UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

ROLANDO LUIS,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v. 

VMSB, LLC

d/b/a CASA CASUARINA

d/b/a GIANNI’S

Defendant,

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

Defendant VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA, d/b/a GIANNI’S, on the grounds set 

forth herein. 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action by Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS under the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA), as amended, and the Florida Civil 

Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Florida Statute Section 760, to redress the injury 

done to Plaintiff by the Defendant’s discriminatory treatment based on his 

Age.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This is an action for damages brought in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of 

interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 27
Page 2 of 27

3. This action is authorized and instituted under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA), as amended, and the Florida Civil 

Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Florida Statute Section 760.

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 

and §1343. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s supplemental and pendant 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because they arise out of the same 

nucleus of operative facts as the federal case, and according to 28 U.S.C. 

§§1332 and 1367. 

5. The venue of this action is properly placed in the Southern District of Florida, 

Miami Division, according to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), since the employment 

practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful, were committed in Miami-Dade 

County, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 

PARTIES

6. The Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS is a resident of Miami-Dade County, who was 

employed by the Defendant and is a member of certain protected classes of 

persons because of his Age. Plaintiff’s complete name is Rolando Luis

Castillo.

7. Corporate Defendant VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA, d/b/a 

GIANNI’S (hereinafter, “CASA CASUARINA”, or Defendant), is a profit 

corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, in MiamiDade County, Florida, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 27
Page 3 of 27

8. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged 

in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title 

VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), (g), and (h).

9. At all relevant times, Defendant CASA CASUARINA has continuously had at 

least 20 employees.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

10. All conditions precedent for this action has been fulfilled. On or about August 

15, 2019, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS dual-filed his Charge of Discrimination 

with the EEOC, and with the Florida Commission on Human Relations within 

300 days of the alleged violation. To date, over six (6) months have passed 

since the filing of the complaints. On or about April 23, 2020, the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, on request, issued to Plaintiff a Notice 

of Right To Sue concerning such charge of discrimination. The Plaintiff 

received this document on or about April 28, 2019. Consequently, the present 

Complaint is being filed within 90 days from the Plaintiff’s receipt of the 

“Dismissal and Notice of Rights”. 

11. This “Notice of Right To Sue” was issued under the name of Luis R. Castillo, 

Plaintiff’s correct name is Rolando Luis Castillo, being Rolando his first name 

and Luis his last name. See composite Exhibit “A.” 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. The Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS Plaintiff is a 56 years old male of Cuban 

National Origin. Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS is a member of a protected class 

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA). As 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 27
Page 4 of 27

amended, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Florida Statute 

Section 760, because of his Age, and because of his participation in protected 

activities within the meaning of federal and state law.

13. The Defendant CASA CASUARINA is an Italian/Mediterranean restaurant 

located at 1116, Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, where the Plaintiff 

worked. 

14. Defendant CASA CASUARINA employed ROLANDO LUIS as a nonexempted, hourly, full-time restaurant employee, from on or about October 26, 

2016, through approximately July 29, 2019, or 144 weeks. 

15. The Plaintiff had duties as a prep cook, and his last wage rate was $13.00 an 

hour. 

16. The Defendant CASA CASUARINA also employed Plaintiff’s brother, 52-

year-old Raimundo Ruiz Castillo, from March 3, 2015, to March 15, 2019, or

155 weeks. Raimundo Ruiz Castillo held the same position as a prep cook and 

worked under the same supervision as Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS.

17. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff performed his 

duties in an exemplary fashion. The Plaintiff possessed all the required skills, 

training, and qualifications for the job in question, and performed his duties 

without significant issue or controversy.

18. However, during his employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff experienced

unlawful discrimination and harassment based on his Age. Plaintiff suffered 

retaliation because he complained about Age discrimination. Plaintiff also 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 27
Page 5 of 27

suffered third-party retaliation based on his brother’s protected activities under 

ADEA and Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Fl Statutes, (FCRA).

19. Defendant CASA CASUARINA engaged in unlawful employment practices, 

in violation of Sections 4(a)(1) and (d) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §623(a) and 

(d), and in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Fl Statutes, 

(FCRA).

20. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that as soon as Chef Walter Mancini began to 

work at the restaurant, on or about the first days of March 2019, he began to 

discriminate against Plaintiff and his brother Raimundo Ruiz Castillo based on

their Age.

21. Chef Walter Mancini harassed Plaintiff and his brother by stating: “You are 

too old and slow to work in this kitchen”, and other unwelcome age-related 

remarks. Those age-related negative remarks were directed to Plaintiff and his 

brother. Chef Walter Mancini made this and other unwelcome remarks about 

Plaintiff’s age daily. 

22. The Chef Walter Mancini subjected Plaintiff and his brother to excessive 

surveillance and job scrutiny, and he monitored every movement or activity of 

them. Then the Chef would criticize the work performed by Plaintiff and his 

brother. Chef Walter Mancini looked for reasons to scream at Plaintiff and his 

brother humiliating them in front of all their co-workers.

23. On or about March 8, 2019, Plaintiff’s brother Raimundo Ruiz Castillo 

opposed to the wrongful conduct of Chef Walter Mancini and demanded the 

Chef to stop his harassment. 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 27
Page 6 of 27

24. On the same date, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS also opposed to the 

discriminatory conduct of Chef Walter Mancini and demanded him to stop his 

age-related discriminatory remarks directed to him and his brother.

25. These complaints constituted protected activity under the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act, (ADEA)29 U.S.C. 623 (d).

26. On or about March 15, 2019, or one week later, Plaintiff’s brother, Raimundo 

Ruiz Castillo was fired in retaliation for his complaint about Age 

discrimination. 

27. After his brother was fired, the Plaintiff continued working under stressful 

circumstances, knowing that he could be fired next.

28. On or about March 28, 2019, Plaintiff’s brother, Raimundo Ruiz Castillo, filed 

an FLSA lawsuit against the Defendants, and on or about April 01, 2019, he 

also filed a Charge of Age Discrimination with the U.S Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

29. When the Defendant discovered that Plaintiff’s brother had filed his charge of 

Discrimination, it retaliated against Plaintiff. 

30. The Plaintiff suffered increased discrimination and harassment because of his 

association with someone who had participated in the protected activity of 

filing an EEOC charge under ADEA. The Plaintiff was penalized because his 

brother exercised his rights under ADEA. Therefore, Plaintiff suffered thirdparty retaliation.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 27
Page 7 of 27

31. The Age-related Charge of Discrimination filed against the Defendant did not 

deter Chef Walter Mancini from continuing his discrimination and harassment 

based on Age, against the Plaintiff.

32. Plaintiff was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, he 

was unfairly reprimanded, Plaintiff’s work was closely scrutinized more than 

that of other employees, without justification and then he was accused of poor 

performance.

33. Furthermore, Chef Walter Mancini repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with the 

reduction of his working hours and with his termination. The Chef did not 

approve anything Plaintiff did and angrily yelled at him, but he did not explain 

to the Plaintiff what he was doing wrong. 

34. The Plaintiff needed his employment, then he continued working very hard 

without any further complaints and suffering the retaliatory harassment and 

hostile working environment because of his Age. The Chef Walter Mancini

showed open hostility towards the Plaintiff and he lived in fear of losing his 

job. 

35. The harassment of Chef Walter Mancini was so severe and pervasive that 

created for Plaintiff a hostile working environment. The Plaintiff felt harassed, 

unwelcome, uncomfortable, humiliated, and intimidated in his place of work. 

Plaintiff knew that Chef Walter Mancini was trying to fire him, but he did not 

complain in fear of precipitating his termination. 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 7 of 27
Page 8 of 27

36. Plaintiff knew that Chef Walter Mancini, his harasser, was his superior and 

that he was an individual with the power to alter and determine his working 

conditions. Plaintiff remembered what happened to his brother.

37. On or about July 15, 2019, Defendant escalated his harassment, and Plaintiff’s 

working hours were reduced from more than 40 weekly to about 24 hours per 

week, without any explanation.

38. On or about July 29, 2019, Plaintiff talked to Chef Walter Mancini, and he 

requested more working hours, but the Chef refused to give Plaintiff his fulltime hours back. 

