UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.:

KEVIN COONEY,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CLEVELAND CLINIC WESTON 

HOSPITAL NONPROFIT CORPORATION

f/k/a CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA

HEALTH SYSTEM NONPROFIT

CORPORATION, 

a Florida Not for Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, KEVIN COONEY (“Mr. Cooney” or “Plaintiff”), brings this action pursuant to 

the Family and Medical Leave Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“the FMLA”), seeking 

recovery from CLEVELAND CLINIC WESTON HOSPITAL NONPROFIT CORPORATION 

f/k/a CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA HEALTH SYSTEM NONPROFIT CORPORATION 

(“CCW” or “Defendant”) for back pay, an equal amount as liquidated damages, other monetary 

damages, reinstatement, injunctive relief, equitable relief, front pay, declaratory relief, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337 and the 

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

2201, et seq.

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 1 of 7
2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, and resided in 

Broward County, Florida. 

3. Defendant is a Florida not for profit corporation that is located and does business in 

Broward County, Florida, and is therefore within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Weston, Broward County, Florida, and therefore the 

proper venue for this case is the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

FMLA, based on the fact that he: (a) had a daughter who suffered from a serious health condition 

as defined by the FMLA, necessitating Plaintiff to take FMLA leave; and (b) was employed by 

Defendant for at least 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours during the relevant 12-month 

period prior to him seeking to exercise his rights to FMLA leave.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Registered Nurse from April 4, 1994, until his 

termination on December 3, 2019.

8. During his lengthy tenure with CCW, Mr. Cooney was an outstanding employee with 

no history of disciplinary issues.

9. Unfortunately, Mr. Cooney’s daughter suffers from a chronic, serious health 

condition, bipolar 1 with rapid cycling.

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 2 of 7
10. In the summer of 2019, it became clear to Mr. Cooney due to his daughter’s 

deteriorating serious health condition that he would need to take care of her by taking her for 

treatment sessions to treat and address the condition.

11. To that end, Mr. Cooney applied for intermittent unpaid leave pursuant to the FMLA 

on or about June 10, 2019.

12. On July 19, 2019, CCW forwarded Mr. Cooney written correspondence confirming 

his eligibility and approval for same, effective June 12, 2019. 

13. In the ensuing months, Mr. Cooney utilized a modest amount of intermittent FMLA 

leave to care for his daughter’s chronic serious health condition. 

14. On November 15, 2019, Mr. Cooney, ever the team player, volunteered to work for 

CCW through lunch in order to ensure coverage for his team. 

15. One of CCW’s officious managers, Kristen Thorpe, confronted Mr. Cooney about 

this, stating incorrectly that he could not do that because “by law [he] need[ed] to go to lunch.” 

16. Perplexed, Mr. Cooney informed the benighted Ms. Thorpe that there was actually 

no law against him working through lunch to provide coverage for his team.

17. It was obvious that CCW upbraided Mr. Cooney for being a good team player in 

order to interfere with his FMLA rights.

18. On November 22, 2019, another CCW Manager, Jewel Murphy, and CCW’s Director 

of Human Resources, Carl McDonald, accosted Mr. Cooney. 

19. These individuals called Mr. Cooney into a conference room and “interviewed” him 

regarding the so-called “incident” with Ms. Thorpe, which was nothing more than a brief and 

unremarkable dustup between co-workers, as happens in medical facilities nationwide each day. 

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 3 of 7
20. On November 27, 2019, Mr. Cooney utilized intermittent FMLA leave to assist his 

daughter with her chronic serious health condition and a flareup of same. 

21. . On December 3, 2019, Ms. Murphy, Ms. Thorpe, CCW Assistant Manager James 

Whitmore, and CCW’s Perioperative Nursing Director, Jennifer Jagels, called Mr. Cooney into a 

conference room. 

22. At that time, Ms. Murphy informed Mr. Cooney that CCW had taken the decision to 

terminate his employment, effective immediately. 

23. None of these individuals was able to offer any cogent reason for CCW’s extreme 

adverse employment action against Mr. Cooney.

24. Defendant’s adverse employment actions were taken to interfere with, and in 

retaliation for, Mr. Cooney notifying CCW of his daughter’s chronic, serious health condition, and 

in retaliation for Mr. Cooney utilizing unpaid leave pursuant to the FMLA in order to treat and 

address same.

25. Defendant did not have a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, for its actions.

26. Any reason provided by Defendant for its actions is a pretext, designed to cover up 

FMLA interference and retaliation.

27. Defendant’s conduct constitutes intentional interference and retaliation under the 

FMLA.

28. The timing of Plaintiff’s use of what should have been protected FMLA leave, and 

Defendant’s termination of his employment, alone demonstrates a causal and temporal connection 

between his protected activity and the illegal actions taken against him by Defendant.

29. Defendant purposefully and intentionally interfered with and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for his utilization of what should have been protected FMLA leave.

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 4 of 7
30. As a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including 

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

31. Defendant lacked a subjective or objective good faith basis for its actions, and 

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to liquidated damages.

32. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A., to represent 

him in the litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I- UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE UNDER THE FMLA

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

32, above.

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

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

FMLA.

36. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff by nitpicking and 

upbraiding him for innocuous and unremarkable actions and by refusing to allow Plaintiff to 

exercise his FMLA rights freely.

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

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

attorneys’ fees and costs.

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

liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Order awarding him back pay, 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 5 of 7
relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all further relief that this Court determines 

to be just and appropriate. 

COUNT II- RETALIATION UNDER THE FMLA

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

32, above.

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

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

42. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating him

for applying for FMLA leave and for utilizing what should have been FMLA-protected leave.

43. Defendant acted with the intent to retaliate against Plaintiff, because Plaintiff 

exercised his rights to take approved leave pursuant to the FMLA.

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

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

incurred reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

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

liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Order awarding him back pay, 

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

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

to be just and appropriate. 

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 6 of 7
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2020.

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Noah E. Storch

Noah E. Storch, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0085476

RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

10368 W. SR. 84, Suite 103 

Davie, Florida 33324 

Telephone: (866) 344-9243

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771

 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61534-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 7 of 7