UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

----------------------------------------------------------------- 

JULIE FERRO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DOCTORS HEALTHCARE PLANS, INC., and 

RAFAEL PEREZ, in his individual and professional 

capacities,

 Defendants.

X

:

:

:

:

: 

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 20-23449(BB)

SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Jury Trial Demanded

----------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff Julie Ferro hereby alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Founded in 2017, Defendant Doctors HealthCare Plans, Inc. (“Doctors 

HealthCare” or the “Company”) is a local health insurance plan offering Medicare coverage in 

Miami-Dade County.

2. Despite Doctors HealthCare claiming in its logo, “Your Health, Our 

Commitment,” the Company and its founder and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Rafael 

Perez, callously terminated Ms. Ferro, the former Vice President of Provider Relations, due to 

her underlying immunocompromised medical condition and because she needed related 

accommodations and leave. 

3. Ms. Ferro is an accomplished healthcare executive with over 30 years of 

experience managing Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs in the state of Florida who 

joined Doctors HealthCare as only its third employee. 

4. Over the last few years, Ms. Ferro helped grow the Company to over 100 

employees, more than 2,500 providers, and close to 10,000 members.

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 1 of 20
2

5. Unfortunately, Ms. Ferro’s tireless work did not matter after she began dealing 

with several medical issues starting in late 2019 related to her chronic inflammatory disorder and 

autoimmune compromised condition. 

6. The COVID-19 pandemic further brought to the forefront Ms. Ferro’s medical 

issues given the CDC’s warnings to “people of any age with serious underlying medical 

conditions” to stay home to avoid contracting the deadly virus. 

7. While Ms. Ferro understandably became concerned about what would happen if 

she contracted COVID-19, Mr. Perez stated at a staff meeting that he believed the virus was 

being made more of an issue because it is an election year and expressed in various ways his 

reluctance to have employees work remotely.

8. Ultimately, Ms. Ferro was permitted to work from home, after being required to 

provide a doctor’s letter, but she was told that she had to have two of her staff members 

physically at the office. 

9. After a couple of months working from home, Mr. Perez pressured Ms. Ferro to 

return to the office with the rest of the employees on May 26, 2020. 

10. When Ms. Ferro returned to the office, she was shocked that most employees 

were not wearing masks or observing social distancing. 

11. She also noticed that the office lacked paper towels and sanitary products in the 

kitchen and bathrooms.

12. On one occasion, Ms. Ferro texted Mr. Perez to tell him that she was going to 

work from home and her subordinate, who lived with her elderly mother, would work in her 

office since there was “no adequate distancing” where she worked. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 2 of 20
3

13. Mr. Perez responded that Ms. Ferro was “the one with the office and not them,”

which caused Ms. Ferro to return to the office. 

14. In late May and early June, and the number of COVID-19 cases quickly began to 

rise as businesses and public gathering places in Florida reopened quickly, and seemingly 

prematurely.

15. On June 4, 2020, Florida broke its record for a single-day high of newly reported 

cases of COVID-19, with 1,419 new cases, and the state continued to report near record highs 

over the next few days. 

16. Mr. Perez unquestionably appeared concern that he would have to further 

accommodate Ms. Ferro’s medical condition due to the spike in COVID-19 cases, and he had 

already become annoyed by Ms. Ferro’s medical issues and FMLA-eligible leave. 

17. As a result, on Monday, June 8, 2020, Mr. Perez abruptly called Ms. Ferro into 

his office and told her that she was being let go because “things were not working out.” 

18. Ms. Ferro was shocked by this, given that she had been a loyal and dedicated 

employee, and because she had recently, at the end of 2019, received an excellent performance 

review and a $25,000 raise. 

19. Ms. Ferro questioned Mr. Perez about her termination, but he would give her only 

vague or transparently false reasons to try to justify her termination, and later even tried to get 

Ms. Ferro to agree to resign.

20. Ms. Ferro brings this action pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”) to redress Defendants’ unlawful retaliation in violation of the FMLA

and redress the Company’s unlawful disability and age discrimination in violation of the Title 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 3 of 20
4

VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the 

Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”).

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

21. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which was cross-filed with the Florida Commission on 

Human Relations (“FCHR”), alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII, the ADA

and the FCRA. 

22. Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC and seeks leave amend 

to include her Title VII and ADA claims in this action within 90 days of receipt of the Notice of 

Right to Sue.

