1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BENJAMIN JACOBS,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

GMRI, INC., D/B/A CHEDDARS 

SCRATCH KITCHEN.

DEFENDANT.

_____________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Benjamin Jacobs, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Jacobs”), by and through his undersigned attorney, sues defendant, GMRI, INC., 

d/b/a Cheddars Scratch Kitchen (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “Cheddars”) and 

alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action to remedy discrimination and hostile work 

environment on the basis of disability, and retaliation in the terms, conditions, and 

privileges of Plaintiff’s employment in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes; Americans with 

Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAA); and Florida's Workers' 

Compensation Retaliation Law § 440.205, Florida Statutes. 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 23
2

2. Plaintiff further seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). 

3. Costs and attorney’s fees are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(k), Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and other Florida Statutes as set forth herein. 

4. This action lies in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola 

Division, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the action arose in this judicial 

district, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), because the unlawful 

employment practices were committed in this judicial district. 

5. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent and 

administrative remedies have been exhausted and jurisdiction is invoked pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes. Plaintiff filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR” No.: 

201918462) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC” No.: 15D201900476) on March 1, 2019, and received a determination 

from the FCHR on October 10, 2019, more than 180 days lapsed since Plaintiff’s 

charge was filed and the FCHR had not concluded its investigation or made a 

determination pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 760.11(3). Plaintiff thereafter requested his

90 day Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC which was received on

November 19, 2019. 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 23
3

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a Hispanic/Caucasian male and a citizen of the State of 

Florida and a resident of Escambia County who resides in Pensacola, Florida. 

Plaintiff worked for defendant as a culinary manager from his hire in December 

2014, until his unlawful termination on February 11, 2019. 

7. Defendant, GMRI, INC., d/b/a Cheddars Scratch Kitchen, is a for 

profit Company which also owns and operates various restaurants such as Olive 

Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The 

Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze and Eddie V's. Defendant employs 

more than 180,000 team members in more than 1,700 restaurants across the United 

States and Florida. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the ADA, Title 

VII and FCRA, as it employs in excess of 15 employees. 

FACTS

8. Plaintiff is a Hispanic/Caucasian male.

9. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a culinary manager from 

December 2014, until his unlawful termination on February 11, 2019. 

10. During Plaintiff’s four (4) years of employment with Defendant, he

performed his duties as a culinary manager in a more than satisfactory manner. 

11. Defendant has a policy that prohibits conduct or behavior such as 

derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, explicit jokes or any other unwelcome 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 23
4

behavior based on legally protected status, race, color and national origin that has 

the purpose or effect of creating or contributing to an offensive or hostile work 

environment.

12. Defendant’s policy further prohibited conduct such as yelling 

derogatory threats, epithets, comments or slurs and retaliation for reporting such 

derogatory and harassing behavior. 

13. Defendant’s reporting policy stated that any employee who believed 

that he has been subjected to discrimination or harassment from a co-worker or 

supervisor should immediately report such incidents to his immediate supervisor or 

a member of senior management. 

14. On 1/22/2019, an incident occurred between two line cooks, one white 

the other black, where the white line cook was called a “f***ing cracker” by the 

black line cook. 

15. The white line cook was very upset at the clearly derogatory and 

racial slur and reported the incident to Plaintiff. 

16. Plaintiff filed a report with Defendant’s HR department about the 

incident as required by Defendant’s anti-discrimination policy. 

17. Plaintiff’s GM, Dave Quadrini, became very upset with Plaintiff after 

he learned that Plaintiff reported the matter to Mike Belkhadir in Defendant’s HR

department. 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 23
5

18. Mr. Quadrini said that this matter should have been handled in house 

and not reported to the corporate HR department. 

19. Thereafter, Mr. Quadrini began to retaliate against Plaintiff for 

reporting the racially discriminatory remarks to Defendant’s HR department. 

20. Mr. Quadrini became even more verbally hostile towards Plaintiff in 

retaliation to the point where Plaintiff had to speak with Mike Belkahair (regional 

manager) and expressed his concerns about how this was handled. 

21. Plaintiff told Mr. Belkahair he felt like Mr. Quadrini was going to 

harass him over the decision to call HR and he was worried about how to deal with 

Mr. Quadrini.

22. Mr. Belkahair told me Plaintiff he had nothing to worry about and 

reassure him that he made the right decision to involve corporate regarding this 

matter. 

23. Mr. Quadrini told Plaintiff that he ruined the employees 15 years of 

service with Darden for calling it in. 