39. Plaintiff complained and told Chef Walter Mancini that he was suffering 

discrimination and retaliation because he and his brother complained about 

Age discrimination. Plaintiff also stated that he was suffering double 

retaliation, and that Defendant was punishing him because he complained 

about Age discrimination and because his brother had filed a Charge of 

Discrimination against Defendant. 

40. This complaint constituted protected activity under Federal and State law.

41. Immediately after this complaint, the Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant 

using pretextual reasons.

42. On or about July 29, 2019, Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant, and Plaintiff’s 

termination was directly and proximately caused by Defendant’s unjustified 

discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because he complained of 

unlawful age discrimination and harassment and because his brother engaged

in protected activities, in violation of both Federal and State Laws. 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 8 of 27
Page 9 of 27

43. Moreover, Plaintiff’s termination came just in temporal proximity after 

Plaintiff’s engaged in protected on the same day, July 29, 2019.

44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional and willful actions, 

the Plaintiff has been damaged. The Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses 

as well as mental pain and suffering, which was detrimental to the Plaintiff’s 

health. 

45. The Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s termination was 

directly and proximately caused by the Defendant’s unlawful discrimination 

and harassment on basis of Age, in violation of both Federal and State Laws.

COUNT I:

VIOLATION OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 

1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (ADEA): DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE

46. Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-45 above as if set out in full herein. 

47. The Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §623 (d).

48. Defendant CASA CASUARINA employed Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS as a 

non-exempted, hourly, full-time restaurant employee, from on or about March 

03, 2015, through approximately March 15, 2019, or more than 4 years. 

49. Defendant CASA CASUARINA employed ROLANDO LUIS as a nonexempted, hourly, full-time restaurant employee, from on or about October 26, 

2016, through approximately July 29, 2019, or 144 weeks

50. The Plaintiff was a full-time, prep cook. At the time of his termination, 

Plaintiff’s wage-rate was $13.00 an hour.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 9 of 27
Page 10 of 27

51. At all times material hereto, the Employer/Defendant CASA CASUARINA

failed to comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 

29 U.S.C. § 623 (a) et seq., which states, “It shall be unlawful for an employer: 

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age; (2) 

to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive 

or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise 

adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or 

(3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this 

chapter.” 

52. The discrimination of Plaintiff by Defendant was caused by the Defendant 

being aware of the Plaintiff’s age, to wit: 56 years of age at the time of his 

termination. 

53. The discrimination of Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS by Defendant CASA 

CASUARINA was caused by the Defendant being aware of the Plaintiff’s 

Age. 

54. At all relevant times aforementioned, including the time of discrimination, the 

Defendant was aware that Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS was 56 

years old.

55. At the time of the unlawful discrimination, the Plaintiff did perform and excel 

at the performance of the essential functions assigned to him by the Defendant. 

The Plaintiff was qualified for the position apart from his apparent Age.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 10 of 27
Page 11 of 27

56. The Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the 

requirements of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as 

amended.

57. The failure of the Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful 

and its violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

58. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and 

with malicious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, 

discriminated against Plaintiff on account of his Age in violation of the Act 

with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff different from other employees.

59. The Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s termination from 

employment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant’s 

unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because he was 56 years old, in 

violation of the Act.

60. At the time of the Defendant’s termination of his employment, the Plaintiff did 

perform and excel at the performance of the essential functions of his position. 

61. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of the Plaintiff’s 

employment asserted by Defendant CASA CASUARINA is a mere pretext for 

the actual reasons for the termination from employment, Plaintiff’s Age and 

complaints related to the unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment. 

62. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights protecting a person from discrimination due to his age. The 

discrimination based on Age constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 11 of 27
Page 12 of 27

63. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

64. Defendant, CASA CASUARINA is subject to vicarious liability for the actions 

of its agents because it failed to take adequate remedial measures to halt the 

discrimination, harassment, hostile working environment, and retaliation to 

which Plaintiff was subjected to despite Defendant’s knowledge that such 

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation was occurring.

65. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him in this action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS respectfully requests that this court order the 

following:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant CASA CASUARINA its 

officers, successors, assignees, and all persons in active concert or participation 

with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates based on

Age.

B. Reinstate Plaintiff to the same position he held before the retaliatory personnel 

action, or to an equivalent position.

