1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

-againstNICE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. ___________________

COMPLAINT

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by the

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct 

unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex (female) and to provide appropriate relief to 

the Charging Party Stacey E. Malo, who was adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff the 

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that Defendant, Nice 

Systems, Inc. (“NICE”), discriminated against Stacey E. Malo because of her pregnancy, a

condition of her sex (female), retaliated against her for complaining about the discrimination, 

and constructively discharging her by subjecting her to an intolerable work environment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) 

and (3), and Section 102 of Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

2. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Title VII 

violations occurred in Delray Beach, Florida and Boca Raton Florida, which is within the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach

Division.

3. At all relevant times, the Charging Party Stacey E. Malo (“Charging Party” or 

“Ms. Malo”) completed the majority of her work for NICE from her home located in Palm Beach 

County, Florida, including the selling of NICE software. The Charging Party experienced many 

of the discriminatory acts from her home in Palm Beach County, including receiving less 

compensation than her male counterparts while she was employed by NICE. The Charging Party 

also made complaints about the discrimination she experienced from her home in Palm Beach 

County. While working from home in Palm Beach County, Charging Party was forced to resign 

from NICE.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission” of 

“the EEOC”) is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, 

interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by 

Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

5. Defendant NICE is registered to do business in Florida, has continuously done 

business in Florida, and at all relevant times, employed at least 15 employees.

6. At all relevant times, NICE has continuously been an employer engaged in an 

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Party filed a 

Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging that NICE violated Title VII.

8. The Commission issued a Letter of Determination on April 30, 2020, finding 

reasonable cause to believe that NICE discriminated against Charging Party, retaliating against 

her, and constructively discharging her.

9. Prior to initiating this lawsuit, the Commission attempted to correct the unlawful 

employment practices alleged herein through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and 

persuasion, to remedy the discriminatory practices and provide appropriate relief.

10. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. NICE is a software company that sells software to assist with customer 

experience, regulatory compliance, and financial crime prevention. 

12. NICE employs approximately 6,500 people worldwide.

13. Ms. Malo began working for NICE in August 2015 selling NICE’s Incentive 

Compensation Management (ICM) software product.

14. Ms. Malo worked with a small team of employees that sold the ICM software 

product.

15. In March 2017, Chip Harder was hired to work at NICE.

16. In April 2017, Ms. Malo advised her supervisor, Chip Harder, that she was 

pregnant.

Transfer of Existing Accounts

17. Ms. Malo was the most experienced employee on her team.

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

18. Typically, at NICE, when an employee leaves or is terminated, open sales 

opportunities or accounts are transferred to the most experienced employee.

19. In May or June of 2017, however, following the termination of one of Ms. Malo’s

colleagues, Mr. Harder transferred open opportunities to a new, male employee because Ms. 

Malo was pregnant. Mr. Harder transferred these open opportunities to a new male employee

even though Ms. Malo had been working with the former employee on these opportunities and 

had working knowledge of the opportunities.

20. Upon information and belief, this was the first time a new employee was given 

open opportunities at NICE for Ms. Malo’s team.

21. By not providing Ms. Malo with these open opportunities, she was denied the 

opportunity to earn commission on the accounts. 

Sales Leads

22. In 2017, NICE generally assigned new sales leads to the employee assigned to the 

territory.

23. In approximately August or September 2017, during a team meeting, Mr. Harder 

said to everyone that Ms. Malo would not be receiving any new sales leads because of her 

condition—i.e. pregnancy. 

24. The impact of not receiving any sales leads is a loss of income, and a long-lasting 

negative impact on her pipeline of generating future commissions.

25. Ms. Malo complained to Liz Almeida, Director of Human Resources, about Mr. 

Harder’s discriminatory actions, but no action was taken.

26. In late August, Ms. Malo learned about a lead that came into her territory in July, 

but that had been assigned to a male colleague. Ms. Malo asked Mr. Harder to reassign the lead 

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

to her because it was in her territory, but he refused. Mr. Harder violated NICE’s policy by not 

assigning Ms. Malo the sales lead in her territory.

27. As a result, Ms. Malo lost the opportunity to work on new sales leads and to earn 

commissions from them. 

28. Ms. Malo complained to Ms. Almeida and to Joyce Holupka, Vice President of 

Solution Sales, about Mr. Harder’s discriminatory decision not to assign her the lead even though 

it was in Ms. Malo’s territory.

29. In response, Ms. Holupka indicated that Ms. Malo was being too emotional 

because she was pregnant and told her not to overreact.

Commissions

30. Beginning in February 2017, Ms. Malo began working on a deal related to 

licensing (hereinafter the “Licensing deal”) for a client. 

31. Ms. Malo originated the Licensing deal, and she did substantial work on the deal 

between February 2017 and October 2017, before her maternity leave.

32. In an email dated October 2, 2017, NICE acknowledged that Ms. Malo 

contributed in a material and substantive manner to the Licensing deal. The email also 

acknowledged that Ms. Malo would be earning commission on the Licensing deal if it closed 

before the end of 2017.