24. Plaintiff witnessed Mr. Quadrini make several decisions based on 

others ethnicity. 

25. Mr. Quadrini would treat hourly and others manager’s with favor if 

they looked like him. 

26. Plaintiff saw him treat a white manager and a black manager accused 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 5 of 23
6

of the same sexual offense completely different. 

27. With the white manager Mr. Quadrini tried to sweep the indecent 

under the rug and keep it away from corporate. 

28. The black manager was terminated and a complete investigation from 

corporate was initiated.

29. Mr. Quadrini would tell Plainitff not to call in anything to HR ever, 

because as he didn’t want them coming in and “snooping around his store”. 

30. Mr. Quadrini treated individuals with disabilities differently, Plaintiff 

witnessed him discriminate against Phyllis Farren (female manager) by telling HR

that after her stroke, and her time away from work, she should be listed as unable 

to do the job and told to file for disability. 

31. Mr. Quadrini also lied about Ms. Farren’s hours used for vacation and 

sick time and intentionally paid her incorrectly.

32. When Ms. Farren returned to work and found out what Mr. Quadrini

had done they a huge argument with him and HR. 

33. After a review form corporate, she was paid the wages that Mr. 

Quadrini lied about. 

34. Plaintiff was discriminated against based on his work related injury 

and disability because, on January 5, 2019, he injured his wrist on the job and 

reported it to the workers compensations company (per company policy). 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 6 of 23
7

35. When Mr. Quadrini found out that Plaintiff reported the injury Mr. 

Quadrini chastised him for calling it in. 

36. Plaintiff was told by Mr. Quadrini, “You have private insurance and it 

should have been handled that way. It cost us money and the store gets charged 

with it.” 

37. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s work injury and disability to 

his wrist, since January 5, 2019, and afterwards, when he informed Defendant of 

the injury.

1. Defendant and its supervisors, were aware of Plaintiff’s work related 

injury and disability.

2. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(a) he has a physical impairment that substantially limits one 

or more major life activities: Plaintiff suffers from mobility, stress

and fatigue;

(b) Plaintiff underwent treatment by a doctor for the care and 

treatment of his physical disabilities. 

(c) he has a record of such impairment; and,

(d) he was regarded (perceived or otherwise) by his

employer as having impairments.

37. Plaintiff’s disabilities substantially affect the major life activities of 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 7 of 23
8

concentration and mobility. 

38. Plaintiff had the ability to perform the essential functions of his

position and did so until his termination on February 11, 2019.

39. The stated reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual as all 

managers were in breach of this same policy at some time or another, including 

Mr. Quadrini, Arron Savoie and Scott Clark who were in breach of the same exact 

policy doing the same exact thing a few weeks earlier. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(FLORIDA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION RETALIATION § 440.205)

40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

41. Defendant’s conduct and commissions constitutes intentional 

discrimination and unlawful employment practices based upon Workers’ 

Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205. 

42. Defendant’s acts were with malice and with reckless disregard for 

Plaintiff’s statutorily protected rights.

43. This is an action to remedy discrimination and retaliation on the basis 

of Plaintiff’s engaging in protective activity of informing Defendant of a work 

related injury and seeking workers compensation benefits in the terms, conditions, 

and privileges of his employment with Defendant in violation of the Workers’ 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 8 of 23
9

Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205.

44. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s demotion, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity. 

45. The adverse personnel action, Plaintiff’s termination, clearly violated 

Plaintiff’s right under the Workers’ Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205

and such action clearly constituted a prohibited employment practice, contrary to 

the public policy of the State of Florida.

46. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Workers’ 

Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205, the Plaintiff has been substantially 

damaged, in that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has 

sustained compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with 

the wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory demotion that lead to his discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

47. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 9 of 23
10

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, (ADA), AND 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS (ADAA))

48. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

49. This is an action to remedy discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s 

disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment with 

Defendant in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 

2008.

50. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant 

within the meaning of Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 

12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008.

51. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the 

meaning of Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 

12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008, as the 

Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

52. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 10 of 23
11

discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

53. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities 

Act Amendments of 2008, and such action clearly constituted a prohibited 

employment practice, contrary to the public policy of the ADAA.

54. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Amendments, the Plaintiff has been substantially damaged, in 

that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained 

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory demotion that lead to her discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

55. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 11 of 23
12

56. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

57. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 

12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY RETALIATION - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§

12111-12117, 12203; THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2008

(ADAA))

58. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

59. This is an action to remedy discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s 

disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment with 

Defendant in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 

2008.

60. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant 

within the meaning of Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 

12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008.

61. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 12 of 23
13

meaning of Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 

12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008, as the 

Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

62. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

63. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities 

Act Amendments of 2008, and such action clearly constituted a prohibited 

employment practice, contrary to the public policy of the ADAA.

64. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Amendments, the Plaintiff has been substantially damaged, in 

that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained 

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory demotion that lead to his discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

65. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 13 of 23
14

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

66. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

67. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 

12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION - FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, AS AMENDED,

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

68. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

69. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability 

in the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s denied employment in 

violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes. 

70. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant 

within the meaning of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 14 of 23
15

et seq., Florida Statutes.

71. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the 

meaning of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes, as the Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

72. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

73. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes. 

74. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Amendments, the Plaintiff has been substantially damaged, in 

that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained 

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

wrongful, unlawful and discriminatory termination that lead to his discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

75. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully discriminated against 

that lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 15 of 23
16

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

76. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

77. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY RETALIATION - FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, AS AMENDED,

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

78. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

79. This is an action to remedy retaliation by the Defendant in violation of 

the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida 

Statutes.

80. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant 

within the meaning of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 

et seq., Florida Statutes.

81. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 16 of 23
17

meaning of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes, as the Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

82. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation 

against him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual or perceived 

disability. 

83. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes, and such action clearly 

constituted a prohibited employment practice, contrary to the public policy of the 

ADAA.

84. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Amendments, the Plaintiff has been substantially damaged, in 

that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained 

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory demotion that lead to his discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

85. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 17 of 23
18

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

86. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

87. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(RETALIATION – TITLE VII)

88. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

89. This is an action to remedy retaliation by the Defendant in violation of 

the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et 

seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

90. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant 

within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

91. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the 

meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 18 of 23
19

2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as the Defendant employed more than 

15 employees. 

92. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation 

against him for engaging in a protective activity. 

93. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 

and such action clearly constituted a prohibited employment practice, contrary to 

the public policy of Title VII.

94. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Title VII, the Plaintiff 

has been substantially damaged, in that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; 

and in addition, he has sustained compensatory damages, based upon emotional 

distress, associated with the wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory demotion that lead 

to his discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

95. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 19 of 23
20

96. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

97. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(RETALIATION - FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 760 ET 

SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

98. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraph 1 through 39 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

99. This is an action to remedy retaliation by the Defendant in violation of

the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida 

Statutes.

100. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant 

within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 

760 et seq., Florida Statutes.

101. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the 

meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes, as the Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 20 of 23
21

102. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business justification 

for the Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation 

against him for engaging in a protective activity. 

103. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes, and such action clearly 

constituted a prohibited employment practice, contrary to the public policy of the 

FCRA.

104. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, the Plaintiff 

has been substantially damaged, in that he has lost wages, associated job benefits; 

and in addition, he has sustained compensatory damages, based upon emotional 

distress, associated with the wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory demotion that lead

to his discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

105. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

experiencing anxiety and difficult economic circumstances, resulting from the 

unlawful discharge; and the Plaintiff has also sustained continued mental and 

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 21 of 23
22

106. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

107. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a 

judgment: 

a. Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein are violation of 

the ADAA, Title VII, Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) and Florida’s Worker’s 

Compensation Retaliation § 440.205, Florida Statue.

b. Enjoining and permanently restraining those violations of the ADAA, 

Title VII, Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) and the Florida’s Worker’s 

Compensation Retaliation § 440.205 Florida Statue.

c. Directing the Defendant to take such affirmative action as is necessary 

to ensure that the effects of these unlawful employment practice are eliminated and 

do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities;

d. Directing Defendant to place Plaintiff in the position he would have 

occupied but for Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of him and make him whole 

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 22 of 23
23

for all earnings he would have received but for Defendant’s discriminatory 

treatment, including but not limited to, wages (past and future), pension, and other 

lost benefits.

i. Awarding Plaintiff Front Pay in lieu of reinstatement;

ii. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

iii. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action together with a 

reasonable attorney’s fees; and,

e. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper in the premises. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 12, 2020. By: /s/ Clayton M. Connors 

CLAYTON M. CONNORS 

Florida Bar No.: 0095553

Email: cmc@westconlaw.com

WESTBERRY & CONNORS, LLC.

4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A

Pensacola, Florida 32503

Tel: (850) 473-0401

Fax: (850) 473-1388

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Case 3:20-cv-02764-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 23 of 23