1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GERARD CHIESA,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

CONROY SIMBERG, P.A.,

DEFENDANT.

_________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Gerard Chiesa, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Chiesa”), by and through his undersigned attorney, sues defendant, Conroy 

Simberg, P.A., (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “CS”) and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff brings this is an action to remedy discrimination on the basis 

of race and national origin discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges 

of Plaintiff’s employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 

1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 262 et seq., and Amendments (ADEAA), and the 

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

Statutes. 

2. Declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief is sought pursuant to 28 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 1 of 18
2

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) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54.

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 dual filed a 

Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations 

(“FCHR” No.: 201916778) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC” No.: 15D201900145) on November 14, 2018. On May 13, 

2019, more than 180 days lapsed since the charge was filed and the FCHR had not 

concluded its investigation nor made a determination as required pursuant to Fla. 

Stat. § 760.11(3). Plaintiff requested and the EEOC mailed a Right to Sue notice 

on July 10, 2019, which was not received until on or about July 15, 2019. 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a 61 year old Caucasian male and a citizen of the State of 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 2 of 18
3

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

Plaintiff worked for defendant as a litigation attorney from his hire on or about 

March 2011, until his unlawful termination on October 2, 2018. 

7. Defendant, Conroy Simberg, is a for profit Company which provides 

legal services in the United States and Florida. Defendant is an employer within 

the meaning of Title VII, the FCRA and the ADEA as it employs in excess of 20

employees. 

FACTS

8. Plaintiff is a 61 year old Caucasian male. 

9. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in its Pensacola, Florida office 

as a litigation attorney from March 2011, until his unlawful termination on October 

2, 2018. 

10. During Plaintiff’s seven (7) years with Defendant, he had not been the 

subject of any disciplinary action and performed the duties and responsibilities of 

his position in a more than satisfactory manner. 

11. In 2016, Plaintiff was tasked with handling about 5-7 cases from a 

new insurance carrier, USAA. 

12. Plaintiff was initially the only attorney in Defendant’s Pensacola 

office handling USAA cases. 

13. Additional USAA cases began coming into the office in greater 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 3 of 18
4

volume in addition to the ones assigned directly to Plaintiff from USAA adjuster 

Mary Petrie. 

14. Plaintiff achieved many successful verdicts for USAA which resulted 

in continued assignment of new cases from USAA. 

15. When Plaintiff’s original legal assistant left the firm, Defendant 

assigned Ms. Holly Wynn to assist Plaintiff. 

16. Ms. Wynn had no prior experience working as a legal assistant, but 

Plaintiff worked closely with her to ensure that she was performing her tasks 

successfully. 

17. Between 2017 and 2018, more than three fourths of Plaintiff’s case 

load consisted of USAA cases.

18. At no time prior to Plaintiff’s termination was he notified by 

Defendant that his work on the USAA cases was anything but satisfactory. 

19. Further, at no time was Plaintiff ever informed, by Defendant or 

USAA, that either believed that he was overwhelmed and was not to be assigned 

any more USAA cases. 

20. In the summer of 2017, Ms. Wynn reported that an attorney, which 

she was friends with outside of the workplace, in the Pensacola office had tried to 

kiss her and was sending her text messages and songs. 

21. Lori Ryders, the firm’s administrator, discussed the situation with Ms. 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 4 of 18
5

Wynn. 

22. Ms. Wynn initially did not want to pursue the matter, but in August 

2017, Ms. Wynn changed her mind and asked that the matter be investigated. 

23. Defendant wanted Ms. Wynn to sign an agreement that she would not 

bring claims against Defendant for sexual harassment. 

24. Ms. Wynn refused to sign this agreement and Defendant soon 

thereafter retaliated against her through intimidation and purposely not providing 

her help despite the extreme volume of cases she was handling as Plaintiff’s legal 

assistant. 

25. Not only did Ms. Wynn request help from Defendant and was refused, 

Plaintiff also requested help. 

26. Because the sexual harassment continued even after Ms. Wynn had 

reported it to Defendant, Plaintiff called the Defendant’s senior partner and 

informed him about everything that was going on in our Pensacola office 

specifically the way Ms. Wynn was being mistreated and overworked. 

27. Within a week of voicing his concerns of harassment and retaliation, 

disparaging emails were sent by Defendant to USAA adjusters about Plaintiff. 

28. Plaintiff again informed Defendant’s senior partner, yet that didn’t 

stop anything.

29. Things got exponentially worse for Plaintiff and Ms. Wynn, who was 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 5 of 18
6

ultimately terminated on June 25, 2018.

30. After Ms. Wynn’s termination, Defendant proceeded to systematically 

reduce Plaintiff’s case load to point it had been reduced from approximately 85 

cases in March 2018, down to 34 cases by September 2018. 

31. Defendant continued to reassign USAA cases from Plaintiff until 

October 2, 2018, Plaintiff had no more cases to work on and was terminated. 

32. During this period of reassignment, Defendant never advised Plaintiff 

that his work was in any way unsatisfactory or that USAA was unsatisfied with his 

work. 

33. In the seven years Plaintiff was employed by Defendant he received 

only excellent reviews. 

34. Plaintiff’s billing hours had never been questioned prior to his

termination and his last review, which was done in January of 2018, he was given 

stellar reviews along with the largest raise they ever offered him. 

35. All of the attorney’s that Plaintiff’s remaining cases went to in the 

office were approximately 25 plus years younger than Plaintiff and had little or no 

litigation experience. 

