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

31. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ also informed MIDO Director Michael Farrell of 

Supervisor GONZALEZ’s unwelcomed conduct and that said actions triggered his PTSD.

32. In addition, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ spoke to Maria De Paz, the State and Local 

Coordinator for the MIDO and former Deputy Director Ozzie Black about the harassment.

33. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ also told Enforcement Manager Nitza Wright, and 

Enforcement Supervisors Fernella Peters and Rosemary Caddle about the harassment, but he did 

not disclose the sexual relationship. Enforcement Supervisor Peters did not believe Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ and told him the relationship appeared to be consensual.

34. In 2016 or 2017, Director Farrell told Plaintiff he would “take care of” the issue 

with Supervisor GONZALEZ. Director Farrell later told Plaintiff to stay away from Supervisor 

GONZALEZ and report if Supervisor GONZALEZ contacted him. However, Supervisor 

GONZALEZ continued to contact Plaintiff despite his reports to Director Farrell. 

35. Director Farrell told Plaintiff that the situation with Supervisor GONZALEZ

preceded him and Agency Headquarters was aware of the matter.

36. During this time, management protected Supervisor GONZALEZ and allowed her 

to continue to use her power and influence in the MIDO to harass, coerce, and abuse Plaintiff. In 

fact, Supervisor GONZALEZ would brag to Plaintiff that she was protected throughout the 

Agency. Nevertheless, MIDO management knowingly allowed Supervisor GONZALEZ’s 

conduct to continue and did nothing to remedy or stop the situation.

37. When Plaintiff complained about Supervisor GONZALEZ to Director Farrell and 

other MIDO managers, Supervisor GONZALEZ would later repeat information from these 

conversations and mock Plaintiff for complaining. Supervisor GONZALEZ told Plaintiff that

MIDO management did not believe him and that he was only hurting his credibility and bolstering 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 24
Page 11 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

hers by complaining. Additionally, Supervisor GONZALEZ told Plaintiff that Director Farrell and 

Agency Headquarters believed that his allegations were not credible. 

38. Plaintiff was informed by Supervisor Wright, Supervisor Caddle, and Supervisor

Ricardo that Director Farrell believed that he was the aggressor and that Supervisor GONZALEZ 

was the victim.

39. From 2012 to the present, Defendants were aware of Supervisor GONZALEZ’s on 

going sexual harassment of Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, and other male employees, as well as MIDO 

management’s retaliatory conduct related to same, but took no action to stop it or prevent it from 

occurring. 

40. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated employees objected to Supervisor

GONZALEZ’s attention, comments and conduct and repeatedly told her to “stop” or used similar 

words to same effect.

41. From approximately 2012 and as a group and individually, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ 

and similarly situated male employees each informed Supervisor Wright, Supervisor Caddle, and 

Supervisor Ricardo, Director Farrell and the EEO about Supervisor GONZALEZ’s conduct, but 

nothing was done to stop her behavior or to protect Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and other similar 

situation male employees from her. 

42. Although Supervisor Wright, Supervisor Caddle, and Supervisor Ricardo, Director 

Farrell and the EEO informed Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and others that they would “handle it,” 

Supervisor GONZALEZ continued to patronize the restaurant on a regular basis and continued to 

subject the female servers to sexual harassment. 

43. Notwithstanding repeated and continuing complaints about the sexually harassing 

comments and conduct of Supervisor GONZALEZ, Supervisor GONZALEZ continued to 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 11 of 24
Page 12 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

sexually harass Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and other male employees. 

44. Soon after his complaint in approximately 2012, Defendants began retaliating 

against Plaintiff HERNANDEZ because he repeatedly objected to, reported and opposed 

Supervisor GONZALEZ’s sexually inappropriate comments and conduct. 

45. Upon learning that Supervisor GONZALEZ engaged in unwarranted and harassing 

conduct with Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, one of her subordinates, Defendants began to take negative 

action against him. Specifically:

a. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was reassigned to Supervisor Peters only three (3) months 

after Supervisor GONZALEZ’s unwarranted advances. 

b. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was provided less case load;

c. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s case load was manipulated by Defendant to form the 

pretext of poor performance. 

d. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was passed up for promotions, step increases and bonuses;

e. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was Passed up from mediator positions;

f. Defendants purposely refused to provide Plaintiff HERNANDEZ with any 

performance appraisals for years, as retaliation and to stop/deter complaints against 

management. 

g. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was monitored and spied on by Supervisor GONZALEZ

who would inform Supervisor Peters of Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s arrival, break 

and lunch times who would then threaten Plaintiff HERNANDEZ with discipline.

h. Supervisor GONZALEZ and Supervisor Wright averred and colluded to “take 

action” against Plaintiff HERNANDEZ;

i. After being assigned to Supervisor Caddle team in 2017, she removed Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 12 of 24
Page 13 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