23. Pursuant to FCRA § 760.11(8), 180 days has passed since she cross-filed her 

EEOC Charge with the FCHR and no determination on whether probable cause exists has been 

made, and Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to include her FCRA claims in this action. 

24. Plaintiff has complied or will comply with any and all other prerequisites to filing 

this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this

action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA, 

Title VII and the ADA. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related claims 

arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

26. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action, including employment 

practices alleged herein, occurred in this district.

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 4 of 20
5

PARTIES

27. Plaintiff Julie Ferro is a former Vice President of Provider Relations at Doctors 

HealthCare Plans, Inc. Ms. Ferro is a resident of the state of Florida and, at all relevant times

herein, met the definition of an “employee” and/or “covered employee” under all relevant

statutes. 

28. Defendant Doctors HealthCare Plans, Inc. is a Florida profit corporation 

registered at 2020 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite PH 1, Coral Gables, FL 33134. In its filings 

with the Florida Division of Corporations, Doctors HealthCare lists Mr. Perez as its President

and CEO. At all times relevant herein, Doctors HealthCare was and is an “employer” under all 

relevant statutes. 

29. Defendant Rafael Perez is a resident of the state of Florida, is the President and 

CEO of Doctors HealthCare, supervised Plaintiff during her employment at the Company, 

determined Plaintiff’s pay and made the decision to hire and fire Plaintiff. At all relevant times, 

Defendant Perez met the definitions of “employer” and/or “covered employer” under all 

applicable statutes. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Ms. Ferro’s Professional Background and Work at Doctors HealthCare

30. Ms. Ferro is an accomplished healthcare executive with over 30 years of 

experience managing Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs in the state of Florida. 

31. In the early 1980s, Ms. Ferro worked at Humana, where Ms. Ferro was 

responsible for managing the insurer’s provider relationships. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 5 of 20
6

32. Ms. Ferro also gained substantial experience working in a provider relationship 

and business development role for the healthcare providers Jackson Memorial Health Plans, 

Physician Healthcare Plans, Inc., and LogistiCare. 

33. Around 2002, Mr. Perez contacted Ms. Ferro to recruit her to work at Mr. Perez’s

healthcare insurance startup, Medica Health Care Plans, Inc. (“Medica”), given her knowledge 

and experience. 

34. Ms. Ferro was one of the very first employees at Medica, and served in the vital 

role of Director of Provider Relations. Ms. Ferro worked tirelessly for a decade to help Medica 

grow its providers and members. 

35. In February 2012, Medica was sold to UnitedHealth Group for $400 million. 

36. Ms. Ferro remained working at Medica under the UnitedHealth Group leadership.

37. However, in August 2013, Ms. Ferro decided to stop working to focus on her 

escalating health issues that were later diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic condition that 

requires periodic visits for treatment by a health care provider and causes recurring symptoms 

and episodic and continuing periods of incapacity. 

38. In late 2008, Ms. Ferro developed a serious case of the shingles that required her

to be hospitalized in intensive care for five days. In the months leading up to the sale of Medica

in 2012, Ms. Ferro also shared with Mr. Perez that she was starting to feel fatigued, had pain in 

her joints, and that on multiple occasions her knees would start to buckle and she would almost 

fall. 

39. After about six months of not working at all and focusing on her health, in 2014, 

Ms. Ferro started working as an independent consultant for several management services 

organizations and other healthcare entities. This included work for Mr. Perez’s son, Gabriel 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 6 of 20
7

Perez, who Ms. Ferro helped to secure a major account that was expected to generate about $1 

million a year in revenue. 

40. Around January 2017, Mr. Perez approached Ms. Ferro about working for him to 

help launch another start-up health plan in Miami-Dade County specializing, like Medica, in 

Medicare coverage. 

41. At the time Mr. Perez discussed this opportunity, Mr. Perez repeatedly asked Ms. 

Ferro how she was feeling and whether she would be able to commit to work on a full-time 

basis. 

42. Ms. Ferro, whose health issues were under control at the time, responded that she 

was doing well and was committed to working full-time. 

43. Ms. Ferro was only the third employee for the new business at the time, and 

worked tirelessly to launch Doctors HealthCare on January 1, 2019. 

44. The Company has been growing rapidly ever since, and now has over 100 

employees, more than 2,500 providers, and close to 10,000 members.

