Notice of Service of Process

SBR / ALL

Transmittal Number: 21507344

Date Processed: 05/13/2020

Primary Contact: Noelle C Herrman

Consulate Healthcare

5102 West Laurel Street

Ste 700

Tampa, FL 33607

Electronic copy provided to: LaShelle Tomblin

Entity: 3101 Ginger Drive Operations LLC

Entity ID Number 3088038

Entity Served: 3101 Ginger Drive Operations, LLC d/b/a Heritage Healthcare Center at

Tallahassee

Title of Action: Archie Hogan Jr. vs. 3101 Ginger Drive Operations, LLC d/b/a Heritage

Healthcare

Document(s) Type: Summons/Complaint

Nature of Action: Labor / Employment

Court/Agency: Leon County Circuit Court, FL

Case/Reference No: 2020 CA 000222

Jurisdiction Served: Florida

Date Served on CSC: 05/12/2020

Answer or Appearance Due: 20 Days

Originally Served On: CSC

How Served: Personal Service

Sender Information: Marie A. Mattox

850-383-4800

Information contained on this transmittal form is for record keeping, notification and forwarding the attached document(s). It does not

constitute a legal opinion. The recipient is responsible for interpreting the documents and taking appropriate action.

To avoid potential delay, please do not send your response to CSC

251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1674 (888) 690-2882 | sop@cscglobal.com

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 11
Filing # 102608279 E-Filed 02/02/2020 10:06:18 PM 

T2 015~- ~I 

IIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND 

FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ARCHIE HOGAN JR., 

Plaintiff, 

CASE NO.: 20-CAFLA BAR NO.: 0739685 

2020 CA 000222 

►v 

3101 GINGER DRIVE OPERATIONS, LLC 

DB/A HERITAGE HEALTHCARE 

CENTER AT TALLAHASSEE, 

Defendant. 

SUMMONS 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA: 

To Each Sheriff of the State: 

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint or 

petition in this action on Defendant: 

3101 GINGER DRIVE OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a 

HERITAGE HEALTHCARE CENTER AT TALLAHASSEE 

C/O CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 

1201 HAYS STREET 

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 

Each defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on 

Marie A. Mattox, P. A., Plaintiff s attorney, whose address is 203 North Gadsden Street, 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301, within 20 days after service of this summons on that defendant, 

exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of the.defenses with the clerk of this court, 

either before serve on plaintiff's attomey or immediately thereafter. If a defendant fails to do 

so, a default will be entered against that defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or 

petition. 

DATED on 2/3/2020 , 2020. 

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 11
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND 

FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ARCHIE HOGAN JR., CASE NO.: 20-CAFLA BAR NO.: 0739685 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

3101 GINGER DRIVE OPERATIONS, LLC 

D/B/A HERITAGE HEALTHCARE 

CENTER AT TALLAHASSEE, 

Defendant. 

/ 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, ARCHIE HOGAN TR., hereby sues Defendant, 3101 GINGER DRIVE 

OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A HERITAGE HEALTHCARE CENTER AT TALLAHASSEE, and 

alleges: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is an action brought under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.. 

2. This action involves claims which are, individually, in excess of Thirty Thousand 

Dollars ($30,000.00), exclusive of costs and interest. 

THE PARTIES 

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, ARCHIE HOGAN JR., has been a resident 

of the State of Florida and was employed by Defendant. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class 

due to his race (African-American), and his complaints about not being properly paid overtime. 

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, 3101 GINGER DRIVE OPERATIONS, 

LLC DB/A HERITAGE HEALTHCARE CENTER AT- TALLAHASSEE, has been organized 

0 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 11
> 

i 

and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant 

has been an "employer" as that term is used under the applicable laws identified above. Defendant 

was Plaintiff's employer as it relates to these claims. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

5. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that 

Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This action is timely filed thereafter. 

STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE.FACTS 

6. Plaintiff, a 35-year-old African-American, began his employment with Defendant 

in or around June of 2015 and held the position of Maintenance Assistant at the time of his 

wrongful constructive termination on November 19, 2017. 

7. Despite his stellar work performance during his employment with Defendant, 

Plaintiff has been subjected to disparate treatment, different terms and conditions of 

employment, and was held to a different standard because of his age (35) and race (AfricanAmerican). 

8. The disparate treatment and retaliation came at the hands of specifically but not 

limited to Administrator Heidi Smith and the new Administrator who replaced her. 

