UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

JUAN NIEVES )

)

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 Juan Nieves and a class of 

similarly situated males who were adversely affected by such practices.

As alleged with greater particularity below, Plaintiff JUAN NIEVES (“PLAINTIFF” 

and/or “Plaintiff NIEVES”) 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 Kathryn Gonzalez (“Supervisor Gonzalez”) to discriminate against Plaintiff, and other 

similarly situation male employees, on the bases of sex (male), when, from 2016 to the present, 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 23
Page 2 of 23

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

which created a hostile work environment. Additionally, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff 

NIEVES 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 NIEVES 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 to 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 23
Page 3 of 23

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

the subject of this lawsuit, Plaintiff NIEVES 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 NIEVES 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 2016 to the present, Plaintiff NIEVES suffered from 

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

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

allowing any applicable statutory periods to lapse.

8. Plaintiff NIEVES, and other similarly situated individuals, advised the EEOC of 

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

approximately 2016. 

9. Plaintiff NIEVES, and other similarly situated individuals, timely initiated the 

involvement of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 23
Page 4 of 23

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 NIEVES timely filed a formal EEO complaint. 

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

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 3, 2020 finding reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff 

NIEVES 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 July 2015, Plaintiff Juan Nieves (male) was hired by the Memphis District Office 

(MEDO) of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. in July 2015. 

17. In June 2016, Complainant requested and was granted hardship transfer to the 

Miami District Office (MIDO) and started work as an Investigator in MIDO in July 2016.

18. Plaintiff worked under the supervision of Katherine Gonzalez when he started at 

MIDO in July 2016 through November 2017.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 23
Page 5 of 23

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

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

Hernandez and Robert Tom, were subjected to ongoing harassment (sexual and non-sexual) and a 

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

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

(Hispanic) and disability (post-traumatic stress disorder and/or major depressive and anxiety 

disorder (collectively, PTSD) from 2016 to the present.

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

Hernandez and Juan Nieves, was subjected to unwanted, unsolicited sexual advances by 

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

she would use her position as a Supervisor and Plaintiff NIEVES’s disability to force him and 

other similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to Mario Hernandez and Juan Nieves, 

into a non-consensual sexual relationship.

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

enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment for Plaintiff NIEVES at MIDO. 

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

a. Defendants were on notice since 2012 that Supervisor GONZALEZ engaged in 

offensive sexual harassment of her subordinates. 

b. In 2016, Supervisor GONZALEZ began to engage in flirtatious behavior, and made 

advances to Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s first week of beginning work at MIDO.

c. Supervisor GONZALEZ persistently asked Plaintiff for personal social 

information,

d. Supervisor GONZALEZ would lean towards him to “parade” her breasts and 

touched his knee in a sexual manner.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 23
Page 6 of 23

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

e. Supervisor GONZALEZ would initiate conversations about her marriage, placing 

Plaintiff in an extremely stressful situation.

f. Supervisor GONZALEZ knew that Plaintiff was going through marital issues and

called him a pussy, saying “this was Miami everyone gets divorced.”

g. Supervisor GONZALEZ would go into Plaintiff’s office during work hours to 

discuss sexual matters.

h. Supervisor GONZALEZ wore low cut tops exposing her breasts, Plaintiff NIEVES, 

telling him not to be a ‘pussy,’ and ‘there are a lot of women in Miami.

i. Supervisor GONZALEZ would regularly bend over me when Plaintiff NIEVES 

was sitting down and brush her breasts against him

j. Supervisor GONZALEZ would call Plaintiff NIEVES late at night. Supervisor 

GONZALEZ would initiate the conversation about work and then Plaintiff about 

his marriage and told him “you still have an offer from me.”

k. Supervisor GONZALEZ would text at night on Offer Up, an app, to communicate 

with Plaintiff.

l. Supervisor GONZALEZ would initiate, allow, and proliferate inappropriate 

conversations in the office

m. Supervisor GONZALEZ would make Plaintiff NIEVES run errands for her, such 

as getting her Red Bulls.

n. Supervisor GONZALEZ would send Plaintiff NIEVES unprofessional messages 

on Novell Messenger.

o. Supervisor GONZALEZ would touch her breasts and tell Plaintiff NIEVES ‘this is 

a new bra, do you like it?’