C. Reinstate full fringe benefits and seniority rights to Plaintiff.

D. Order Defendant CASA CASUARINA to make Plaintiff whole, by compensating 

Plaintiff for lost wages, benefits, including front pay, back pay with prejudgment 

interest and other remuneration for mental pain, anguish, pain and humiliation from 

employment termination due to his age.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 12 of 27
Page 13 of 27

E. For a money judgment representing prejudgment interest.

F. Award any other compensation allowed by law including attorney’s fees and further 

demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury.

COUNT II:

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN 

EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (d) (ADEA):

ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISION

66. Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-45 above as if set out in full herein.

67. Defendant CASA CASUARINA employed ROLANDO LUIS as a nonexempted, hourly, full-time restaurant employee, from on or about October 26, 

2016, through approximately July 29, 2019, or 144 weeks.

68. The Defendant CASA CASUARINA also employed Plaintiff’s brother, 

Raimundo Ruiz Castillo, from March 3, 2015, to March 15, 2019, or 155 

weeks. Raimundo Ruiz Castillo held the same position as a prep cook and 

worked under the same supervision as Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS.

69. At all times material hereto, the Employer/Defendant failed to comply with the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §623 (d), which 

states, “It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his 

employees or applicants for employment,...because such individual,... has 

opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because of such 

individual,... has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 13 of 27
Page 14 of 27

manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter” 

(emphasis added).

70. The Defendant CASA CASUARINA is a sophisticated employer who has 

actual knowledge of the requirements of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, which specifically makes it unlawful to retaliate 

against employees who oppose or participate in statutorily protected activity.

71. The failure of the Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful 

and its violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

72. During their time of employment with Defendant CASA CASUARINA, 

Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS and his brother Raimundo Ruiz Castillo suffered 

discrimination and harassment based on their Age.

73. Since Chef Walter Mancini arrived to work at CASA CASUARINA, he

subjected the Plaintiff and his brother to discriminatory treatment and 

harassment because of their Age. 

74. On or about March 8, 2019, Plaintiff opposed to the conduct of Chef Walter 

Mancini. The Plaintiff and his brother confronted the Chef directly and

demanded him to stop his discriminatory remarks about their Age.

75. This complaint constituted protected activity under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA).

76. The Plaintiff’s brother, Raimundo Ruiz Castillo was fired the following week, 

March 15, 2019. After his termination, Raimundo Ruiz Castillo filed a Charge 

of Age Discrimination with the EEOC on or about April 01, 2019. 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 14 of 27
Page 15 of 27

77. Upon the termination of his brother, and the subsequent filing of his FLSA 

lawsuit and Charge of Discrimination, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff.

78. The Plaintiff suffered increased discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

because of his association with someone who had participated in the protected 

activity of filing an EEOC charge under ADEA. 

79. The Age-related Charge of Discrimination filed against the Defendant did not 

deter Chef Walter Mancini from continuing his Age-related discrimination and 

harassment against Plaintiff. 

80. The Plaintiff was penalized and retaliated against because his brother exercised 

his rights under ADEA. Therefore, Plaintiff suffered third-party retaliation.

81. Plaintiff was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, he 

was unfairly reprimanded, Plaintiff’s work was closely scrutinized more than 

that of other employees, without justification and then he was accused of poor 

performance.

82. Furthermore, Chef Walter Mancini repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with the 

reduction of his working hours and with his termination. 

83. The harassment of Chef Walter Mancini was so severe and pervasive that 

created a hostile working environment for the Plaintiff. 

84. On or about July 15, 2019, Defendant escalated his harassment and retaliatory 

conduct, and Plaintiff’s working hours were reduced from more than 40 

weekly to about 24 hours per week.

85. On or about July 29, 2019, complained about the reduction of his working 

hours, and he complained about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 15 of 27
Page 16 of 27

86. Plaintiff complained and told Chef Walter Mancini that he was suffering 

discrimination and retaliation because he and his brother complained about 

Age discrimination. Plaintiff also stated that he was suffering double 

retaliation, and that Defendant was punishing him because he complained 

about Age discrimination and because his brother had filed a Charge of 

Discrimination against Defendant. 