HERNANDEZ from his flex schedule and telework in 2018 and subsequently 

placed him on leave restriction in May 2018;

j. Supervisor Caddle and Director Farrell issued multiple disciplinary warnings and 

placed Plaintiff HERNANDEZ on performance improvement plans (PIPS) due to 

his alleged unsatisfactory performance without any record evidence documenting 

performance deficiencies. 

k. Without investigating Supervisor GONZALEZ’s actions as possible harassment, 

Defendants acted on the belief that there was a consensual relationship in which 

Supervisor GONZALEZ was the victim , and reassigned Plaintiff HERNANDEZ 

to a supervisor who even some managers believed was difficult to work with;

l. Defendants ignored Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s multiple requests to assist in 

stopping the unwanted sexual advances by Supervisor GONZALEZ;

m. Defendants, despite being aware of Plaintiff’s resistance to his supervisor’s sexual 

advances and unwarranted conduct since approximately 2012, failed and/or refused 

to take immediate and reasonable actions to protect him from Supervisor 

GONZALEZ’s constant and multiple attempts to rebuff;

n. Defendants implemented remedial measures in an attempt to correct the effects of 

harassment that directly and adversely affected Plaintiff HERNANDEZ such as his 

reassignment to Supervisor Peters in January 2014, within three months of 

Supervisor GONZALEZ’s advances;

o. Defendants disciplined, belittled and ostracized Plaintiff HERNANDEZ

p. Defendants denied Plaintiff HERNANDEZ promotions and hindered his ability to 

advance his career within and outside the EEOC.

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 13 of 24
Page 14 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

q. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was continuously shamed, questioned and doubted by 

MIDO management regarding his claim that Supervisor GONZALEZ subjected 

him to sexual harassment.

r. Defendants were aware that Supervisor GONZALEZ was using her position of 

power to coerce and abused Plaintiff HERNANDEZ since 2014 but did nothing to 

stop or remedy the situation.

s. Defendants transferred Plaintiff HERNANEZ to Ms. Peters’ unit with the intention 

of placing him on a Performance Improvement Plan and termination his 

employment or forcing him to resign. 

t. Ms. Peters MIDO management would refuse to approve Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s 

cases

u. Ms. Peters and MIDO management would require Plaintiff HERNANEZ to redraft 

documents, then eventually approve the original versions of the documents

v. MIDO management would physically remove cases from Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s inventory, then place the cases back in Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s 

inventory, all with the purpose of negatively affecting his statistics.

w. Ms. Peters and MIDO management would backdate items in Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s inventory and make him responsible for “aged” cases.

x. Ms. Peters and MIDO management would approve cases if Plaintiff HERNANEZ 

had another employee submit them or if he waited until the end of the year to submit 

them.

y. Ms. Peters and MIDO management would return his cases for minor issues in an 

attempt to reduce his productivity. 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 14 of 24
Page 15 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

z. On or about 2017, Supervisor Caddle and MIDO management would manipulate 

his inventory and, as a result, would often threaten Plaintiff HERNANDEZ that he 

would be placed on a PIP.

aa. Supervisor Caddle and MIDO management placed Plaintiff HERNANDEZ on 

leave restriction in 2018.

bb. Supervisor Caddle and MIDO management removed Plaintiff HERNANDEZ from 

his flexible schedule and completely removed him from teleworking. 

cc. As a direct result of the discrimination and harassment, Supervisor Caddle and 

MIDO management forced Plaintiff HERNANDEZ to use annual leave in lieu of 

sick leave in 2018. 

46. The retaliation affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s 

employment as outlined above. 

47. Prior to his complaint of Supervisor GONZALEZ, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ was a 

good investigator with no documented, PIPs or record evidence that his performance was poor.

48. After his complaint of Supervisor GONZALEZ, Defendants changed Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s schedule in retaliation for his repeated complaints about and objections to 

Supervisor GONZALEZ’s sexual harassment.

49. After his complaint of Supervisor GONZALEZ and in addition to the forgoing, 

Defendants altered Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s workload so that he was precluded from coding 

cases in the IMS system to remove aged inventory from his workload. The result was that a 

massive aged inventory of cases were left on Plaintiff’s system until MIDO management removed 

them. Other employees in Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s same position did not have this restriction 

and were able to remove the cases on their own and without need of MIDO management to 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 15 of 24
Page 16 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

intervene. 

50. As a result of the retaliation, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s demeanor changed as he 

became more withdrawn, less energetic, experienced difficulty concentrating. In addition, Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ suffered from loss of credibility and a damaged professional reputation. Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ ’s work was overly scrutinized to the point that he second guessed his every 

move. 