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 23
Page 7 of 23

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

p. Supervisor GONZALEZ asked Plaintiff NIEVES to attend off-site encounters, such 

as to hang-out and go to happy-hours at the “Blue Martini.”

q. Supervisor GONZALEZ would send Plaintiff NIEVES repeated and communications

unrelated to work matters.

r. SUPERVISOR GONZALEZ would make inappropriate statements. 

22. Plaintiff NIEVES subjectively perceived Supervisor GONZALEZ’s offensive conduct 

as abusive. 

23. Plaintiff NIEVES communicated his opposition to Supervisor GONZALEZ’s 

unwanted advances. Specifically, he:

a. Rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ’s flirting;

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

24. At the time, Plaintiff NIEVES’s who has been diagnosed PTSD was “vulnerable” 

and utilized poor coping mechanisms (e.g., required new medications for anxiety and for sleep and 

began attending more medical appointments) when Supervisor GONZALEZ was harassing him. 

25. Supervisor GONZALEZ’s harassment exacerbated Plaintiff NIEVES’s preexisting condition of PTSD.

26. Supervisor GONZALEZ was aware of Plaintiff NIEVES’s PTSD and used her 

knowledge of the symptoms of his condition to trigger him. Supervisor GONZALEZ would play 

“head games” with Plaintiff NIEVES 

27. Plaintiff NIEVES’s accepted the fact that if he did not “go along” with Supervisor 

GONZALEZ’s unwanted conduct, she would make his life difficult.

28. Plaintiff NIEVES was negatively affected as result of rejecting Supervisor 

GONZALEZ’s advances and unwanted conduct.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 23
Page 8 of 23

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

B. Retaliation

29. Plaintiff NIEVES did not solicit or incite the conduct and, instead, informed 

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

30. Plaintiff NIEVES was retaliated against by Supervisor GONZALEZ due to his 

association with. Robert Tom, Mario Hernandez, and Jose De La Rosa, and because of his 

participation in a protected activity

31. Additionally, Plaintiff NIEVES was retaliated against by Supervisor Gonzalez 

when he rejected Supervisor GONZALEZ’s offensive conduct, Supervisor GONZALEZ retaliated 

against him. Specifically: 

a. Supervisor GONZALEZ, would overly scrutinize Plaintiff NIEVES’s work.

b. Supervisor GONZALEZ informed other employees of the claim of discrimination 

Plaintiff filed against her, instructing staff not to speak with him because of his 

complaint 

c. Supervisor GONZALEZ belittled and ridiculed Plaintiff NIEVES in public. 

Specifically Supervisor GONZALEZ told others, “[t]his is what I have to deal with 

every day” and “[d]on’t listen to this guy, he doesn’t not [sic] know what he is 

talking about.” 

d. Supervisor GONZALEZ unevenly divided the cases in the unit. Specifically, 

Plaintiff NIEVES got the more difficult cases and would be assigned more complex 

cases and aged inventory causing Plaintiff’s workload to increase and his closure 

rate dropping.

e. Supervisor GONZALEZ informed Plaintiff that an unknown Supervisor wanted 

to write him up.

f. Supervisor GONZALEZ expedited, and hindered the timeliness of charge process

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 23
Page 9 of 23

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

g. Supervisor GONZALEZ would access Plaintiff NIEVES computer and delete files.

h. Supervisor GONZALEZ “denied the benefit of telework on a third day and denied 

two verbal leave requests; despite being good producer.

i. Supervisor GONZALEZ denied Plaintiff NIEVES a cash award in 2016.