87. This complaint constituted protected activity under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA).

88. As a result of this complaint, the same day the Plaintiff was fired by the 

Defendant, using pretextual reasons.

89. Therefore, on or about July 29, 2019, Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant, and 

Plaintiff’s termination was directly and proximately caused by Defendant’s 

unjustified discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because he engaged 

in protected activities under ADEA and because Plaintiff’s brother Raimundo 

Ruiz Castillo filed a Charge of Discrimination based on Age. 

90. Defendant’s actions violated the anti-retaliatory provisions of the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA).

91. Moreover, Plaintiff’s termination came just in temporal proximity after 

Plaintiff’s engaged in protected on the same day, July 29, 2019.

92. The Plaintiff’s protected activity resulted in retaliatory adverse actions that 

altered the terms, conditions, and privileges of the Plaintiff's employment.

93. Defendant CASA CASUARINA through its practices and policies as an 

employer, willfully, and with malicious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 16 of 27
Page 17 of 27

federally protected rights, retaliated against Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS on 

account of Plaintiff’s complaints and being discriminated because of his Age.

94. Retaliation based on having engaged in a protected activity constitutes 

unlawful retaliation. 

95. As a result of the retaliation, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS has incurred 

substantial monetary losses and has suffered emotional distress, 

embarrassment, and humiliation. 

96. Defendant CASA CASUARINA is subject to vicarious liability for the actions 

of its agents because it failed to take adequate remedial measures to prevent 

and to halt the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to which the Plaintiff 

was subjected to despite Defendant’s knowledge that such discrimination, 

harassment, and retaliation was occurring.

97. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him in this action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS respectfully requests that this court order the 

following:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant CASA CASUARINA its 

officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates based on age.

B. Reinstate Plaintiff to the same position he held before the retaliatory personnel 

action, or to an equivalent position.

C. Reinstate full fringe benefits and seniority rights to Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 17 of 27
Page 18 of 27

D. Order Defendant to make Plaintiff whole, by compensating Plaintiff for lost wages, 

benefits, including front pay, back pay with prejudgment interest and other 

remuneration for mental pain, anguish, pain, and humiliation from the 

discrimination and/or for terminating Plaintiff in retaliation of his complaints of age 

discrimination. 

E. For a money judgment representing prejudgment interest.

F. Award any other compensation allowed by law including punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, and further demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a 

jury. 

COUNT III:

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 CHAPTER 760: 

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE

98. Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-45 above as if set out in full herein.

99. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under Title VII, and the Florida Civil 

Rights Act because of his Age, within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights 

Act.

100. Defendant CASA CASUARINA employed ROLANDO LUIS as a nonexempted, hourly, full-time restaurant employee, from on or about October 26, 

2016, through approximately July 29, 2019, or 144 weeks

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 18 of 27
Page 19 of 27

101. At all times material hereto, the Employer/Defendant CASA CASUARINA

failed to comply with the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 [Florida Statutes 

Section 760.10] which states:

“It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or 

refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual 

with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, 

because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

handicap, or marital status.

102. The discrimination and termination of Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS by 

Defendant were based on the Plaintiff being 56-year-old.

103. The Discrimination and Harassment of Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS by 

Defendant CASA CASUARINA was caused by the Defendant being aware of 

the Plaintiff’s Age. 

104. The Plaintiff was harassed and discriminated because of his Age, he 

suffered discriminatory treatment, hostile working environment, retaliation,

and finally, he was terminated.

105. At all relevant times, including the time of the employment termination of 

Plaintiff, Defendant, was aware that Plaintiff was 56-year-old.

106. At the time of the Defendant’s termination of his employment, the Plaintiff 

did perform and excel at the performance of the essential functions of his 

position. 

107. The Plaintiff was well qualified for the position.

108. The Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s termination of 

employment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 19 of 27
Page 20 of 27

unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because of his Age, in violation of 

Florida Statute Section 760.

109. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

110. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for this treatment of Plaintiff asserted 

by Defendant is a mere pretext for the actual reason for terminating 

employment, his Age.

111. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to 

the Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to Florida Statute Section 760, protecting a 

person from discrimination because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, National 

Origin, Age, Handicap, or Marital status.

