UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CASE NO.:

ALEXANDRIA WALLACE,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND 

CLINICS, INC., 

a Florida Not For Profit Corporation,

 Defendant.

/

 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ALEXANDRIA WALLACE (“Ms. Crokie” or “Plaintiff”), by and through 

her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against the Defendant, SHANDS 

TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. (“SHANDS” or “Defendant”), and alleges 

the following:

1. Plaintiff brings these claims for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in 

violation of Title VII/the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) and the Florida Civil Rights 

Act (“FCRA”), Chapter 760, Fla. Stat. to recover from Defendant back pay, front pay, 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, and her attorneys’ fees and costs.

JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper as the claims are brought pursuant arise under

federal law pursuant to Title VII and the PDA as to the federal claims, and this court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over the FCRA claims as they arise out of a continuing series of 

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 11
2

illegal activities committed by Defendant and involving Plaintiff’s employment.

3. The actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Alachua County, Florida.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

4. Plaintiff timely dual-filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Florida Commission on Human 

Relations (“FCHR”) on or about September 9, 2019. 

5. Plaintiff received her Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on February 28, 2020.

6. Plaintiff timely files this lawsuit and has complied with all administrative 

prerequisites. 

VENUE

7. Venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business in Alachua 

County, Florida, and Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Alachua County, Florida, where the 

actions at issue took place. 

PARTIES

8. During all times relevant, Plaintiff lived in Alachua County, Florida. 

9. Plaintiff is protected by the PDA because:

a. She was a pregnant female who suffered discrimination because of her 

pregnancy by Defendant; and

b. She suffered an adverse employment action and was subjected to an 

increasingly hostile work environment based on her pregnancy, including 

being fired because of discrimination by Defendant regarding her pregnancy. 

10. Defendant was at all material times an “employer” as defined by the PDA as it 

employed in excess of fifteen (15) employees.

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 11
3

11. Defendant is a Florida Profit Corporation that operates a medical center in, 

among other places, Alachua County, Florida. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Transporter from February 2, 2018, until 

her termination on December 10, 2018. 

13. Plaintiff was an excellent worker with no history of attendance, performance, 

or disciplinary issues during her tenure with SHANDS. 

14. Upon disclosing her pregnancy to Defendant, Plaintiff’s Supervisor, Frances

George (“Ms. George’), began harassing and demeaning Plaintiff with multiple derogatory 

comments. 

15. Around November 2018, Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodation for her 

pregnancy by way submitting a doctor’s note detailing that she needed to refrain from 

lifting excessive weight and take a short break every two (2) hours to avoid raising her 

blood pressure. These reasonable restrictions were essential to safeguard the well-being of 

both herself and her unborn child during this last trimester of her pregnancy. 

16. SHANDS refused to offer reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff, and declined 

to even engage in an interactive process or dialogue with her about accommodation for her 

pregnancy.

17. On or around December 1, 2018, Ms. George’s harassment reached its zenith, 

as she brought Plaintiff to tears with her belittling and discriminatory comments.

18. As such, immediately after this incident, Plaintiff objected to the discrimination 

she suffered during her employment at SHANDS. 

19. Shockingly thereafter, Plaintiff was suspended from work, while the perpetrator 

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 11
4

of the harassment, Ms. George, was allowed to continue working unmolested in her 

position.

20. On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff was called back into work and summarily 

terminated in violation of the law. 

21. Defendant was well aware of Plaintiff’s PDA-protected condition and her 

requests, and need, for accommodation.

22. The reasonable accommodation of refraining from lifting excessive weight and 

taking a short break every two (2) hours to avoid raising her blood pressure would have 

permitted Plaintiff to perform her job duties and would have imposed no undue hardship 

on Defendant.

23. Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant’s termination was a pretext, and a 

concocted way to discard her based on her pregnancy and thereby rid the workplace of a 

pregnant employee. 

24. Plaintiff is an individual who, with minimal reasonable accommodation, was 

fully capable of performing the essential functions of her job as a Transporter, and had indeed 

done so prior to, and during, her pregnancy.

25. Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff in this regard is illegal. See Byrd v. 

Lakeshore Hospital, 30 F.3d 1380, 1382 (11th Cir.1994) (“It is today a settled principle 

that the [pregnancy laws] are violated when pregnant employees are denied privileges 

afforded non-pregnant employees.”); see also Armindo v. Padlocker, Inc., 209 F.3d 1319, 

1320 (11th Cir.2000) (an employer violates the PDA when it fires an employee based on 

her pregnancy.).

26. Plaintiff’s firing constitutes an adverse employment action as defined by the

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 11
5

PDA.

27. At all material times hereto, Plaintiff was ready, willing and able to perform her

job duties, with or without reasonable accommodation. 

28. Despite the availability of a reasonable accommodation under the PDA, which 

would not have caused Defendant an undue burden, and despite the fact that Plaintiff was 

not, and would not be, prevented by her pregnancy from completing her assigned job 

duties, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on her pregnancy and her need for 

occasional accommodation.

29. Defendant does not have a non-discriminatory rationale for allowing and 

participating in the discrimination suffered by Plaintiff.

30. The timing of Plaintiff’s termination, which was in temporally proximity to her 

objections to discrimination, demonstrates the causal and temporal connection between her 

protected PDA activity and the illegal actions taken against her by Defendant. 