j. Supervisor GONZALEZ continually disregarded Plaintiff’s request to refrain from 

posting any pictures or information of me on Facebook. Supervisor GONZALEZ

has my requests and posted pictures and information of me on Facebook.

k. Supervisor GONZALEZ without Plaintiff NIEVES’s permission posted a picture 

of him on Facebook. It was common knowledge in the office that he did not like 

social media or pictures of him being taken. However, Supervisor GONZALEZ

uploaded a picture giving the appearance that Plaintiff NIEVES was drinking an 

alcoholic beverage rather than a Coca Cola.

l. Supervisor GONZALEZ Plaintiff NIEVES continually required to change verbiage 

of written documents multiple times. 

m. Supervisor GONZALEZ changed case information on the Agency system, to 

manipulate Plaintiff NIEVES’s case load and responsibilities. 

32. Plaintiff NIEVES interpreted Supervisor GONZALEZ’s behavior as punishment 

for refusing her unwelcomed conduct. 

33. Plaintiff NIEVES also informed MIDO Director Michael Farrell (“Director 

Farrell”) of Supervisor GONZALEZ’s unwelcomed conduct and that said actions triggered his 

PTSD. 

34. Director Farrell alleges that Plaintiff NIEVES never made any complaints regarding 

harassment and retaliation by Supervisor Gonzalez.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 23
Page 10 of 23

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

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. 

Nevertheless, MIDO management knowingly allowed Supervisor GONZALEZ’s conduct to 

continue and did nothing to remedy or stop the situation.

37. Director Farrell and MIDO management’s response to the harassment was neither 

immediate nor appropriate. MIDO management failed to take any action to investigate the

harassment for approximately four years while rumors/reports were circulating by MIDO’s staff 

about Supervisor GONZALEZ’s inappropriate and unwanted sexual behavior in the office. 

Specifically:

a. Plaintiff informed Director Farrell, and he had been informed of Supervisor

GONZALEZ’s sexual advances to subordinates in the past, and he opted to ignore 

them and protect Supervisor GONZALEZ.

b. Plaintiff complained in the beginning of November and was removed from 

Supervisor GONZALEZ’s team in January.

c. Director Farrell never took Plaintiff’s allegations seriously.

d. Defendants’ were aware of Supervisor GONZALEZ’s harassing conduct, in 

general, since 2012 and refused to act to end same. 

e. Supervisor GONZALEZ was not disciplined for her egregious harassing behavior, 

but instead was disciplined for an inappropriate consensual sexual relationship.

38. From 2015 to the present, Defendants were aware of Supervisor GONZALEZ’s on 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 23
Page 11 of 23

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

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

occurring. 

39. Plaintiff NIEVES 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.

40. From 2016 Plaintiff NIEVES and other 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 NIEVES and other similar situated male employees from her. 

41. Although Supervisor Wright, Supervisor Caddle, and Supervisor Ricardo that Mr. 

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

GONZALEZ continued to harass and alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff NIEVES’s 

Employment. 

42. Notwithstanding repeated and continuing complaints about the sexually harassing 

comments and conduct of Supervisor GONZALEZ, Supervisor GONZALEZ continued to 

sexually harass Plaintiff NIEVES and other male employees. 

43. Soon after his complaint in 2015, Defendants began retaliating against Plaintiff 

NIEVES because he repeatedly objected to, reported and opposed Supervisor GONZALEZ’s 

sexually inappropriate comments and conduct. 