112. The actions of Defendant were done wantonly, willfully, maliciously, and 

with reckless disregard of the consequences of such actions.

113. Defendant CASA CASUARINA is subject to vicarious liability for the 

actions of its agents because it failed to take adequate remedial measures to 

halt the Discrimination, Harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected to despite 

Defendant’s knowledge that such discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

was occurring.

114. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to 

represent him in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS respectfully requests that this court order the 

following:

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 20 of 27
Page 21 of 27

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant CASA CASUARINA, its 

officers, successors, assignees, and all persons in active concert or participation 

with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates based on

Age.

B. Reinstate Plaintiff to the same position he held before the retaliatory personnel 

action, or to an equivalent position.

C. Reinstate full fringe benefits and seniority rights to Plaintiff.

D. Order Defendant to make Plaintiff whole, by compensating Plaintiff for lost wages, 

benefits, including front pay, back pay with prejudgment interest and other 

remuneration for mental pain, anguish, pain, and humiliation from employment 

termination due to his Age.

E. For a money judgment representing prejudgment interest.

F. Award any other compensation allowed by law including punitive damages, 

attorney’s fees (448.104), and further demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury.

COUNT IV: 

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 

CHAPTER 760, FLORIDA STATUTES; RETALIATION

115. Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-45 and 97-114 of this Complaint as if set out in full herein.

116. This is an action against CASA CASUARINA for unlawful retaliation

under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Fl Statutes, (FCRA).

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 21 of 27
Page 22 of 27

117. The Defendant CASA CASUARINA employed ROLANDO LUIS as a 

non-exempted, hourly, full-time restaurant employee, from on or about 

October 26, 2016, through approximately July 29, 2019, or 144 weeks.

118. The Defendant CASA CASUARINA also employed Plaintiff’s brother, 

Raimundo Ruiz Castillo, from March 3, 2015, to March 15, 2019, or 155 

weeks. Raimundo Ruiz Castillo held the same position as a prep cook and 

worked under the same supervision as the Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS.

119. The FCRA contains an anti-retaliation provision, forbidding employers 

from retaliating, or from taking adverse personnel action against, those 

employees who exercise their lawful and protected rights under Title VII. 

120. The FCRA, Fla. Stat. Section 760.10, (7) reads in applicable part, as 

follows: 

“It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency, 

a joint labor management committee, or a labor organization to discriminate 

against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an 

unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has 

made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section”.

121. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under Title VII and the Florida 

Civil Rights Act because of his age, and because of their participation in 

protected activities within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act.

122. During his time of employment with Defendant CASA CASUARINA, 

Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS suffered discrimination and harassment based on

his Age.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 22 of 27
Page 23 of 27

123. Since Chef Walter Mancini arrived to work at CASA CASUARINA, he 

subjected the Plaintiff and his brother to discriminatory treatment and 

harassment because of their Age. 

124. On or about March 8, 2019, Plaintiff opposed to the conduct of Chef Walter 

Mancini. The Plaintiff and his brother confronted the Chef directly and 

demanded him to stop his discriminatory remarks about their Age.

125. This complaint constituted protected activity under the Florida Civil Rights 

Act, Chapter 760, Fl Statutes, (FCRA).

126. The Plaintiff’s brother, Raimundo Ruiz Castillo was fired the following 

week, March 15, 2019. After his termination, Raimundo Ruiz Castillo filed a 

Charge of Age Discrimination with the EEOC, on or about April 01, 2019. 

127. Upon the termination of his brother, and the subsequent filing of his FLSA 

lawsuit and Charge of Discrimination, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff.

128. The Plaintiff suffered increased discrimination, harassment, and retaliation 

because of his association with someone who had participated in the protected 

activity of filing an EEOC charge under ADEA. 

129. The Age-related Charge of Discrimination filed against the Defendant did 

not deter Chef Walter Mancini from continuing his harassment against 

Plaintiff because of his Age. 

130. The Plaintiff was penalized and retaliated against because his brother 

exercised his rights under the FCRA, Fla. Stat. Section 760.10, (7). Therefore, 

Plaintiff suffered third-party retaliation.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 23 of 27
Page 24 of 27

131. Plaintiff was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, he 

was unfairly reprimanded, Plaintiff’s work was closely scrutinized more than 

that of other employees, without justification and then he was accused of poor 

performance.