31. Defendant purposefully and intentionally discriminated and retaliated against 

Plaintiff in violation of her PDA rights. 

32. Plaintiff was a pregnant individual during her employment, and was therefore 

a member of a protected class as envisioned by the PDA.

33. Plaintiff suffered sufficiently severe and pervasive treatment, and ultimately 

termination, because of her pregnancy.

34. As a result of the above conduct by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered damages, 

including loss of employment, wages, benefits, and other remuneration to which she is 

entitled. 

35. Defendant did not have a subjective or objective good faith basis for its actions.

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 11
6

36. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A., to 

represent her in the litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII AND THE PDA

37. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 of 

the Complaint, as if fully set forth in this Count. 

38. The acts of Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, violated 

Plaintiff’s rights against pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the PDA.

39. The discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected was based solely on her 

pregnancy.

40. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct toward 

her.

41. The conduct of Defendant was so willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of 

the statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle her to an award of punitive damages against 

Defendant, to deter it, and others, from such conduct in the future. 

42. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to Title VII and the PDA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Defendant for 

her actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, 

emotional distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as her costs and attorneys’ fees, 

declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT II 

RETALIATION UNDER THE PDA

43. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 as if 

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 11
7

fully set forth in this Count. 

44. The acts of Defendant by and through its agents and employees, violated 

Plaintiff’s rights against being retaliated against for opposing pregnancy discrimination under 

Title VII and the PDA.

45. The retaliation to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on her opposition to 

Defendant’s illegal pregnancy discrimination, and was willful.

46. The conduct of Defendant its agents and employees proximately, directly, and 

foreseeably injured Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, future 

pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, 

loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. 

47. Plaintiff is entitled to recover liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Title VII and the PDA.

48. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law for the actions of 

Defendant, which have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Defendant for

a declaratory judgment that the retaliation against Plaintiff by Defendant was a violation of 

Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII and the PDA, that Defendant make Plaintiff whole for her

losses suffered as a result of the discrimination through reinstatement, or, if that is not 

applicable or practical, through an award of front pay and/or promotion; grant Plaintiff a

judgment against Defendant for damages, including liquidated damages, award Plaintiff her

reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses against Defendant pursuant to Title VII and 

the PDA, and provide any additional relief that this Court deems just.

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 11
8

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

BASED ON PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

49. Plaintiff realleges and readopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 of the 

Complaint, as if fully set forth in this Count.

50. The acts of Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, violated 

Plaintiff’s rights against pregnancy discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 

760, Fla. Stat. 

51. Plaintiff was over pregnant when she was terminated.

52. Plaintiff was terminated only because of her pregnancy, and would not have been 

terminated, but for her pregnancy.

53. Defendant did not have a legitimate, non-discriminatory, reason for terminating 

Plaintiff.

54. Defendant had no good faith basis for terminating Plaintiff based on her 

pregnancy, and Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages based on these actions.

55. The conduct of Defendant was so willful and wanton, and in such reckless 

disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle her to an award of punitive damages 

against Defendant to deter Defendant, and others, from such conduct in the future.

56. The conduct of Defendant and its agents and employees proximately, directly, and 

foreseeably injured Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, future 

pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, 

loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. 

57. Prior to terminating Plaintiff, Defendant did not consult with the EEOC, 

Department of Labor, or legal counsel to determine whether Plaintiff’s termination, based on 

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 8 of 11
9

her pregnancy, was in compliance with the FCRA.

58. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law for the actions of 

Defendant which have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will issue a declaratory judgment that 

the discrimination against Plaintiff by Defendant was a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the 

FCRA; require that Defendant make Plaintiff whole for her losses suffered as a result of the 

discrimination through reinstatement, or, if that is not practical, through an award of front pay;

grant Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for all lost wages and compensatory damages, 

including liquidated damages; award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation 

expenses against Defendant pursuant to 760.11(5), Fla. Stat., and provide any additional relief 

that this Court deems just.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA BASED ON RETALIATION FOR 

OBJECTIONS TO PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

59. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 as if 

fully set forth in this Count. 

60. The acts of Defendant by and through its agents and employees, violated 

Plaintiff’s rights against being retaliated against for opposing pregnancy discrimination 

under Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Fla. Stat.

61. The retaliation to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on her opposition to 

Defendant’s illegal pregnancy discrimination.

62. The conduct of Defendant its agents and employees proximately, directly, and 

foreseeably injured Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, future 

pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental 

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 9 of 11
10

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. 

63. The conduct of Defendant was so willful and wanton, and in such reckless 

disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle her to an award of punitive 

damages against Defendant to deter it, and others, from such conduct in the future. 

64. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 760.11(5), Fla. Stat.

65. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law for the actions of 

Defendant, which have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will issue a declaratory judgment that 

the retaliation against Plaintiff by Defendant was a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the 

FCRA; require that Defendant make Plaintiff whole for her losses suffered as a result of the 

discrimination through reinstatement, or, if that is not applicable or practical, through an 

award of front pay and/or promotion; grant Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant for 

damages, including punitive damages; award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees and 

litigation expenses against Defendant pursuant to the FCRA; provide any additional relief that 

this Court deems just.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted on this 27th day of May, 2020.

By: /s/ Noah Storch

Noah Storch, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0085476

Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 10 of 11
11

10368 W. SR. 84, 103

Telephone: (866) 344-9243

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771

Attorney for the Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-00126-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 11 of 11