44. Plaintiff NIEVES was subjected to retaliation after filing complaints and objections 

(opposition to discrimination) with Director Farrell and MIDO management regarding Supervisor 

GONZALEZ from 2016 to the present in the following ways: 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 11 of 23
Page 12 of 23

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

a. Director Farrell continuously shamed, questioned, doubted and threatened with 

written reprimands regarding his claim that Supervisor GONZALEZ had subjected 

Plaintiff to egregious sexual harassment;

b. In response to Plaintiff NIEVES’s complaints of Supervisor GONZALEZ’s 

unwanted acts, Director Farrell threatened Plaintiff NIEVES that he was lying and 

would be terminated.

c. MIDO management assigned Plaintiff NIEVES a greater overall volume of work 

than his coworkers, which negatively impacted the total number of charges he could 

complete over the course of a fiscal year.

d. MIDO management threatened Plaintiff NIEVES with discipline for 

insubordination, and was instructed by the enforcement Manager to process two 

old Charges that were not assigned to her unit. 

e. MIDO management denied Plaintiff NIEVES the benefit of telework on a third day 

f. MIDO management denied two verbal leave requests; despite being good producer.

g. Plaintiff NIEVES was assigned more than 20 old cases from a different unit-T-5, 

Supervisor, Supervisor Fernella Peters.

h. Director Farrell and Supervisor GONZALEZ denied Plaintiff NIEVES’s transfer 

request to the Memphis office without being provided a reason for the denial.

i. Plaintiff NIEVES was threatened with a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

j. MIDO management provide Plaintiff NIEVES with a tougher and more complex 

case load;

k. Plaintiff NIEVES’s case load was manipulated.

l. After Plaintiff NIEVES required to participate in an interview with OEO Director 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 12 of 23
Page 13 of 23

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

Erica White Dunston his workload was significantly increased. Specifically, 

Plaintiff had minimal pending intake mail inventory in September 22, 2017, but 

was assigned 37 cases and had processed 12, “ states that by November 3, 2017

m. Defendants ignored Plaintiff NIEVES’s multiple requests to assist in stopping the 

unwanted sexual advances by Supervisor GONZALEZ;

n. Defendants, despite being aware of Plaintiff NIEVES’s resistance to his 

supervisor’s sexual advances and unwarranted conduct since 2016, failed and/or 

refused to take immediate and reasonable actions to protect him from Supervisor 

GONZALEZ’s constant and multiple attempts to rebuff her offensive conduct. 

o. Defendants disciplined, belittled and ostracized Plaintiff NIEVES

p. Defendants hindered Plaintiff NIEVES’s ability to advance his career within and 

outside the EEOC.

q. Plaintiff NIEVES was continuously shamed, questioned and doubted by MIDO 

management regarding his claim that Supervisor GONZALEZ subjected him to 

harassment.

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

power to coerce and abused Plaintiff NIEVES since 2016 but did nothing to stop 

or remedy the situation.

s. MIDO management would require Plaintiff NIEVES to redraft documents, then 

eventually approve the original versions of the documents.

t. MIDO management would physically remove cases from Plaintiff NIEVES’s 

inventory, then place the cases back in Plaintiff NIEVES’s inventory, all with the 

purpose of negatively affecting his statistics. 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 13 of 23
Page 14 of 23

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

u. MIDO management would backdate items in Plaintiff NIEVES’s inventory and 

make him responsible for “aged” cases.

v. MIDO management would return his cases for minor issues in an attempt to reduce 

his productivity. 

w. MIDO management would manipulate his inventory and, as a result, would often 

threaten Plaintiff NIEVES that he would be placed on a PIP.

45. The retaliation affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff NIEVES’s 

employment as outlined above. 

46. Prior to his complaint, Plaintiff NIEVES was a good investigator with no 

documented record evidence that his performance was poor.

47. There is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff NIEVES was disciplined or placed 

in a PIP. 

48. After his complaint, Defendants changed Plaintiff NIEVES’s schedule in retaliation 

for his repeated complaints about and objections to Supervisor GONZALEZ’s sexual harassment.

49. As a result of the retaliation, Plaintiff NIEVES’s demeanor changed as he became 

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

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

NIEVES’s work was overly scrutinized to the point that he second guessed his every move. 

50. As a result of the retaliation, Plaintiff NIEVES earned less money. 

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

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

him from Supervisor GONZALEZ. 

52. Defendants attempted to constructively terminate Plaintiff NIEVES between 2017 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 14 of 23
Page 15 of 23

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

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.