II. Ms. Ferro’s Health Issues Return

45. Ms. Ferro was able keep her health issues under control for the first couple of 

years at the Company. However, during a trip to see her daughter in Virginia for Thanksgiving 

last year, Ms. Ferro had to visit the emergency room because she developed a growth on the side 

of her mouth. Ms. Ferro was prescribed an antibiotic to treat the growth and was discharged. 

46. After returning to Florida, Ms. Ferro woke in the middle of the night on the 

Sunday after Thanksgiving to find that the left side of her face had hardened, and she decided to 

go to the emergency room. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 7 of 20
8

47. At the hospital, Ms. Ferro was given a different antibiotic that caused her immune 

system to go into shock, which resulted in her being intubated. 

48. Ms. Ferro’s husband promptly informed Mr. Perez about Ms. Ferro’s 

unforeseeable medical symptom, including the fact that Ms. Ferro was hospitalized and admitted 

to the Intensive Care Unit because of complications with her treatment.

49. Ms. Ferro was in the hospital for a week and Mr. Perez was aware that Ms. Ferro 

need to take leave because of her hospitalization.

50. After Ms. Ferro was discharged, Mr. Perez also was aware that Ms. Ferro needed

to stay home for two weeks to recover while she periodically continued to do her work for the 

Company when she was able to do so. 

51. During that time, Ms. Ferro regularly kept Mr. Perez updated on the status of her 

medical condition and continued treatment. 

52. Although Defendants had more than sufficient notice of Ms. Ferro’s 

hospitalization and serious medical condition to determine that she qualified for FMLA leave, 

Defendants failed to designate Ms. Ferro leave as FMLA leave or apprise Ms. Ferro of her rights 

under the FMLA.

1

 1 Defendants cannot place the burden on Ms. Ferro to designate her leave as FMLAeligible. “Once an employee has notified an employer that he or she may qualify for leave under 

the FMLA, the employer is obligated to provide three types of notice: eligibility notice, which 

requires the employer to inform the employee whether she is eligible to take FMLA leave; rights 

and responsibilities notice, which requires the employer to inform the employee of any 

obligations or responsibilities the employee may have under the employer's leave policy (i.e., a 

requirement to provide a doctor's certification); and designation notice, which requires the 

employer, once it has sufficient information about the request, to inform the employee if the 

leave requested with be designated as FMLA-qualifying. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)-(d).” Canigiani 

v. Banc of Am., 17 Civ. 61270, 2017 WL 4390170, at *3 (S.D. Fla Oct. 3, 2017) (Bloom, J.) 

(emphasis added). Instead of doing what was required, Defendants took adverse employment 

actions against Ms. Ferro because she took FMLA-eligible leave.

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 8 of 20
9

53. Had she been advised of her rights under the FMLA, Ms. Ferro likely would have 

taken additional leave, or requested intermittent leave, and would not have been so anxious about 

being out of work.

54. On December 24, 2019, Ms. Ferro returned to work. 

55. At that time, Mr. Perez was aware that Ms. Ferro was still under the care of her 

physician and that she needed to monitor her health and progress while working.

56. For the next several weeks, Ms. Ferro continued to experience health issues in 

part due to the medication, Enbrel, which she was taking to treat her rheumatoid arthritis. 

57. Ms. Ferro frequently became nauseous and would need to rush to the bathroom to 

throw up, including one time during a meeting where Mr. Perez were present. 

58. On at least two occasions, Ms. Ferro informed Mr. Perez that she could not attend 

a meeting or would be late because she was suffering from headaches or stomach pain. 

59. During one conversation, Ms. Ferro disclosed that she was taking Enbrel, and 

since Mr. Perez has a pharmacy background, Mr. Perez told her that the side effects are similar to 

a medication that Mr. Perez’s wife was taking for Crohn’s disease, and that she also was

immunocompromised. 

60. During another conversation about Ms. Ferro’s ongoing medical issues, Mr. Perez

told her that, “There is always something with you.” 

61. Mr. Ferro also noticed that Mr. Perez appeared irritated and crass towards her and 

got annoyed that she also notified his assistant about her medical issues and related absenteeism 

or tardiness. 

62. In addition to commenting upon her health issues and their impact on Mr. Perez’s 

impression of her, Mr. Perez also frequently made pointed disability-related and ageist remarks 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 9 of 20
10

to Ms. Ferro, who turned 60 in March, including about how much they have both aged and are 

not as young and healthy as they used to be. 