36. In July of 2018, Defendant’s senior partner told Plaintiff that he was 

not getting any younger and that nobody passes the microscope test. 

37. After Plaintiff reported the continued hostile, discriminatory and 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 6 of 18
7

retaliatory treatment of Ms. Wynn, Defendant targeted and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for engaging in a protected activity and further discriminated against him 

because of his age.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(RETALIATION – TITLE VII)

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

paragraph 1 through 37 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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. § 

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

15 employees. 

42. Because Plaintiff reported the continued hostile, discriminatory and 

retaliatory treatment of Ms. Wynn, Defendant targeted and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for engaging in this protected activity.

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 7 of 18
8

43. Defendant proceeded to systematically reduce Plaintiff’s case load to 

point it had been reduced from approximately 85 cases in March 2018, down to 34 

cases by September 2018. 

44. Defendant continued to reassign USAA cases from Plaintiff until on 

October 2, 2018, Plaintiff had no more cases to work on and was terminated. 

45. 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. 

46. 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.

47. 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. 

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

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

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 8 of 18
9

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.

49. 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. 

50. 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.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(RETALIATION – FCHR)

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

paragraph 1 through 37 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set

forth herein.

52. 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.

53. 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.

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

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 9 of 18
10

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. 

55. Because Plaintiff reported the continued hostile, discriminatory and 

retaliatory treatment of Ms. Wynn, Defendant targeted and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for engaging in this protected activity.

56. Defendant proceeded to systematically reduce Plaintiff’s case load to 

point it had been reduced from approximately 85 cases in March 2018, down to 34 

cases by September 2018. 

57. Defendant continued to reassign USAA cases from Plaintiff until on 

October 2, 2018, Plaintiff had no more cases to work on and was terminated. 

58. 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. 

59. 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.

60. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Florida Civil Rights 

Act of 1992, the Plaintiff has been substantially damaged, in that he has lost wages, 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 10 of 18
11

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. 

61. 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.

62. 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. 

63. 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.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGE DISCRIMINATION – FCHR)

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

paragraph 1 through 37 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

age in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment with Defendant in 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 11 of 18
12

violation of national origin in violation of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as 

amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes.

66. 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.

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

meaning of national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as 

amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes, as the Defendant employed more 

than 20 employees. 

68. Plaintiff is a 61 year old Caucasian male.

69. Plaintiff is a highly qualified defense litigation attorney with more 

than 30 years of defense litigation experience.

70. While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff performed the duties and 

responsibilities of his position in a more than satisfactory manner. 

71. In July of 2018, Defendant’s senior partner told Plaintiff that he was 

not getting any younger and that nobody passes the “microscope test”. 

72. All of the attorney’s that Plaintiff’s remaining cases went to in the 

Pensacola office were approximately 25 plus years younger than him and had little 

or no litigation experience. 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 12 of 18
13

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

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

against him for engaging in a protective activity. 

74. 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. 

75. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Florida Civil Rights 

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

76. 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 

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

psychological distress, due to the unlawful dismissal from employment.

77. 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. 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 13 of 18
14

78. 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.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(AGE DISCRIMINATION - ADEAA)

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

paragraph 1 through 37 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 262 et 

seq., and Amendments (ADEAA).

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

within the meaning of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 

(ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 262 et seq., and Amendments (ADEAA).

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

meaning of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 

U.S.C. § 262 et seq., and Amendments (ADEAA), as the Defendant employed 

more than 20 employees. 

83. Plaintiff is a 61 year old Caucasian male.

84. Plaintiff is a highly qualified defense litigation attorney with more 

than 30 years of defense litigation experience.

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 14 of 18
15

85. While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff performed the duties and 

responsibilities of his position in a more than satisfactory manner. 

86. In July of 2018, Defendant’s senior partner told Plaintiff that he was 

not getting any younger and that nobody passes the “microscope test”. 

87. All of the attorney’s that Plaintiff’s remaining cases went to in the 

Pensacola office were approximately 25 plus years younger than him and had little 

or no litigation experience. 

88. 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. 

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

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 262 et seq., and Amendments 

(ADEAA), and such action clearly constituted a prohibited employment practice, 

contrary to the public policy of the FCRA.

90. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 262 et seq., and Amendments 

(ADEAA), the Plaintiff has been substantially damaged, in that he has lost wages, 

associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained compensatory damages, 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 15 of 18
16

based upon emotional distress, associated with the wrongful, unlawful and 

retaliatory demotion that lead to his discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

91. 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.

92. 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. 

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

pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 

U.S.C. § 262 et seq., and Amendments (ADEAA).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a 

judgment: 

a) Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein are in violation 

of Title VII; the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) and ADEAA;

b) Enjoining and permanently restraining those violations of Title VII; 

the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) and ADEAA;

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 16 of 18
17

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 making him

whole for all the 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.

e) Awarding Plaintiff Front Pay in lieu of reinstatement;

f) Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

g) Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

h) Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action together with a reasonable 

attorney’s fees; and,

i) 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. 

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 17 of 18
18

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 7, 2019

 By: /s/ Clayton M. Connors 

CLAYTON M. CONNORS 

Florida Bar No.: 0095553

Email: cmc@westconlaw.com

R. JOHN WESTBERRY 

Florida Bar No.: 244661

Email: rjw@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:

Gerard Chiesa

Case 3:19-cv-03643-RV-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 18 of 18