51. As a result of the retaliation, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ earned less money. 

52. In early 2017, Defendant’s management became aware of Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s investigation with the EEO and intention to take legal action due to Defendant’s 

failure to protect him from Supervisor GONZALEZ. 

53. Defendants attempted to constructively terminate Plaintiff HERNANDEZ between 

2017 and 2018 in retaliation for his repeated complaints about and objections to the sexual 

harassment to which he was subjected and his intention to take legal action for Defendant’s failure 

to redress his complaints.

54. Any remedial action taken by Defendants related to Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s, as 

well as other similar situated male employees, claims was never prompt or reasonably calculated 

to end the harassment. 

55. Given the duration and nature of the conduct, it is apparent that Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s work environment was objectively hostile and that Plaintiff HERNANDEZ

subjectively believed the environment was hostile and abusive. 

56. Defendants’ actions from approximately 2012 to the present, would clearly deter a 

reasonable person from opposing discriminatory harassment. 

57. As of the filing of this pleading, Supervisor GONZALEZ remains employed by 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 16 of 24
Page 17 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

Defendants. 

58. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated male 

employees suffered damages.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Harassment based on Sex)

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et. Seq.)

59. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

60. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, a member of a protected class (male), brings this claim on 

his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated male employees of MIDO. 

61. On a continuing basis since at least 2012, Defendants were aware that Supervisor 

GONZALEZ, his direct supervisor, subjected Plaintiff HERNANDEZ to unwelcome conduct 

related to his sex, male, including sexual advances, requests for favors, or other verbal or physical 

conduct of a sexual nature location in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a). Specifically, Defendants were aware that Supervisor GONZALEZ subjected Plaintiff 

HERNANDZ to unwelcome conduct related to his sex as outlined in paragraphs 3 to 58, above. 

62. The harassment and unlawful employment practices suffered by Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ were based on his sex, male. 

63. The effect of the harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in 

paragraphs 16 through 27 above was sufficiently severe and pervasive and had the purpose and

effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, 

hostile or offensive work environment.

64. The effect of the harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in 

paragraphs 16 through 27 above has been to deprive Plaintiff and similarly situated male 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 17 of 24
Page 18 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

employees who worked at United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami 

District Office since at least 2012 of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely 

impact their status as employees because of their sex, male.

65. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males who worked at 

Defendant’s Miami District Office to suffer emotional distress, including but not limited to 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and/or personal 

stress and mental and physical pain and suffering

66. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males who worked at 

Defendant’s Miami District Office to lose earnings, compensation and income including, but not 

limited to, back-pay.

67. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above were 

engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males employed by Defendants.

68. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above form 

the basis for imputing liability on Defendants as Defendants were aware of the harassment and 

unlawful employment practices since 2012 and failed to take any prompt and/or reasonable action 

to end the harassment.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation/Retaliatory Harassment)

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et. Seq.)

69. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 18 of 24
Page 19 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

70. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, at all times material hereto, undertook protected conduct

when he complained to Supervisor GONZALEZ and Defendants about the unwanted conduct as 

outlined in paragraphs 3 to 58, above. 

71. As a result thereof, Defendants took a material adverse action against Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ. Specifically, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff HERNANDEZ outlined in 

paragraphs 28 to 58, above. 

72. Acausal nexus exists between Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s undertaking of the 

protected conducted complained of in paragraphs 28 to 58, above and the material adverse action 

taken by Defendants against him. 

73. Defendants continued to ignore Supervisor GONZALEZ’s harassment of Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ and, after he ultimately acknowledge the relationship, which Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ claimed was nonconsensual, and reported Supervisor GONZALEZ’s conduct, 

Defendants subjected him to adverse treatment.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Harassment based on Sex)

Harassment in Violation of

The Florida Civil Rights Act

of 1992, FLA. STAT. 760 ET SEQ

74. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

75. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, a member of a protected class (male), brings this claim on 

his own behalf and on behalf of all similar situated male employees of MIDO. 

76. On a continuing basis since at least 2012, Defendants were aware that Supervisor 

GONZALEZ, his direct supervisor, subjected Plaintiff HERNANDEZ to unwelcome conduct 

related to his sex, male, including sexual advances, requests for favors, or other verbal or physical 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 19 of 24
Page 20 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

conduct of a sexual nature location in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a). Specifically, Defendants were aware that Supervisor GONZALEZ subjected Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ to unwelcome conduct related to his sex as outlined in paragraphs 1 to 58, above. 

77. The harassment and unlawful employment practices suffered by Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ were based on his sex, male. 

78. The effect of the harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in 

paragraphs 16 through 27 above was sufficiently severe and pervasive and had the purpose and 

effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, 

hostile or offensive work environment.