63. In mid-February 2020, Ms. Ferro began to feel disoriented and fatigued, but 

continued to work through the symptoms until one day when the Company’s Medical Director, 

Andres Prieto, M.D., noticed that Ms. Ferro was flushed around her neck and chest. 

64. Dr. Prieto checked Ms. Ferro’s blood pressure and told her that she should go and 

see her physician because the symptoms were abnormal. 

65. Dr. Prieto even called her physician’s office to inform them that Ms. Ferro was on 

her way and it was an urgent matter. 

66. Ms. Ferro again worked from home for a couple of days until her blood pressure 

started to return to normal, but it still took a few weeks for Ms. Ferro to get her blood pressure 

fully under control.

67. Ms. Ferro was also instructed to follow up with her rheumatologist and 

dermatologist to address skin-related symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. 

68. Ms. Ferro kept Mr. Perez informed about her medical treatment, condition, and 

need for further medical evaluation during their regular conversations. 

69. When active, Ms. Ferro’s rheumatoid arthritis substantially limits the functions of 

her immune and digestive system and her ability to walk, stand, and concentrate. Ms. Ferro also 

has psoriatic arthritis that when active affects the sole of her foot and substantially limits her 

ability to walk and stand. 

III. The COVID-19 Pandemic

70. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic began to sweep through the United 

States in earnest and became a public health crisis. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 10 of 20
11

71. Mr. Perez initially dismissed the virus as a simple case of the flu and claimed that 

the state of emergency was unnecessary. 

72. Incredibly, Mr. Perez told Ms. Ferro and other employees at a staff meeting that,

essentially, the government warnings and state of emergency declarations were unwarranted, and

that the virus was being made more of an issue because it is an election year. 

73. On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), 

issued an official warning that the elderly and “people of any age with serious underlying 

medical conditions” should stay home during the pandemic, as they are “particularly at risk for 

severe illness or death due to COVID-19.” 

74. Shortly after this warning was issued, Dr. Prieto advised Ms. Ferro to work from 

home. 

75. Ms. Ferro took the rest of the day off (in part because it was her birthday), but she 

returned to the office the next day because she felt uncomfortable being the only one working 

from home when the Company had not issued any instructions or guidance to employees on the 

issue. 

76. It took over a week after this public health warning for Mr. Perez and the 

Company to begin identifying departments and employees that could work remotely. 

77. However, the message from Mr. Perez remained clear that there must still be 

physical coverage in the office for all areas of the Company. 

78. In late March 2020, Ms. Ferro spoke with Mr. Perez about her own 

immunocompromised condition, and identified other employees on her team who may be at risk 

of severe illness or death if they were exposed to the virus. 

79. Mr. Perez told Ms. Ferro that he would be letting her know what to do shortly. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 11 of 20
12

80. A couple of days after this conversation, Dr. Prieto told Ms. Ferro that she needed 

to work from home because of her immunocompromised condition. 

81. Another three members of Ms. Ferro’s staff also were permitted to work from 

home, but, as she had been instructed, Ms. Ferro made sure to have at least two of her other staff 

members physically stationed in the office, even though they easily could have worked remotely. 

82. Despite Mr. Perez’s intimate knowledge of Ms. Ferro’s history of medical issues,

Mr. Perez requested that Ms. Ferro provide a letter from her physician substantiating her need to 

work from home. 

83. On March 30, 2020, Ms. Ferro provided Mr. Perez with a letter from her 

physician that said:

This is a letter to confirm that Mrs. Ferro has rheumatoid arthritis. 

She is immunocompromised due to the medication she takes for 

her arthritis which is Enbrel. This places her at extremely high risk 

for having complications with the COVID-19 pandemic. I 

recommend that she continue to work from home and should self 

isolate as much as possible because of her increased risk.

84. Ms. Ferro is unaware of any other employees who were required to provide a 

similar physician letter in order to be permitted to work from home. 

85. Ms. Ferro managed all of her responsibilities while working remotely and 

checked in on the employees who were at the office. 

86. On May 15, 2020, Ms. Ferro received a “Performance Bonus payment” for her 

work during the past year, and which also provided additional support to employees during the 

pandemic.

87. Ms. Ferro was given the lowest “Performance Bonus payment” among the 

employees at her level, and upon information and belief, the decision to do so was based on Ms. 

Ferro’s disability, age and having taken a medical leave in late 2019. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 12 of 20
13

88. On or around May 22, 2020, Mr. Perez announced at a telephonic staff meeting 

that employees would start returning to the office on May 26, 2020, after the Memorial Day 

holiday. 