9. Plaintiff was often assigned extra duties for which he was given no extra 

compensation. To wit, Plaintiff was tasked with creating an evacuation route after Defendant's 

facility caught fire. Plaintiff did so in coordination with the Fire Department and did not get so 

much as a thanlc you, let alone compensated. Defendant would also frequently make Plaintiff do 

state inspections without pay and would force Plaintiff to remain at the facility without any 

2 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 11
overtime pay or compensation for going above and beyond his job duties. Further, Administrator 

threatened Plaintiff's job if he did not come to work when asked, even if he was not scheduled. 

10. Defendant would also force Plaintiff to drive residents to their appointments and 

activities when they did not have a driver and Administrator Smith threatened Plaintiff's job when 

his license was suspended. 

11. Further, Plaintiff was singled out as the only on call maintenance worker and given 

a work cell phone to keep at all'times to always be on call, for which Plaintiff was not properly 

compensated. Defendant would also force Plaintiff to perform tasks that it knew he was not 

licensed for including without limitation A/C repairs, electrical repairs, mechanical repairs, and 

plumbing repairs. 

12. When Plaintiff reported these unfair and unlawful labor practices to Defendant, 

Defendant would pressure Plaintiff to perform the tasks, asking him what he was hired for if he 

cannot handle the tasks assigned. 

13. Plaintiff routinely took on extra tasks and worlced overtime when he was called 

upon. Whenever Plaintiff questioned and complained to Defendant about being compensated for 

the multiple hours of call-out work, Defendant claimed that he was not approved to do the work 

and thus Defendant was not going to pay Plaintiff. 

14. Plaintiff's hourly rate was $12.00 an hour and he frequently worked overtiine each 

week for more than three years with an overtime rate of $18.00 an hour. Plaintiff has been denied 

due compensation for his work even after reporting to Defendant that he was not being properly 

paid. 

9 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 11
15. During his employment, Plaintiff was denied a promotion to Maintenance Director 

due at least in part to his race and/or age, and/or due to his complaints about not being paid properly 

including not being paid overtime. 

16. Defendant frequently told Plaintiff that he would never make a Maintenance 

Director's position in his field of work because of the way he looked referring to Plaintiff's race 

and/or age. 

17. Defendant hired two Maintenance Directors both in their 50's and white, one of 

whom was the brother in law of Administrator Heidi Smith. 

18. Plaintiff was more qualified than the directors hired, specifically Administrator 

Smith's brother in law. Defendant even forced Plaintiff to train the new directors to talce a job 

which should have been given to Plaintiff. 

19. On or about November 19, 2017, Defendant suspended Plaintiffpending resolution 

of a criminal charge brought against him which he denied and which was ultimately dropped. 

20. Once the charges were dropped, Plaintiff submitted his paperworlc showing that the 

charges were dropped to Defendant and requested to be placed back to worlc. 

21. Plaintiff was told that Heidi Smith no longer worked for Defendant and her 

replacement told Plaintiff, without any knowledge of Plaintiff s qualifications, and based in part 

off of Plaintiff's race and/or age, that she would not hire him and would not consider his claim that 

he was only on suspension pending a favorable court outcome. . 

22. Plaintiff made repeated attempts to contact the Defendant's administrator to get 

clarity on his termination to no avail. 

0 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 11
23. Andrew Simmons, a former co-worker, informed Plaintiff that when he tried to 

speak up for Plaintiff, the Administrator said they were not hiring anymore maintenance assistants, 

insinuating that Defendant had eliminated Plaintiff's position. 

24. Thereafter, Deferfdant hired a white Maintenance Assistant who had no knowledge 

of maintenance work and was far less qualified than Plaintiff to perform Plaintiff's job duties. 

25. Plaintiff was never formally informed of the day he was terminated, nor was 

Plaintiff given any valid reason by_Defendant. 

26. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent him interests in this cause and is 

obligated to pay a fee for these services. Defendant should be made to pay said fee under the laws 

referenced above. 

COUNTI 

RACE DISCRIMINATION 

27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

28. This is an action against Defendant for discrimination based upon race brought 

under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 

29. Plaintiff has been the victim of discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff's race in that 

Plaintiff was treated differently 

-

than similarly situated employees of Defendants who are white 

and has been subject to hostility and poor treatment on the basis, at least in part, of Plaintiff's race. 

