UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: ___________

REGINA GROS,

Plaintiff,

-vsPROTRAVEL INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Regina Gros (“Gros”) hereby submits her Complaint against Protravel International, LLC 

(“Protravel”), and demands a trial by jury, stating:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Gros is a former corporate travel advisor, and was, at all relevant times to 

the events in this Complaint, employed by Protravel (until her termination). While Gros was so 

employed, she requested, and was approved to take, time off under the Family and Medical 

Leave Act (“FMLA”). But when Gros timely returned to work after her FMLA leave, Protravel

told her that she must resign her employment (and backdate her resignation). When she refused 

to resign, Protravel wrongfully terminated her employment. Such termination interfered with, 

and was in retaliation for Gros having exercised, her rights under the FMLA. 

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 1 of 9
2

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Gros is an adult citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, 

who is sui juris. She is a former employee of Defendant Protravel at its office in Miami-Dade 

County Florida. Plaintiff uses the nickname “Gina.”

3. Defendant Protravel is a New York limited liability company that is in the 

business of travel advice and arrangement, and maintains numerous offices in Florida, including 

a physical office in Miami-Dade County Florida.

JURISDICTION

4. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Protravel.

5. Defendant Protravel has engaged in multiple intentional acts that subject it to 

specific personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida and in this Judicial District and Court; 

namely, by: (a) operating, conducting, engaging in, and carrying on a business or business 

venture in this state, county, and judicial district; (b) maintaining and operating multiple offices

in Florida, including an office in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff Gros and other 

Protravel employees worked; (c) maintaining a registered agent in Florida; (d) advertising to the 

public on the internet that Protravel has an address for one of its business offices at “12000 

Biscayne Blvd STE 409, North Miami, FL 33181.”; (e) maintaining a Miami-Dade County, 

Florida business telephone for business uses; and (f) by issuing Plaintiff Gros business cards to 

use on behalf of Protravel with a Miami-Dade County, Florida address on the cards. Such 

conduct establishes specific jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1). 

6. Defendant Protravel has engaged in multiple intentional acts that subject it to 

general personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida and in this Judicial District and Court. 

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 2 of 9
3

Protravel has engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within the State of Florida and 

within this Judicial District, as set forth in paragraph 5, above. Defendant’s activities in this State 

and in this Judicial District are substantial (and not isolated), continuous, and systematic, general 

business contacts, such that the maintenance of this suit will not offend traditional notions of fair 

play and substantial justice. Defendant can reasonably be expected, without surprise, to be hailed 

into court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), where it maintains 

a substantial presence.

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), as this is a civil action that arises under the laws of the 

United States; specifically, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, 

et. seq. (2006).

VENUE

8. Venue is proper in federal court in Miami-Dade County, Florida pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391 on the grounds that: (a) Defendant Protravel resides in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, such venue being one where Protravel is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time this 

action has been brought, and (b) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claim in this Complaint occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Protravel is a limited liability company, engaged in and affecting commerce

within the meaning of the FMLA, serving as a full-service travel management company 

specializing in corporate and leisure travel. Protravel’s business utilizes telephone lines, the U.S. 

post office, and the internet for the making of travel arrangements across state lines and 

nationwide (transmitting interstate data and business related information in the process).

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 3 of 9
4

10. Protravel is a covered “employer” within the meaning of the FMLA. It has acted

directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to its former employee, Gros, by 

paying her to do work for Protravel at its Miami-Dade County, Florida office, and by directing 

the nature and scope of that work. 

11. Protravel is a private sector employer with more than 50 employees nationally. It 

employed fifty (50) or more employees for each working day (nationally and in South Florida) 

during each of the twenty (20) or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar 

year to the events that are the subject of this Complaint. Protravel likewise employs more than 50 

employees within seventy-five (75) miles of its Miami, Florida office, as Protravel has multiple 

other Florida offices within that geographic range. 

12. Gros began her employment with Protravel on or about January, 2018. She 

worked as a corporate travel advisor for Protravel until she was terminated on or about February 

14, 2020. She received a 2019 W-2 from Protravel listing Protravel as her employer.

13. Gros worked at least twelve (12) months for Protravel before requesting FMLA 

leave, and for at least 1,250 hours of prior service with such employer, making her an eligible 

employee within the meaning of the FMLA.

14. On or about November 13, 2020, Gros approached Protravel (by e-mail to its New 

York office) and asked to take FMLA leave to care for her biological father, who was gravely ill

and incapacitated due to a chronic serious health condition which required continuous care (more 

than 3 days, and more than 2 times) from a physician, and assistance from his daughter, Gros. 

Gros’ father had become unable to care for his own medical condition, safety, and other needs. 

Because of his chronic serious health condition, Gros’ father also needed help in being 

transported to the doctor, and needed Gros to provide psychological comfort and reassurance.

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 4 of 9
5

15. Protravel informed Gros that she needed to contact a company known as Travel 

Leaders Corporate, LLC (“Travel Leaders”) to apply for FMLA leave. Protravel stated that “this 

is the procedure.”

16. Travel leaders is an affiliated company of Protravel, and serves as Protravel’s 

chosen agent in regard to the processing of Protravel FMLA requests.

17. Gros contacted Travel Leaders, who provided Gros with FMLA forms to 

complete. Gros filled out the forms and submitted them on or about November 18 2019.

18. That same day, on or about November 18, 2019, Travel Leaders informed Ms. 

Gros in a signed writing that she was approved for 8.5 weeks of FMLA leave, stating “Your 

FMLA leave request is approved.” 