53. In 2019, Defendants forced Plaintiff NIEVES to medically retire. 

54. Any remedial action taken by Defendants related to Plaintiff NIEVES’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 NIEVES’s 

work environment was objectively hostile and that Plaintiff NIEVES subjectively believed the 

environment was hostile and abusive. 

56. Defendants’ actions from 2016 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 

Defendants. 

58. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff NIEVES 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 NIEVES incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

60. Plaintiff NIEVES, 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. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 15 of 23
Page 16 of 23

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

GONZALEZ, his direct supervisor, subjected Plaintiff NIEVES 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. § 2000e-3(a). 

Specifically, Defendants were aware that Supervisor GONZALEZ subjected Plaintiff NIEVES to 

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

62. The harassment and unlawful employment practices suffered by Plaintiff NIEVES 

were based on his sex, male. 

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

paragraphs 16 through 28 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 28 above has been to deprive Plaintiff and similarly situated male 

employees who worked at United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami 

District Office since at least 2016 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 28 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff NIEVES 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 28 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff NIEVES and similarly situated males who worked at Defendant’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 16 of 23
Page 17 of 23

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

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 28 above were 

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

NIEVES and similarly situated males employed by Defendants.

68. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 28 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 NIEVES incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

70. Plaintiff NIEVES, 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 

NIEVES. Specifically, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff NIEVES outlined in paragraphs 29

to 58, above. 

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

conducted complained of in paragraphs 29 to 58, above and the material adverse action taken by 

Defendants against him. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 17 of 23
Page 18 of 23

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

NIEVES and, after he ultimately acknowledge the relationship, which Plaintiff NIEVES 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 NIEVES incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

75. Plaintiff NIEVES, 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 NIEVES 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. § 2000e-3(a). 

Specifically, Defendants were aware that Supervisor GONZALEZ subjected Plaintiff NIEVES to 

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

77. The harassment and unlawful employment practices suffered by Plaintiff NIEVES 

were based on his sex, male. 

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

paragraphs 16 through 28 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 18 of 23
Page 19 of 23

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

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

paragraphs 16 through 28 above has been to deprive Plaintiff and similarly situated male 

employees who worked at United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami 

District Office since at least 2016 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 28 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff NIEVES 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 28 above were 

intentional and caused Plaintiff NIEVES 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.

82. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 28 above were 

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

NIEVES and similarly situated males employed by Defendants.

83. The unlawful employment practices complained of in 16 through 28 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 19 of 23
Page 20 of 23

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

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Retaliation/Retaliatory Harassment)

Retaliation in Violation of

The Florida Civil Rights Act

of 1992, FLA. STAT. 760 ET SEQ

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

paragraphs.

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

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

in paragraphs 28 to 58, above. 

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

NIEVES. Specifically, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff NIEVES outlined in paragraphs 28 

to 58, above. 

87. Acausal nexus exists between Plaintiff NIEVES’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 

NIEVES and, after he ultimately acknowledge the relationship, which Plaintiff NIEVES claimed 

was nonconsensual, and reported Supervisor GONZALEZ’s conduct, Defendants subjected him 

to adverse treatment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Plaintiff JUAN NIEVES 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 20 of 23
Page 21 of 23

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

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 NIEVES 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 NIEVES 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 NIEVES and similarly situated males punitive 

damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in 1 through 58 above, in amounts to be 

determined at trial;

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

within the MIDO’s jurisdiction.

H. Order Defendants to issue Plaintiff’s promotion.

I. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff NIEVES 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 21 of 23
Page 22 of 23

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

J. Order Defendants to confirm that Plaintiff NIEVES’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 NIEVES’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 NIEVES’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 NIEVES 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 

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.

Case 1:20-cv-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 22 of 23
Page 23 of 23

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

__/s/ José A. Socorro________

JOSÉ A. SOCORRO, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 011675

RALPH 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-22724-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 23 of 23