UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.:

MICHAEL MAIER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 

a Florida Municipality,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, MICHAEL MAIER (“Mr. Maier” 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 THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (“The City” 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.

2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, and resided in 

Broward County, Florida. 

3. Defendant is a municipality that is located and does business in Broward County, 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61544-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 1 of 6
4. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Fort Lauderdale, 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 parent 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 Director of Information Technology and Chief 

Security Officer from January 12, 2012, until his termination on November 21, 2019.

8. During his tenure with The City, Mr. Maier was an outstanding employee with 

nothing but positive reviews in his personnel file.

9. In August of 2019, Mr. Maier applied, and was approved, for intermittent unpaid 

FMLA leave in order to treat and address his mother’s serious health condition.

10. Mr. Maier subsequently utilized unpaid FMLA leave from November 5, 2019, until 

November 11, 2019, in order to care for his mother and her serious health condition.

11. When Mr. Maier informed his supervisor with The City, City Manager Chris 

Laugerbloom, that he would be out on those days, Mr. Laugerbloom angrily confronted Mr. 

Case 0:20-cv-61544-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 2 of 6
Maier’s Business Manager with The City, Valerie Florestal, on Mr. Maier’s utilization of unpaid 

FMLA leave to care for his mother’s serious health condition.

12. Defendant’s actions in this respect constituted unlawful FMLA interference.

13. On November 21, 2019, less than two (2) weeks after Mr. Maier returned to work 

from a brief period of intermittent unpaid FMLA leave to care for his mother’s serious health 

condition, Mr. Laugerbloom informed Mr. Maier that The City had decided to terminate his 

employment, with an effective date of December 31, 2019.

14. Mr. Laugerbloom was unable to offer any cogent reason for The City’s adverse 

employment action against Mr. Maier.

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

retaliation for, Mr. Maier notifying The City of his mother’s serious health condition, and in 

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

same.

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

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

FMLA interference and retaliation.

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

FMLA.

19. 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.

20. 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-61544-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 3 of 6
21. 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.

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

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to liquidated damages.

23. 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

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

23, above.

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

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

FMLA.

27. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff by angrily challenging 

Mr. Maier’s Business Manager about his utilization of FMLA leave, and by refusing to allow 

Plaintiff to exercise his FMLA rights.

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

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

attorneys’ fees and costs.

29. 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-61544-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 4 of 6
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

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

23, above.

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

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

33. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by discharging him

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

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

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

35. 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.

36. 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-61544-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 5 of 6
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED this 30th day of July, 2020.

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Noah E. Storch

Noah E. Storch, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0085476

Alexander Harne, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 126932

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-61544-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 6 of 6