19. Protravel then also approved Gros for 8.5 weeks of FMLA leave. 

20. On or about February 10, 2020, Ms. Gros completed her FMLA leave and timely 

reported to Protravel ready and able to work on the agreed upon return date (in fact, she came in 

two days earlier than her maximum benefit).

21. On or about February 10, 2020, when she arrived at the Protravel office, she was 

approached by her Protravel supervisor, who asked Gros if she had made a decision as to what 

she wanted to do. Gros responded that if possible she would like a work schedule with more 

flexibility, in case her father needed her. The supervisor responded in an annoyed tone, “I can’t 

work with you.” Gros said she was willing to take another position. Protravel told Gros that she 

would need to look for some other position within the company. 

22. Gros never insisted upon a flexible schedule as a condition of her employment –

she merely expressed a preference.

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 5 of 9
6

23. On February 12, 2020, Protravel told Gros she must resign effective February 10, 

2020 (which would require backdating). Gros refused. 

24. Protravel’s Human Resources communicated to Gros that you have to resign now, 

and requested a letter of resignation.” Gros refused.

25. Protravel’s office manager, Stacey, approached Gros and told her “when you 

leave the office, leave your key behind.” 

26. Gros reasonably interpreted the forgoing statements to mean that she had been 

fired from her job, and resultantly left the building and went home on February 14, 2020. She has 

not returned to Protravel.

27. Protravel has never asked Gros to return to work, following her termination.

28. Gros did not quit or abandon her job at Protravel. She never provided a letter of 

resignation, nor took any action that a reasonable person would view as resigning.

29. Gros followed all of Protravel’s requirements for the taking of FMLA leave.

30. The two reasons Gros was given for her termination were first, that “I can’t work 

with you.” (Prior to taking FMLA leave, Gros had never received any negative reviews or been 

informed of any work deficiency). And second, the false contention that Gros quit her job. 

`. 31. Protravel’s conduct as alleged in this Complaint was willful, intentional, knowing, 

deliberate, and in bad faith.

32. Gros lost her medical insurance benefits as a result of Protravel’s FMLA 

violation.

33. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Protravel’s wrongful conduct, 

Gros has been required to retain the undersigned counsel and pay her attorney a reasonable fee 

and costs.

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 6 of 9
7

34. All conditions precedent to the bringing or this action have occurred or been 

waived.

COUNT ONE – FMLA (INTERFERENCE)

35. Plaintiff Gros re-alleges and incorporates each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 34 above, as though fully alleged in this Count.

36. This Count is a claim under the FMLA against Protravel for its interference with 

Gros’ FMLA rights.

37. Gros was entitled to FMLA leave from Protravel.

38. Adverse action by Protravel interfered with Gros right to take FMLA leave, as she 

had additional FMLA leave days available for her use when she was terminated.

39. Adverse action by Protravel interfered with Gros’ FMLA right to be reinstated 

after taking leave, and her FMLA right to be offered an equivalent position. Following Gros 

taking her FMLA leave, Plaintiff was entitled, but was denied the right, "to be restored by the 

employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced" or 

"to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and 

conditions of employment." 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1)(A), (B).

40. Adverse action by Protravel interfered with Gros’ FMLA right to be able to 

continue her insurance benefits.

41. Gros’ action in terminating Gros, and demanding that she quit, was related to the 

exercise or attempted exercise of Gros’ FMLA rights. Protravel resented that Gros was away 

from her job for as long as she was on leave. Gros’ taking of FMLA leave was causally 

connected to her termination.

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 7 of 9
8

42. At the time of her termination, Gros had two more days of FMLA leave for which 

she was eligible.

43. Protravel wrongfully had Gros perform work tasks while out on FMLA leave, 

which further interfered with her FMLA rights..

44. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Protravel’s FMLA violation, 

Gros was damaged.

WHEREFORE Gros seeks the entry of a judgment in her favor and against Protravel,

awarding her: all damages available under the FMLA, including back pay, front pay, lost 

benefits, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

COUNT TWO – FMLA (RETALIATION)

45. Plaintiff Gros re-alleges and incorporates each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 34 above, as though fully alleged in this Count.

46. This Count is a claim under the FMLA against Protravel for its retaliation against 

Gros for her exercise of her FMLA rights.

47. Gros engaged in a statutorily protected activity under the FMLA, namely 

requesting and taking qualifying FMLA leave. Gros availed herself of a protected right under the 

FMLA.

48. Gros suffered an adverse employment decision (termination, and failing to 

reinstate Gros to her previous opposition or an equivalent one). Protravel took an action that a 

reasonable employee would have found materially adverse.

49. There was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse 

employment action. Protravel intentionally, willfully, and deliberately retaliated against Gros for 

using her FMLA leave.

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 8 of 9
9

50. Protravel’s explanation for terminating Gros was mere pretext for its true, 

retaliatory motivation, that being Potravel’s resentment that Gros had exercised her rights under 

the FMLA.

51. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Protravel’s FMLA violation, 

Gros was damaged.

WHEREFORE Gros seeks the entry of a judgment in her favor and against Protravel, 

awarding her: all damages available under the FMLA, including back pay, front pay, lost 

benefits, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all claims asserted herein and as to all 

defenses raised by Defendant, so triable as of right.

Date: May 7, 2020.

LAW OFFICE OF ALEXIS GONZALEZ, P.A.

 3162 Commodore Plaza, 3E

Coconut Grove, FL 33133

Tel.: (305) 223-9999

Fax: (305) 223-1880

By: /s/ Orion G. Callison, III, Esq.

Alexis Gonzalez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 180785

Orion G. Callison, III, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0005223

Alexis@aglawpa.com

orion@aglawpa.com

stephanie@aglawpa.com

Case 1:20-cv-21924-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 9 of 9