33. Nevertheless, because of her pregnancy and/or complaints of discriminatory 

treatment, NICE paid Ms. Malo significantly less commission than her non-pregnant male

colleagues, notwithstanding that they neither originated the Licensing deal nor contributed as 

much work as Ms. Malo. 

34. Ms. Malo complained to Human Resources, Ms. Holupka, and Wendy Olek, 

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

Regional Vice President, about the discriminatory handling of her commission.

Reassignment

35. Prior to her maternity leave, Ms. Malo’s sales territory covered Canada.

36. Ms. Malo’s territory had the most active sales and potential for new business, 

including one of NICE’s biggest customers using the ICM software.

37. When Ms. Malo returned to NICE after her maternity leave, NICE reassigned her 

Canadian sales territory to a male colleague because of her pregnancy and/or complaints of 

discriminatory treatment 

38. Ms. Malo’s new sales territory had no existing NICE accounts and was a territory 

where NICE’s competitors had all of the market.

39. Again, this reassignment resulted in lost opportunities for Ms. Malo, and 

decreased compensation.

Constructive Discharge

40. Due to Mr. Harder’s discriminatory treatment, Ms. Malo sought to transfer to a 

different department in NICE, where Mr. Harder would no longer have the ability to impact her 

work and compensation. 

41. Ms. Malo’s transfer requests were not granted.

42. Ms. Malo experienced a significant reduction in her earned commissions on the 

Licensing deal. Mr. Harder refused to assign Ms. Malo account leads even when the lead was in 

her sales territory, and he permanently interfered with Ms. Malo’s earning ability by assigning 

her a sales territory with little-to-no earning ability. 

43. Mr. Harder also failed to acknowledge the work that Ms. Malo performed at 

NICE in workplace meetings, even though he acknowledged (by name) and publicly praised the 

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

work of her other colleagues who had worked on the accounts. 

44. NICE did nothing to address the complaints Ms. Malo made about the 

discrimination she suffered. Her work environment did not improve and nothing changed after 

her complaints. 

45. Having exhausted all available measures known to her to address her 

discrimination and faced with the reality that nothing was going to improve or change, as a result 

of the intolerable work environment Ms. Malo was subjected to, she was forced to resign on 

March 2, 2018.

46. Because of NICE’s unlawful conduct, Ms. Malo was harmed and suffered 

damages.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

47. As set forth in paragraphs 17-29, Defendant subjected Charging Party to unlawful 

employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, by failing to transfer 

existing accounts to Ms. Malo and failing to give her sales leads because of her pregnancy, 

resulting in reduced compensation.

48. As set forth in paragraphs 25, 28, 30-34, and 37 Defendant engaged in unlawful 

employment practices, in violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 704 of Title VII, by denying

Charging Party compensation including failing to pay her an earned and appropriate commission 

on the Licensing deal because of her pregnancy, and in retaliation for engaging in protected 

activity.

49. As set forth in paragraphs 25, 28, 33-39, Defendant engaged in unlawful 

employment practices, in violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 704 of Title VII, by reassigning 

Charging Party to a new sales territory because of her pregnancy, and/or in retaliation for 

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

engaging in protected activity.

50. As set forth in paragraphs 17-46, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment 

practices, in violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 704 of Title VII by constructively discharging 

Charging Party. 

51. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 11-46 has been to affect 

the terms and conditions of employment for Charging Party, to deprive her of equal employment 

opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as employees because of her sex.

52. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11-46 were 

intentional. 

53. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11-46 were 

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging 

Party.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

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

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

participating in discriminatory conduct based on sex or pregnancy, including, but not limited to, 

permitting work decisions on the basis of sex and/or pregnancy and/or retaliating against 

employees who engage in statutorily protected activity in the workplace;

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

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

present unlawful employment practices;

C. Order NICE to make Charging Party whole by providing appropriate back-pay with 

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary 

to eradicate the effects of NICE’s unlawful employment practices including but not limited to 

reinstatement and/or front pay;

D. Order NICE to make Charging Party whole, by providing compensation for past 

and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices 

described above, including, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, 

and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

E. Order NICE to pay Charging Party punitive damages for engaging in intentional 

discrimination with malice or with reckless indifference, in amounts to be determined at trial;

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public 

interest; and

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

Date: June 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Respectfully submitted, 

SHARON FAST GUSTAFSON

General Counsel 

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS 

Associate General Counsel 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

Washington, D.C. 20507 

ROBERT E. WEISBERG 

Regional Attorney 

s/Kristen Foslid 

Supervisory Trial Attorney

Florida Bar No. 0688681

Kristen.Foslid@eeoc.gov

Tel: 786-648-5835

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission

Miami District Office 

Miami Tower 

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 1500 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

s/Carmen Manrara Cartaya____ 

CARMEN MANRARA CARTAYA

Trial Attorney

Florida Bar No. 0073887

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 

Miami District Office 

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 1500

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: 786-648-5811

 Carmen.Cartaya@eeoc.gov

Case 9:20-cv-81021-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 10 of 10