1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

JACKELINE DELGADO, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Case No.:

v. §

§

FORWARD AIR CORPORATION, § TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

§

Defendant. §

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEF

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: 1

Jackeline Delgado, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), complains of Forward Air Corporation,

(hereinafter “Defendant”) and for cause of action would show the Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this case as to any and all issues triable to a jury. 

2. Plaintiff files this Complaint and complains of discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual 

harassment based on a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

1 For the Court’s information, Plaintiff’s counsel who prepared this document, Edwin Villa, is visually impaired, and 

uses assistive technology when drafting documents. In particular, counsel relies on screen reader technology, which 

reads aloud as the document is being typed. As a result, certain typographical and formatting issues are difficult to 

recognize. Therefore, please forgive any such issues in this document.

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 1 of 9
2

3. This action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus lost wages (past, present, and 

future), attorney’s fees, emotional distress and mental anguish, taxable court costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Jackeline Delgado, is a resident of Hialeah, Florida. 

5. Defendant, Forward Air Corporation, is a corporation incorporated in Tennessee and is 

authorized to do business in the state of Florida, and process may be served by mail or in 

person to its registered agent, Cogency Global, Inc., located at 115 North Calhoun St., 

Suite 4, Tallahassee, Florida., 32301. 

VENUE

6. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida—Miami Division in that Defendant’s office in which Plaintiff worked, and the area 

where she performed services for Defendant, is located in this district and division. 

Therefore, Defendant can be said to reside/or do business in this district and division as 

required under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

JURISDICTION

7. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 

question jurisdiction) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

8. The unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of this Court.

PROCEDURAL REQUISITES

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 2 of 9
3

9. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been met by Plaintiff in that she 

has filed a timely complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC”) and received a right-to-sue letter from said agency to pursue her claims.

10. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against Defendant with the EEOC on or about

July 30, 2019. 

11. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter entitling her to file suit for discrimination 

based on sex and retaliation, on May 20, 2020. 

12. The filing of this lawsuit has been accomplished within ninety (90) days of Plaintiff’s 

receipt of notice from the EEOC. 

FACTS

13. Plaintiff is a female. 

14. Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about June 15, 2007 at Defendant’s Miami 

location located at 3405-A NW 72nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33122.

15. At the time of Plaintiff’s termination, Plaintiff was working as a customer service agent. 

16. Plaintiff demonstrated sustained performance excellence while employed by Defendant 

and was qualified for her position.

17. In late 2018, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with Defendant’s HR department about 

many male employees and male managers that routinely acted in sexually offensive and 

inappropriate ways. 

18. Specifically, Plaintiff reported the use of vulgar and explicit sexual language that was 

commonly used by male employees and managers when discussing graphic and 

inappropriate acts of a sexual nature.

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 3 of 9
4

19. These behaviors had specifically become rampant under the supervision of managers 

Freddy Cuellas and Jorge Beades.

20. Many of the issues Plaintiff reported involved Jose Antonio Fayas, who repeatedly acted 

in sexual inappropriate ways towards female employees. 

21. However, Defendant failed to promptly investigate Plaintiff’s complaints, and as a result, 

Plaintiff was forced to continue to work in a sexually charged hostile work environment 

that preyed upon female employees.

22. In fact, on one occasion Mr. Fayas verbally assaulted Plaintiff and threatened Plaintiff as 

if he was going to attack Plaintiff. 

23. This unacceptable incident occurred because Plaintiff is a female and Mr. Fayas commonly 

only treated female employees in this manner, a fact that Defendant was fully aware of.

24. This type of sexual harassment was a direct result of the hostile work environment allowed 

to persist by Defendant. 

25. Plaintiff also reported this incident to Defendant’s HR department, but nothing was ever 

done about Mr. Fayas’ discriminatory and hostile behavior. 

26. In both March and April of 2019, Plaintiff again complained to Defendant’s HR department 

regarding the sexual discrimination she was enduring and the hostile work environment. 

27. In April of 2019, Defendant’s HR department conducted an investigation into Plaintiff’s 

complaints, but the situation never changed. 

28. Instead, Plaintif was retaliated against by male members of Defendant’s management, 

including Jose Martinez, who verbally harassed Plaintiff, and ultimately Franklin Jimenez 

and Jacques Fernandez who created a completely fabricated allegation in order to justify 

their retaliatory and wrongful termination of Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 4 of 9
5

29. On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the 

discrimination and hostile work environment that she was forced to endure. 

30. Instead of addressing the serious issues Plaintiff brought to the attention of Defendant’s 

HR department regarding the inappropriate behavior of male employees, Defendant

discriminated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff is female and ultimately retaliated against 

Plaintiff by terminating Plaintiff’s employment. 

COUNT I

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX UNDER TITLE VII

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into count one, paragraphs 1-30. 

32. Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, intentionally engaged in the 

aforementioned practices, policies, customs and usages made unlawful by Title VII, as 

amended, and directly discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex, by harassing her 

and firing her due to her sex, while at the same time, failing to terminate male employees 

who egregiously violated company policy. 

33. Defendant, by and through its agents, has maintained a policy of sex discrimination in 

violation of the foregoing statute against Plaintiff. 

34. If Plaintiff were not female, she would not have been harassed, treated poorly, and 

unlawfully discharged.

COUNT II

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII

35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into count two, paragraphs 1-34.

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 5 of 9
6

36. Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, intentionally engaged in the 

aforementioned practices, policies, customs and usages made unlawful by Title VII, as 

amended, and directly failed to protect Plaintiff from a hostile work environment. 

37. Defendant, by and through its agents, has maintained a hostile work environment in 

violation of the foregoing statute against Plaintiff. 

38. Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff from a hostile work environment by failing to take 

prompt remedial action to protect Plaintiff from sexual harassment and the offensive 

behavior, previously discussed, enacted by male employees. 

COUNT III

RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII

39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into count one, paragraphs 1-38. 

40. Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity when she complained of what she reasonably 

believed to be unlawful discrimination and a hostile work environment. 

41. Defendant was put on notice that Plaintiff was complaining of what she reasonably 

believed to be unlawful employment practices under Title VII.

42. Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, intentionally engaged in the 

aforementioned practices, policies, customs, and usages made unlawful by Title VII

because of Defendant’s retaliation for complaints of discrimination and a hostile work 

environment.

43. Defendant, acting by and through its employees, maintained a policy of retaliation, in 

violation of the foregoing statute against Plaintiff.

44. If Plaintiff had not engaged in a protected activity, she would not have been terminated.

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 6 of 9
7

DAMAGES

45. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff has suffered loss of 

wages, both in the past, present, and future, as well as compensatory damages, including 

but not limited to emotional distress. 

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

46. Defendant’s actions were intentional, willful, harsh, oppressive, reckless and malicious, 

and as a further and proximate cause, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, 

pain and suffering. The wrongs done by Defendant were aggravated by their willfulness, 

wantonness and maliciousness for which the law allows the imposition of exemplary 

damages. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks exemplary damages in a sum to be determined by the 

trier of fact to serve as punishment to deter Defendant from such conduct in similar 

situations.

ATTORNEY’S FEES

47. Defendants’ actions and conduct as described herein and the resulting damage and loss to 

Plaintiff has necessitated Plaintiff’s retaining the services of COANE AND 

ASSOCIATES, PLLC, in order to initiate and represent Plaintiff throughout this 

proceeding. Plaintiff seeks recovery of reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.

JURY DEMAND

48. Plaintiff hereby makes her request for a jury trial. 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

49. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to take affirmative and effective steps 

to remove and otherwise discipline managers who have failed to comply with Title VII

and who violate Federal statutory protection against discrimination. 

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 7 of 9
8

50. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to take specific actions designed, 

implemented, and confirmed by qualified non-government consultants to ensure that all 

supervisory employees are adequately trained to identify, investigate, and stop situations 

and complaints. Such specific actions include, but are not limited to: 

a. allocation of significant funding and trained staff to implement all changes within 

two years; 

b. discipline managers who have violated the company’s policies and failed to meet 

their legal responsibility to promptly investigate complaints and to take effective 

action to stop and deter prohibited personnel practices against employees; 

c. establishing and strictly measuring EEO compliance as a critical element in every 

manager’s performance standards; 

d. creating a process for the prompt investigation of harassment and reprisal 

complaints separate from the agency’s process; 

e. mandatory and effective training for all employees and managers on 

discrimination and retaliation issues, investigations and appropriate corrective 

actions; 

f. eliminating the backlog of current EEO cases alleging discrimination, harassment 

and reprisal; and

g. reinstatement of Plaintiff.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that 

Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and that on final hearing of this cause, Plaintiff 

has the following relief: 

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 8 of 9
9

a. Back Pay;

b. Pre-Judgment Interest on Back Pay;

c. Front Pay;

d. Compensatory Damages, including but not limited to emotional distress;

e. Punitive Damages; 

f. Injunctive and Affirmative Relief; 

g. Attorney’s Fees and Costs;

h. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, general or special, to which 

Plaintiff may show she is justly entitled. 

Dated: August 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

COANE AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC

/s/ Lisa Kuhlman

Lisa Kuhlman 

FL Bar #978027

Email: lisa.kuhlman@coane.com

Arthur Mandel

FL Bar # 22753

Email: arthur.mandel@coane.com

Edwin Villa, Of Counsel 

TX Bar # 24110485

Email: Edwin.villa@coane.com

Coane and Associates, PLLC

1250 E Hallandale Beach Blvd., Suite 303

Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009

Telephone:305 538 6800

Facsimile: 713 850 8528

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:20-cv-23412-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 9 of 9