132. Furthermore, Chef Walter Mancini repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with the 

reduction of his working hours and with his termination. 

133. The harassment of Chef Walter Mancini was so severe and pervasive that 

created a hostile working environment for the Plaintiff. 

134. On or about July 15, 2019, Defendant escalated his harassment and 

retaliatory conduct, and Plaintiff’s working hours were reduced from more 

than 40 weekly to about 24 hours per week. 

135. On or about July 29, 2019, complained about the reduction of his working 

hours, and he complained about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

136. Plaintiff complained and told Chef Walter Mancini that he was suffering 

discrimination and retaliation because he and his brother complained about 

Age discrimination. Plaintiff also stated that he was suffering double 

retaliation, and that Defendant was punishing him because he complained 

about Age discrimination complaint and because his brother had filed a Charge 

of Age Discrimination against Defendant. 

137. This complaint constituted protected activity under the FCRA, Fla. Stat. 

Section 760.10, (7).

138. As a result of this complaint, the Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant using 

pretextual reasons.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 24 of 27
Page 25 of 27

139. Therefore, on or about July 29, 2019, Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant, 

and Plaintiff’s termination was directly and proximately caused by 

Defendant’s unjustified discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because

he engaged in protected activities under the FCRA and because Plaintiff’s 

brother Raimundo Ruiz Castillo filed an Age Charge of Discrimination against 

Defendant. 

140. Defendant’s actions violated the anti-retaliatory provisions of the Florida 

Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Fl Statutes, (FCRA).

141. Moreover, Plaintiff’s termination came just in temporal proximity after 

Plaintiff’s engaged in protected on the same day, July 29, 2019.

142. The protected activity resulted in retaliatory adverse actions that altered the 

terms, conditions, and privileges of the Plaintiff's employment. 

143. At the time of his termination Plaintiff performed and excelled at the 

functions of his job, any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for terminating 

Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant is a mere pretext for the actual reasons for 

termination, Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination and harassment because 

of his Age.

144. Defendant CASA CASUARINA through its practices and policies as an 

employer, willfully, and with malicious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s 

statutory protected rights, retaliated against Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS on 

account of Plaintiff’s complaints about being discriminated because of his 

Age.

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 25 of 27
Page 26 of 27

145. Defendant CASA CASUARINA is subject to vicarious liability for the 

actions of its agents because it failed to take adequate remedial measures to

prevent and to halt the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to which 

Plaintiff was subjected to, despite Defendant’s knowledge that such 

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation was occurring. 

146. The harassment and discrimination were perpetrated by the decision-maker, 

and this fact, perpetuated and facilitated an abusive, discriminatory, and hostile 

work environment based on Plaintiff’s Age within the meaning of Section 

760.10 of the Florida Civil Rights Act.

147. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the 

Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and losses including a violation of 

his statutory rights. 

148. The Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law. He is 

suffering and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury in the form of 

psychiatric and psychological harm, extreme emotional distress, emotional 

pain, mental anguish and humiliation, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, 

loss of past and future wages and an inability to earn wages in the future. These 

losses are continuing and will continue in the future.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS respectfully requests that this Court; 

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant CASA CASUARINA, its 

officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 26 of 27
Page 27 of 27

it, from engaging in the further discriminatory practice in violation of the FCRA, 

Fla. Stat. Section 760.10, (7).

B. Award Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS judgment against the Defendant CASA 

CASUARINA for compensatory damages as determined by the Trier of fact.

C. Award Plaintiff restitutionary damages including back pay, front pay, liquidated 

damages, any “Employee Welfare Benefits” and retirement benefits for the time 

the Plaintiff should have worked absent Defendant’s discriminatory treatment.

D. Enter Judgment for Punitive damages against CASA CASUARINA.

E. Award all reasonable Attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this 

action; and any other and further relief as justice may require.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ROLANDO LUIS demands trial by a jury of all issues triable as of right by a 

jury.

Dated: July 17, 2020

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Case 1:20-cv-22958-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 27 of 27