89. Mr. Perez also explained that if there was any objection to returning to the office 

it should be raised directly with him, and reassured employees that it would be safe to return to 

the office. 

90. After the meeting, Mr. Perez spoke to Ms. Ferro and asked whether she planned 

to work in the office. 

91. Ms. Ferro responded that she would check with her physician, but based on the 

conversation, she felt pressured to request that her physician issue a letter clearing her to return 

even though Mr. Perez was aware that Ms. Ferro’s immunocompromised status put her at risk of 

serious complications and death if she was exposed to the novel coronavirus. 

92. On May 26, 2020, Ms. Ferro returned to the office and saw that few employees 

were wearing masks or observing social distancing. 

93. As a result, Ms. Ferro stayed in her office with the door closed. One of the few 

times that she left her office, Mr. Perez confronted Ms. Ferro near the elevator and questioned 

Ms. Ferro about her immunocompromised condition and medication in front of Dr. Prieto. 

94. Ms. Ferro was brief in her responses, as she felt very uncomfortable being 

questioned about her medical issues when other employees were nearby and could overhear the 

discussion. 

95. Because of the lack of use of masks and social distancing, Ms. Ferro decided to 

alternate the use of her office with her Provider Relations Manager, Noelle Pagliery. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 13 of 20
14

96. Ms. Pagliery repeatedly expressed her concern about potential exposure to the 

virus because she lives with her elderly mother, who also has medical conditions and therefore is 

at high risk of dying if she were to contract the virus. 

97. Ms. Ferro informed Mr. Perez of the office arrangement by text message. 

98. On June 1, 2020, Ms. Ferro worked at the office again and continued to observe

the lack of masks and social distancing, as well as the fact that the office lacked even basic 

supplies such as paper towels and sanitary products in the kitchen and bathrooms. 

99. On June 2, 2020, after working part of the day in the office, Ms. Ferro texted Mr. 

Perez that she was leaving to work from home and that Ms. Pagliery would work in her office for 

the rest of that day and on the next day. 

100. Mr. Perez responded abruptly, questioning her as to why this was. 

101. Ms. Ferro responded that there was “no adequate distancing” where Ms. Pagliery 

sat in the office. 

102. Sensing that Mr. Perez was annoyed about her leaving, Ms. Ferro asked if Mr. 

Perez wanted her to go back to the office. 

103. After Mr. Perez responded that she was “the one with the office and not them,” 

Ms. Ferro returned to the office and allowed Ms. Pagliery to work from home.

IV. As COVID-19 Cases Rise in Florida, Defendants Abruptly Terminate Ms. Ferro

104. Businesses and public gathering places in Florida reopened (quickly and 

seemingly prematurely) in late May and early June, and the number of COVID-19 cases quickly 

began to rise. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 14 of 20
15

105. On June 4, 2020, the state broke its record for a single-day high of newly reported 

cases of COVID-19, with 1,419 new cases, and the state continued to report near-record highs 

over the next few days (a trend which, sadly, has continued well into August 2020). 

106. On Monday, June 8, 2020, Mr. Perez called Ms. Ferro into his office and told her 

that she was being let go because “things were not working out.” 

107. Ms. Ferro was shocked by the news, given that she had been a loyal and dedicated 

employee for the many years that she worked for Mr. Perez, and because she had recently, at the 

end of 2019, received an excellent performance review and a $25,000 raise. 

108. In addition, just two weeks before her termination, Ms. Ferro had received a 

$10,000 performance bonus that Mr. Perez wrote in a letter was a reflection of her “performance, 

the contributions [she] made, and the goals achieved on behalf of the company during the past 

year.” 

109. Ms. Ferro asked Mr. Perez why she was being terminated. Mr. Perez claimed that 

she had become “very forgetful” and used his hand to gesture a peak and valley – a 

representation of the ups and downs with her health issues that required her to miss work. 

110. Mr. Perez could tell that Ms. Ferro was not satisfied with his answer, and so Mr. 

Perez then claimed that she had been forgetful about some issues with providers and said, 

without any detail, that middle management executives had expressed concerns about her. 

111. Mr. Perez also falsely accused Ms. Ferro of proposing a final settlement to a 

provider without authority when Mr. Perez knew she had only asked whether the provider was 

interested in settling a claim dispute and the provider agreed to consider one. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 15 of 20
16

112. Since Mr. Perez clearly knew what he was doing was wrong, Mr. Perez took care

to assure Ms. Ferro that she would retain her stock in the company, said that Mr. Perez would 

pay her through August 2020, and offered to let her resign. 

