1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JONATHAN HARRIS,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH

DEFENDANT.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jonathan Harris, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Harris”), by and through his undersigned attorney, sues the Defendant, City of 

Fort Walton Beach, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant” or 

“CFWB”), and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action for disability and gender discrimination 

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

12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008; Title VII of the

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

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The jurisdiction of the Court over this controversy is invoked pursuant 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 18
2

to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f).

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

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

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

 6. 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.: 201917223) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC” No.: 15D201900230) on December 11, 2018, and 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 ninety (90) day Notice of Right to Sue 

letter from the EEOC which was received after March 17, 2020. 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 18
3

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a Caucasian male who resides in Fort Walton Beach, 

Florida. He was employed by Defendant from February 7, 2017, until his 

constructive discharge on December 1, 2018. 

8. Defendant, City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, is a municipality 

located Northwest Florida, which employs more than 50 employees and is an 

employer within the meaning of ADA, ADAA, FCRA and Title VII. 

FACTS

9. Plaintiff is a 34 year old Caucasian male. 

10. Plaintiff was employed by the City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida on 

or about February 7, 2017, as a patrol officer.

11. Plaintiff performed the duties and responsibilities of this position in a 

more than satisfactory manner.

12. On July 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his back. 

13. On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff underwent back surgery. 

14. Plaintiff returned to work on August 6, 2018. 

15. When Plaintiff returned to work after the surgery he was under light 

duty restrictions. 

16. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s disability, back injury and 

corrective surgery, when he informed Defendant of his disability on or before July 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 18
4

30, 2018.

A. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s disability.

B. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

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

or more major life activities: Plaintiff suffers from 

mobility, bending, lifting and fatigue;

(ii) Plaintiff is under the treatment of a doctor for the care 

and treatment of his physical disabilities. 

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

(iv) he was regarded (perceived or otherwise) by Defendant 

as having such impairments.

17. Plaintiff’s disabilities substantially affected the major life activities of 

concentration, mobility, lifting and bending. 

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

position and did so without incident until he was constructively discharged by 

Defendant. 

19. The interim chief at the time approved the light duty and Plaintiff 

returned to work. 

20. Plaintiff worked full time shifts from 7 am – 4 pm Monday –

Thursday. 

21. Plaintiff performed these duties in an exemplary manner. 

22. During Plaintiff’s brief light duty assignment, Plaintiff was assigned

to the CRA unit to assist them with anything they needed.

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 18
5

23. Plaintiff worked for them for approximately a month or so when the

new intern chief stepped in and revoked Plaintiff’s light duty status and sent him

home.

24. Defendant did not request additional medical documentation, nor did

it speak with Plaintiff’s doctor regarding his medical condition or restrictions.

25. In mid-September 2018, a new interim chief was appointed. 

26. This new chief terminated Plaintiff’s light duty on September 19, 

2018. 

27. Plaintiff went back on FMLA at that time. 

28. Since being removed from his light duty position, Plaintiff asked to be 

returned to this light position while he recovered from his surgery, Plaintiff’s

requests were denied. 

29. During the time Plaintiff was requesting light duty, the new interim 

chief granted two other female officers light duty positions, both of whom

continued to hold these positions for a substantial amount of time. 

30. Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s medical condition and refused to 

discuss an accommodation, but instead allowed two female officers to hold light 

duty positions.

31. Plaintiff was never advised to return to normal duty by any staff

member within the City or the department.

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 5 of 18
6

32. After Plaintiff’s light duty was rescinded by the new interim chief,

Plaintiff sent a mass email within the department asking for any leave that could be

donated to him.

33. Plaintiff was running out of leave and if he ran out of leave, he would

not be paid.

 34. Plaintiff was donated leave via numerous employees and these leave

requests were passed up the chain of command to the new interim chief.

35. Since the interim chief rescinded Plaintiff’s light duty assignment, the

amount of leave that Plaintiff was donated would have given him ample time to

recover properly and still receive a paycheck.

36. Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s donated leave requests and still refused

to allow him to work light duty.

37. Defendant’s actions resulted in Plaintiff being out of leave and not

receiving a paycheck.

 38. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions, Plaintiff was

forced out of Defendant’s employment to seek another opportunity to earn money

he could have earned had the Defendant not rescinded his light duty assignment.

FIRST 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))

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

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 6 of 18
7

paragraph 1 through 38 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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. 

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

for the Defendant’s actions is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

discrimination against Plaintiff for any actual or perceived disability. 

44. The adverse personnel action, the constructive 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 18
8

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

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

45. 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 actions that lead to his constructive

discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

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

lead to Plaintiff’s constructive 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. 

47. 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. 

48. 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 8 of 18
9

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117,

12203; THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2008 (ADAA))

49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

in paragraph 1 through 38 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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. 

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

for the Plaintiff’s constructive termination is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 9 of 18
10

retaliation and discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity and 

for any actual or perceived disability. 

54. 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.

55. 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 actions that lead to his constructive

discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

56. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully discriminatory 

actions that lead to Plaintiff’s constructive 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 10 of 18
11

57. 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. 

58. 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 DISCRIMINATION - FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, AS AMENDED,

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

59. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation 

contained in paragraph 1 through 38 of this complaint with the same force and 

effect as if set forth herein.

60. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his 

disability 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. 

61. 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.

62. 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., 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 11 of 18
12

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

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

for the Plaintiff’s constructive 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. 

64. 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. 

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

Act, 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 actions that lead to his constructive discharge from Defendant’s 

employment. 

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

that lead to Plaintiff’s constructive 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-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 12 of 18
13

67. 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. 

68. 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.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

69. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

in paragraph 1 through 38 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

70. 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.

71. 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.

72. 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. 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 13 of 18
14

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

the Plaintiff’s constructive termination is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s 

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

perceived disability. 

74. The adverse personnel action, the constructive 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.

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

Act, 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 actions that lead to his constructive discharge from Defendant’s 

employment. 

76. 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-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 14 of 18
15

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. 

78. 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.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(GENDER DISCRIMINATION – FEDERAL - TITLE VII)

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

paragraphs 1 through 38 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

80. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of 

his employment on the basis of his gender in violation of the Title VII.

81. Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in 

the future as a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory actions.

 82. Plaintiff’s forced resignation was in violation of the Title VII. 

 83. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this 

litigation and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for undersigned counsel’s 

services. Pursuant to the Title VII, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action.

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 15 of 18
16

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(GENDER DISCRIMINATION – STATE – Florida Civil Rights Act)

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

paragraphs 1 through 38 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

85. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions 

of his employment on the basis of his gender in violation of the Florida Civil 

Rights Act.

86. Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in 

the future as a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory actions.

 87. Plaintiff’s forced resignation was in violation of the Florida Civil 

Rights Act. 

 88. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this 

litigation and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for undersigned counsel’s 

services. Pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action.

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, ADA, ADAA, Title VII and FCRA; 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 16 of 18
17

b) Enjoining and permanently restraining those violations of the

ADAA, ADA, Title VII and FCRA;

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

discriminatory treatment, including but not limited to, wages, pension, and 

other lost benefits.

e) Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages;

f) Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

g) Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action together with a 

reasonable attorney’s fees;

h) 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 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 17 of 18
18

Dated: June 9, 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 Plaintiff 

Case 3:20-cv-05534-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/09/20 Page 18 of 18