1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

YVETTE JOHNSON, 

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.:

THE HIGBEE COMPANY, LLC

d/b/a/ DILLARD’S

DEFENDANT.

 /

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, YVETTE JOHNSON, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Hammonds”), by and through her undersigned attorney, sues defendants, The 

Higbee Company, LLC. d/b/a Dillard’s (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “Dillard’s”) 

and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

basis of race, disability and retaliation 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., the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as

amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. § 1981; Americans with Disabilities Act,

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 18
2

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

Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAA).

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of 

the FLSA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the Court’s supplemental 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief is sought 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) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54.

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 to the filing of 

this suit.

7. 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). Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida 

Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR” No.: 201919376) and the United 

States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” No.: 510-

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 18
3

202003076) on April 9, 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 her

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

8, 2020.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff is an African American female who worked as a hairstylist at 

Defendant’s Aveda Salon in its Pensacola Cordova Mall location from the date of 

her hire on July 7, 2015, until her unlawful termination on March 22, 2019.

9. Defendant, Dillard's, is an American department store chain with 

approximately 289 stores in 29 states and headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas.

It is not-for-profit company which provides retail merchandise and services in 

Florida and Escambia County and is an employer within the meaning of the FCRA, 

Title VII, the ADA and ADAA as it employs in excess of 15 employees.

FACTS

10. Plaintiff is an African American female.

11. Plaintiff was employed by Aveda Salon and Dillard’s Department 

Store where she worked in the Aveda Salon within the Dillard’s Department Store 

as a professional hairstylist from July 7, 2015, until her unlawful termination on 

March 22, 2019.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 18
4

12. Plaintiff performed the duties of this position in a more than 

satisfactory manner.

13. Plaintiff was one of only two African Americans and one Hispanic

employed by Dillard’s/Aveda in the Pensacola Cordova Mall Salon.

14. In September 2018, Ms. Shanda West became the Dillard’s/Aveda in

the Pensacola Cordova Mall Salon manager.

15. Once Ms. West became the salon manager she started to target

Plaintiff and the other minority hairstylists.

16. Plaintiff worked for Dillard’s/Aveda for four (4) years without any

type of write-up or disciplinary action.

17. Since Ms. West’s arrival, she has treated the other Caucasian 

employees more favorably by allowing them to get away with things in the salon 

for which she disciplined Plaintiff and the other minority employees but not the 

Caucasian employees.

18. On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff received two (2) write-ups in one day,

19. The reasons for the write ups were not true and fabricated by Ms. 

West.

20. Ms. West used these two write ups from the same day to terminate

Plaintiff.

21. Ms. West has treated of other minorities in a similar fashion as

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 18
5

Plaintiff.

22. Ms. Jessica Rosado (Hispanic), who had worked for Defendant for 

over two (2) years before Ms. West’s arrival was also terminated by Ms. West 

shortly before Plaintiff’s employment had been terminated.

23. In July of 2016, Plaintiff suffered a workplace injury to her right hand.

24. Plaintiff has had severe pain in that hand since the injury and was 

allowed to take breaks or not work at times because of the in her hand pain prior to 

Ms. West become the salon manager.

25. Shortly after her hire in September, 2018, Ms. West became aware 

of Plaintiff’s injury and would not allow Plaintiff to take breaks and would

reprimand her for not being able to work because of the pain in her hand.

26. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s injury and disability to her 

hand since before Ms. West started with the company and when Plaintiff informed 

Ms. West of the her injured hand and disability.

27. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(a) she has a physical impairment that substantially limits 

one or more major life activities: Plaintiff suffers from mobility;

(b) Plaintiff was at the time of her termination under the

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 18
6

treatment of a doctor for the care and treatment of her physical 

disability;

(c) she has a record of such impairment; and;

(d) she was regarded (perceived or otherwise) by Defendant 

as having such impairments.

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

concentration and mobility.

29. Plaintiff had the ability to perform the essential functions of her 

position and did so without incident until her termination on March 22, 2019.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(RACE DISCRIMINATION- FEDERAL CLAIM - 42 U.S.C. § 1981)

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

paragraphs 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

31. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and 

conditions of her employment on the basis of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1981.

32. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury 

and monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless 

and until this Court grants relief.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 18
7

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(RACE RETALIATION - FEDERAL CLAIM - 42 U.S.C. § 1981)

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

paragraphs 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

34. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff engaging in a protected activity 

in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her race in violation

of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

35. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury 

and monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless 

and until this Court grants relief.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(RACE DISCRIMINATION- FEDERAL CLAIM – TITLE VII)

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

paragraphs 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

37. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and 

conditions of her employment on the basis of her race in violation of Title VII.

38. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury 

and monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless 

and until this Court grants relief.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 18
8

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(RACE RETALIATION - FEDERAL CLAIM – TITLE VII)

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

paragraphs 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

40. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff engaging in a protected activity 

in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her national origin in 

violation of Title VII.

41. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury 

and monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless 

and until this Court grants relief.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS (ADAA))

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

paragraph 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of her 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 18
9

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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 her for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability.

47. 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.

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

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

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

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 18
10

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

Defendant’s employment.

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

lead to her 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.

50. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist her, in the 

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

for her professional services.

51. 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.

SIXTH 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))

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

paragraph 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

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

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 18
11

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.

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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 her for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability.

57. 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 18
12

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

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

that she has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, she 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.

59. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful and unlawfully retaliatory

actions that lead to her 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.

60. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist her, in the 

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

for his professional services.

61. 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.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

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

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 18
13

paragraph 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

63. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her 

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.

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. 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 her for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability.

67. 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 18
14

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

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

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

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

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

Defendant’s employment.

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

that lead to her 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.

70. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist her, in the 

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

for his professional services.

71. 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.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

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

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 18
15

in paragraph 1 through 29 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

73. 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.

74. 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.

75. 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.

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

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

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

disability.

77. 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 15 of 18
16

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

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

that she has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, she 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.

79. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful , and unlawful retaliatory actions

that lead to her 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.

80. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist her in the 

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

for his professional services.

81. 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.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a 

judgment:

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 18
17

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

of Title VII, FCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, ADA and ADAA.

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

FCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, ADA and ADAA.

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 she would have 

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

for all earnings she 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 compensatory damages;

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

attorney’s fees; and,

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,

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 18
18

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 29, 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: 

Yvette Johnson

Case 3:20-cv-05499-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 18