113. Ms. Ferro told Mr. Perez that it was clear that Mr. Perez had made a final 

decision, but that she and Mr. Perez knew that she was not being let go for proper reasons. 

114. On June 23, 2020, Ms. Ferro received a text from Mr. Perez’s administrative 

assistant asking her for a resignation letter. 

115. Ms. Ferro responded that she did not resign from her job.

116. After her termination, Ms. Ferro also received numerous messages from 

employees and service providers expressing their surprise that Ms. Ferro left Doctors HealthCare 

and telling her that she would be missed. 

117. After her termination, the Company reassigned Ms. Ferro’s job responsibilities to 

Ms. Pagliery, who does not have any known disabilities and is nearly two decades younger than 

Ms. Ferro.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the FMLA)

Against Defendants

118. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation in the 

preceding factual allegations, as though fully set forth herein.

119. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” within the 

meaning of the FMLA. Plaintiff, a full-time employee of Doctors HealthCare, at all relevant 

times worked at least 1,250 hours in any 12-month period, and specifically did so during the 12-

month period preceding her termination. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 16 of 20
17

120. At all times relevant herein, Doctors HealthCare was a “covered employer” within 

the meaning of the FMLA. Doctors HealthCare employs 50 or more employees during at least 

20 calendar weeks over the covered period within a 75-mile radius of the Company. 

121. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants have retaliated against 

Ms. Ferro for taking FMLA leave, including by, inter alia, reducing her pay and terminating her

employment.

122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in 

violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or other 

economic harm for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages, liquidated damages, 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, and other relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Disability Discrimination in Violation of the ADA and FCRA)

Against Doctors HealthCare

123. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 45-51 and 54-117, as though fully set forth herein.

124. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had a disability within the meaning of the ADA and 

the FCRA. 

125. By the actions described above, among others, Doctors HealthCare discriminated 

against Plaintiff because of her disability, including by, inter alia, reducing her pay and 

terminating her employment.

126. As direct and proximate result of Doctors HealthCare’s unlawful discriminatory

conduct in violation of the ADA and the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer

lost wages and benefits, emotional distress for which she is entitled to an award of monetary 

damages. 

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 17 of 20
18

127. Doctors HealthCare’s discrimination was intentional or engaged in with malice or 

with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights for which an award of punitive damages will be 

sought. 

128. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses as provided for under 

the ADA and FCRA.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Age Discrimination in Violation of Title VII and FCRA)

Against Doctors HealthCare

129. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges the factual allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 62, 87 and 106-117, as though fully set forth herein.

130. By the actions described above, among others, Doctors HealthCare discriminated 

against Plaintiff because of her age, including by, inter alia, reducing her pay, terminating her 

employment and transferring her responsibilities to an employee significantly younger than 

Plaintiff.

131. As direct and proximate result of Doctors HealthCare’s unlawful discriminatory 

conduct in violation of Title VII and the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer

lost wages and benefits, emotional distress for which she is entitled to an award of monetary 

damages. 

132. Doctors HealthCare’s discrimination was intentional or engaged in with malice or 

with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights for which an award of punitive damages will be 

sought. 

133. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses as provided for under 

the ADA and FCRA.

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 18 of 20
19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against 

Defendants, containing the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants

complained of herein violate the laws of the United States;

B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants and their partners, 

officers, owners, agents, successors, employees and/or representatives, and any and all persons 

acting in concert with them, from engaging in any such further unlawful conduct, including the 

policies and practices complained of herein;

C. An award of damages against Defendants, or any jointly or severally liable entity 

or person, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate 

Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, an award of 

back pay and loss of benefits through the date of trial and front pay and future loss of benefits if 

the equitable remedies of employment, reinstatement and promotion are not feasible;

D. An award of liquidated damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

E. An award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

F. Prejudgment interest on all amounts due; 

G. An award of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and,

H. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 19 of 20
20

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.

Dated: April 14, 2021

Plantation, Florida Respectfully submitted,

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

By: ____________________________

Bryan L. Arbeit, Bar No. 1010329

8151 Peters Rd, 4th Floor

Plantation, FL 33324

Telephone: (954) 694-9610

barbeit@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-23449-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 20 of 20