79. The effect of the harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in 

paragraphs 16 through 27 above has been to deprive Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated 

male employees who worked at United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami 

District Office since at least 2012 of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely 

impact their status as employees because of their sex, male.

80. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males who worked at 

Defendant’s Miami District Office to suffer emotional distress, including but not limited to 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and/or personal 

stress and mental and physical pain and suffering

81. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males who worked at 

Defendant’s Miami District Office to lose earnings, compensation and income including, but not 

limited to, back-pay.

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 20 of 24
Page 21 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

82. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above were 

engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males employed by Defendants.

83. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 27 above form 

the basis for imputing liability on Defendants as Defendants were aware of the harassment and 

unlawful employment practices since 2012 and failed to take any prompt and/or reasonable action 

to end the harassment.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation/Retaliatory Harassment)

Retaliation in Violation of

The Florida Civil Rights Act

of 1992, FLA. STAT. 760 ET SEQ

84. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

85. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ, at all times material hereto, undertook protected conduct 

when he complained to Supervisor GONZALEZ and Defendants about the unwanted conduct as 

outlined in paragraphs 3 to 58, above. 

86. As a result thereof, Defendants took a material adverse action against Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ. Specifically, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff HERNANDEZ outlined in 

paragraphs 28 to 58, above. 

87. Acausal nexus exists between Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s undertaking of the 

protected conducted complained of in paragraphs 28 to 58, above and the material adverse action 

taken by Defendants against him. 

88. Defendants continued to ignore Supervisor GONZALEZ’s harassment of Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ and, after he ultimately acknowledge the relationship, which Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 21 of 24
Page 22 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

HERNANDEZ claimed was nonconsensual, and reported Supervisor GONZALEZ’s conduct, 

Defendants subjected him to adverse treatment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Plaintiff MARIO HERNANDEZ respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from subjecting 

male employees to unwelcome, sexually graphic and vulgar sexual harassment and retaliation for 

opposing such harassment;

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which 

provide equal employment opportunities for male, and which eradicate the effects of its past and 

present unlawful employment practices. 

C. Order Defendants to make whole Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated 

males, by providing restitution and compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting 

from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 1 through 58 above, in amounts 

to be determined at trial;

D. Order Defendants to make whole Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated 

male employees, by providing full restitution and compensation for past and future non-pecuniary 

losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 58 above, in 

amounts to be determined at trial;

E. Order Defendant full restitution or compensation for loss of personal and sick leave, 

and for all retirement benefits

F. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males 

punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in 1 through 58 above, in 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 22 of 24
Page 23 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

amounts to be determined at trial;

G. Order Defendants to reassign Plaintiff to another first- and second-line supervisor 

within the Miami District Office’s (MIDO) jurisdiction.

H. Order Defendants to issue Plaintiff’s promotion.

I. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff HERNANDEZ and similarly situated males for

any benefits including, but not limited to, sick leave, annual leave, or leave without pay taken as a 

result of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory harassment.

J. Order Defendants to confirm that Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s leave restriction has 

been lifted and remove any documentation concerning the leave restriction from Plaintiff’s 

personnel records.

K. Order the appropriate and necessary posting related to the claims herein. 

L. Order Defendants to restore Plaintiff HERNANDEZ’s flexible schedule and 

telework consistent with Agency policy and provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

M. Order Defendants to remove any documentation concerning Plaintiff 

HERNANDEZ’s current PIP or references thereto from Plaintiff’s personnel file.

N. Order Defendants to forward information regarding its veteran’s advocacy group 

(Veteran Employees Serving Together) (VETS) to the Plaintiff HERNANDEZ regarding any 

further developments as it becomes available.

O. Order Defendants to consider taking disciplinary action against Supervisor 

GONZALEZ. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, the Agency must consider 

Supervisor GONZALEZ egregious misconduct and 29 CFR 1604 (EEOC’s Zero Tolerance 

Policy).

P. Award Plaintiff her costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 23 of 24
Page 24 of 24

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1008 I Coral Gables, FL 33134 I T: (305) 340-7542 I F: (305) 418-7438 I W: www.azoysocorro.com

42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5; Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (2004); and 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12203 and 12205; and prejudgment interest, and

Q. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public’s 

interest.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule 38(b), trial by jury on all issues presented herein is respectfully 

demanded.

__/s/ José A. Socorro________

JOSÉ A. SOCORRO, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 011675

RALF AZOY, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 92695

DAVID M. FRAGUIO, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 1016475

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2020 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1008 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Tel: (305) 340-7542

Fax: (305) 418-7438

Email: jose@azoysocorro.com;

ralph@azoysocorro.com

david@azoysocorro.com

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 24 of 24