1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

VANESSA APPELHANS,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

NAVY FEDERAL FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC.

DEFENDANT.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Vanessa Appelhans, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Appelhans”), by and through her undersigned attorney, sues the defendant, Navy 

Federal Credit Union, (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant” or “Navy 

Federal”), and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

of race, age, and retaliation in the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

employment in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments 

of 2008 (“ADAA”). 

2. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 14
2

§2000e-5(f).

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), 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. 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 the United States Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” No.: 425-2020-00963) on June 

18, 2020. On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff received her ninety (90) day Notice of Right 

to Sue letter from the EEOC. 

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a Caucasian female and a citizen of the State of Florida and 

a resident of Escambia County Florida. Plaintiff had been employed with 

Defendant from June 2012, until her involuntary termination on May 21, 2020. 

8. Defendant is a federally charted Credit Union which employs more 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 14
3

than 15 employees, with branch locations throughout the State of Florida and its 

Greater Pensacola Operations campus located in Escambia County Florida. 

Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII, ADA and 

ADAA. 

FACTS

9. Plaintiff is a fifty one (51) year old Caucasian female. 

10. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on or about June 2012. 

11. Defendant is a federally charted not-for-profit credit union 

exclusively serving military, veterans and their families with financial services 

throughout Florida and the United States.

12. At the time of her termination, Plaintiff held the positon of 

Delinquency Control Counselor IV. 

13. As a Delinquency Control Counselor IV, Plaintiff’s primary 

responsibilities are to control and collect on past due accounts in accordance with 

all government and Defendant’s rules and regulations, provide Defendant’s

members financial counseling and mitigate loss for Defendant. 

14. In March of 2019, Plaintiff began suffering extreme mental and 

emotional anguish. 

15. Plaintiff’s treating physician diagnosed her with severe anxiety and

panic disorder. 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 14
4

16. As a result of her severe anxiety disorder, Plaintiff applied for FMLA

and requested that Defendant accommodate her medical condition by reducing her 

overtime hours while she was seeking medical treatment for her conditions. 

17. In September 2019, knowing her medical condition, Plaintiff was 

approached by Defendant’s management team about her annual review and pressed 

her on her struggles through the ratings period and on her inability to work 

overtime. 

18. Defendant stated that Plaintiff’s inability to work overtime hours was

hampering her numbers and resulted in a poor annual review. 

19. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s anxiety and panic disorder 

since March 2019 and that she suffered from limited ability to focus and 

concentrate.

20. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(a) she has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or 

more major life activities: she suffers from anxiety and the 

limited ability to focus and concentrate;

(b) Plaintiff is under doctor’s care for treatment of her mental

disabilities. 

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

(d) she was regarded by her employer as having impairments.

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 4 of 14
5

21. Plaintiff’s disabilities substantially affect the major life activities of 

sleeping, concentration. 

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

position with or without a reasonable accommodation.

23. Between September and October 2019, Defendant refused to 

accommodate Plaintiff’s request and need for reduced overtime hours and

continued to press her on her struggles and inability to work a lot of overtime. 

24. In September 2019, Plaintiff was the subject of a NFCU Security 

investigation due to her involvement with her same sex partner and was told to 

discontinue her relationship with her. 

25. NFCU Security investigation included an extensive review of 

Plaintiff’s personal financial 

accounts and other personal non-work related information. 

26. On October 3, 2019, Defendant issued Plaintiff a memorandum of 

warning (MOW) for production issues. 

27. In November, 2019, Plaintiff was given a section award and continued 

to work Defendant’s mandated overtime even after Plaintiff requested that her 

overtime be reduced because of her medical condition. 

28. In December 2019, Defendant moved Plaintiff to a different team with 

additional work assignments. 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 5 of 14
6

29. On February 3rd, 2020, Plaintiff was admitted into a psychiatric 

hospital because of severe anxiety and panic attacks and went out on FMLA. 

30. After multiple days in the hospital and extensive evaluations, Plaintiff

was released to return to work on March 15th, 2020.

31. Upon Plaintiff’s return to work on March 15, 2020, her management

team treat her differently. 

32. Plaintiff’s managers placed her under the microscope even more so 

than before regarding her performance. 

33. Plaintiff is a homosexual female and was in a same sex relationship 

and as a result of Plaintiff having disclosed her sexual orientation, Plaintiff was 

subjected to unwelcomed harassment, ridicule and hostile working environment. 

34. Defendant’s Security team again confronted Plaintiff about her 

personal accounts and relationship with her partner, calling Plaintiff derogatory 

names for her involvement with her partner.

35. Plaintiff had been the victim of dating fraud, but at no time did she 

place Defendant in jeopardy or violate Defendant’s code of ethics, yet the NFCU 

Security team continued to harass Plaintiff about her relationship with her partner. 

36. In April 2020, Plaintiff’s performance exceeded more than half of coworkers. 

37. In May 2020, Plaintiff’s performance again exceeded more than half 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 6 of 14
7

of co-workers.

38. On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff was identified as a top five producer in her 

department. 

39. On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff was notified by Defendant that her

employment was being terminated for unsatisfactory performance. 

40. The reasons given for Plaintiff’s termination are pretext for 

Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, harassment and failure to accommodate 

Plaintiff’s disability.

41. As a result of Defendant’s conduct and failure to act, Plaintiff has 

suffered and will continue to suffer with anxiety and difficult economic 

circumstances, in addition to sustained continued mental and psychological 

distress.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Title VII - Gender Discrimination)

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

paragraphs 1 through 41 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

43. Plaintiff was the subject of workplace discrimination through 

continued and ongoing adverse working conditions and treatment by Defendant 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 7 of 14
8

because of her gender, sex, sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation in 

violation of the Title VII.

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

the future as a result of Defendant’s actions.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Title VII - Hostile Work Environment)

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

paragraphs 1 through 41 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

46. Plaintiff was the subject of workplace harassment through continued 

and ongoing adverse working conditions and treatment by Defendant which 

created a hostile working environment because of her gender in violation of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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

the future as a result of Defendant’s actions.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(ADA-Disability Discrimination)

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

paragraph 1 through 41 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 8 of 14
9

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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. 

52. 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. 

53. 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 9 of 14
10

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

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

54. 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. 

55. 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.

56. 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. 

57. 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-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 10 of 14
11

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(ADA-Disability Retaliation)

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

paragraph 1 through 41 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

59. This is an action to remedy retaliation 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.

60. 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.

61. 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. 

62. 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. 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 11 of 14
12

63. 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.

64. 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. 

65. 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.

66. 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. 

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 12 of 14
13

67. 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.

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 and Title VII;

b) Enjoining and permanently restraining those violations of the ADA, 

ADAA and Title VII; 

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;

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 13 of 14
14

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, 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September ___, 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

Case 3:20-cv-05852-MCR-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/28/20 Page 14 of 14