30. Defendant is liable for the differential treatment and hostility towards Plaintiff 

because it controlled the actions and inactions of the persons making decisions affecting Plaintiff 

or it knew or should have known of these actions and inactions and failed to take prompt and 

adequate remedial action or toolc no action at all to prevent the abuses to Plaintiff. Furthermore, 

Defendant lcnowingly condoned and ratified the differential treatment of Plaintiff as more fully set 

forth above because it allowed the differential treatment and participated in same. 

5 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 11
31. Defendant's known allowance and ratification of these actions and inactions actions 

created, perpetuated and facilitated an abusive and offensive worlc environment within the meaning 

of the statutes referenced above. 

32. In essence, the actions of agents of Defendant, which were each condoned and 

ratified by Defendant, were of a race-based nature and in violation of the laws set forth herein. 

33. The discrimination complained of herein affected' a term, condition, or privilege of 

Plaintiff s continued employment with Defendant. The events set forth herein lead, at least in part, 

to Plaintiff's termination on contrived allegations. 

34. Defendant's conduct and omissions constitutes intentional discrimination and 

unlawful employment practices based upon race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct described above, Plaintiff 

has suffered emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, past and future pecuniary losses, 

inconvenience, bodily injury, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary 

losses, along with lost back and front pay, interest on pay, bonuses, and other benefits. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are permanent and continuing. Plaintiff is entitled to 

injunctive/equitable relief and punitive damages. 

COUNT III 

VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

36. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated herein by reference. 

37. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee and subject to the provisions of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act as it pertains to whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to minimum wage and 

overtime pay for all hours over forty (40) hours worked in a given week. At all relevant times, 

the work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to the business operated by Defendant. 

Further, Plaintiff is a covered individual within the meaning of the FLSA. 

0 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 8 of 11
38. Defendant was and continues to be an employer engaged in interstate commerce 

and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of FLSA. 

39. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that employees be paid overtime pay, 

which was not paid to Plaintiff. Further, after he complained about not being paid overtime pay, 

he was retaliated against up to his termination. 

40. Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime pay and then 

retaliated against Plaintiff after Plaintiff requested to be paid the overtime pay in direct 

contravention of the FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff per statutory 

when Defendant knew or should- have known such was due and that non-payment of would 

financially injure Plaintiff. 

41. Upon information and belief, during the course of Plaintiff's employment, 

Defendant failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time and payment records. As a result of 

Defendant's failure to properly record, report, credit and/or compensate Plaintiff, the Defendant 

failed to make, lceep and preserve records with respect to Plaintiff sufficient to determine the 

wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of the FLSA. 

42. Records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and the 

actual compensation paid to Plaititiff are in the possession and custody of the Defendant. 

Plaintiff intends to obtain these records by appropriate discovery proceedings to be taken 

promptly in this case and, if necessaiy, will then seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to 

set forth the precise amount due. 

43. The acts of the Defendant constitute a willful, deliberate, and intentional violation 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of the 

Defendant, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 9 of 11
overtime compensation, an equal amount as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest. 

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. §216 (b). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for the following: 

(a) that process issue and this Court take jurisdiction over this case; 

(b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendant under the applicable 

counts set forth above, mandating Defendant's obedience to the laws 

enumerated herein and providing other equitable relief to Plaintiff; 

(c) enter judgment against Defendanf and for Plaintiff awarding all legallyavailable general and compensatory damages and economic loss to Plaintiff 

from Defendant for Defendant's violations of law enumerated herein; 

(d) enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff permanently enjoining 

Defendant from future violations of law enumerated herein; 

(e) enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff 

attorney's fees and costs; 

(f) award Plaintiff interest where appropriate; and 

(g) grant such other further relief .as being just and proper under the 

circumstances, including but not limited to reinstatement. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues herein that are so triable. 

DATED this 2nd day of February 2020. 

;1 

0 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 10 of 11
Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Marie A. Mattox 

Marie A. Mattox [FBN 0739685] 

MARIE A. MATTOX, P. A. 

203 North Gadsden Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32303 

Telephone: (850) 383-4800 

Facsimile: (850) 383-4801 

Marie@,mattoxlaw.com 

Secondary emails: 

marlene@mattoxlaw.com 

michelle@mattoxlaw.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

9 

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/20 Page 11 of 11