UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JUAN BAYOLO, CASE NO. 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF

Plaintiff,

v.

MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC.

f/k/a MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JUAN BAYOLO, hereby sues Defendant, MHM HEALTH 

PROFESSIONALS, LLC. f/k/a MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC., and 

alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for whistleblower retaliation brought pursuant to 

§448.102, Fla.Stats., and for discrimination based on an actual or perceived disability 

and/or record of impairment, for discrimination based on national origin, and for 

retaliation, brought pursuant to Chapter 760, Fla.Stats. 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 27
2

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

fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), exclusive of costs and interest and was removed 

to this Court by the Defendant.

PARTIES

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, JUAN BAYOLO, has been a 

resident of Florida and a licensed physician, and was employed by Defendant. 

Plaintiff is a member of protected classes due to his actual or perceived disability 

and/or record of impairment, due to his national origin, due to his having reported 

violations of laws, rules and/or regulations and having been retaliated against 

thereafter, and due to his having reported adverse employment actions and having 

been retaliated against thereafter.

4. Defendant, MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC. f/k/a MHM 

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC., is a private for-profit health care provider that

specializes in providing health care services in jail and prison settings that was 

conducting business in the state of Florida, at all times pertinent hereto. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

5. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been satisfied or 

waived.

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 27
3

GENERAL FACTS

6. Plaintiff, a physician of Cuban ancestry who suffers from attention 

deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), began in Defendant’s employ on May 22,

2016, and at the time of his wrongful termination, October 20, 2017, held the 

position of site medical director/chief health officer of the Northwest Florida 

Reception Center (“NFRC”), a location where inmates are housed by the DOC, 

located at 4455 Sam Mitchell Drive, Chipley, Florida 32428.

7. Plaintiff’s ADHD condition, which was at all pertinent times known to 

Defendant, impacts his major life activity of working. More specifically, Plaintiff has 

been prescribed medication to control his anxiety and mental state, and even when 

taking such medication, when things in his environment become less orderly, less 

systematic or less organized, Plaintiff becomes anxious, even overwhelmed, a 

reaction sometimes bordering on a panic attack. This reaction requires Plaintiff, with 

the assistance of those with whom he is working, to halt his task for a moment, 

metaphorically step back for a moment, reorient himself, and start his task anew.

8. Plaintiff was at all pertinent times qualified to perform the essential 

functions of his position, with or without accommodations for his condition.

9. As stated above, one or more contacts were in place between the DOC 

and Defendant pursuant to which Defendant managed the NFRC, which contract or 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 27
4

contracts are not in Plaintiff’s possession. Defendant hired personnel, including 

Plaintiff, in furtherance of its obligations under such contract or contracts.

10. Despite Plaintiff’s stellar performance during his employment by

Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment due to his national origin, 

gender, and due to his actual or perceived disability and/or record of impairment. 

Moreover, Plaintiff was subject to retaliation after he reported discrimination, and 

after he reported Defendant’s actual or suspected violations of laws, rules and/or

regulations.

11. The mistreatment came at the hands of, specifically but not limited to,

Tara Johnson, a health service administrator; f/n/u Kent, a nurse; f/n/u Harrel, a 

nurse; and f/n/u White, also a nurse.

12. Other employees have been subjected to similar discrimination. For 

example, male employees similarly targeted based on their gender have included but 

have not been limited to Dr. G Lanel, Patrick Parker, John Triglown and Dr. Charles 

Matthews. Although other Hispanics were mistreated, Plaintiff was the only of 

Cuban descent and the only Hispanic physician, and was singled out with offensive 

comments on this basis. Plaintiff was made to feel as though he were less of a 

person due to his impairments. And Plaintiff was chastised for reporting the 

mistreatment as if reporting Defendant’s violations were more of a crime than the 

violations themselves.

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 27
5

13. Generally, regarding Plaintiff’s national origin claim, he was repeatedly 

subject to disparate and discriminatory treatment by way of the use of profanity

directed at him and spoken about him, and discriminatory national origin statements. 

Plaintiff was the only Hispanic physician at the main unit of NFRC. The Health 

Services Administrator, Tara Johnson, who exercised authority over Plaintiff, wrote 

to Plaintiff and told him that she did not care about his culture. Johnson also told at 

least one nurse prior to Plaintiff being fired that she could not wait to get rid of that 

“spic” referring to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was also treated poorly by other employees 

supervised by Tara Johnson, who lead them by example in the way that she treated 

Plaintiff. There was a group of nurses who were working to get rid of a number of 

Hispanic workers and continued to falsely accused him of being rude, undermined 

his authority by stating that he was being rude when he was simply trying to do his 

job, making false accusations against him and refusing to take directions from 

Plaintiff. He was then falsely accused of putting his hands on a nurse and yelled at 

when he directed nurses to do their jobs. Johnson and her nurses also hid written 

documentation of Plaintiff’s productivity which adversely affected his employment 

with Defendant. At least one or more of the nurses under Johnson directed an inmate 

to report a prison rape against Plaintiff. 

14. Generally, regarding his disability discrimination claim, the nurses 

working with Plaintiff teased and mocked Plaintiff for his use of medications related 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 27
6

to his disability. He was asked by the nurses who worked under Tara Johnson 

whether he forgot to take his medications that day and comments were made about 

what medications he was on. False allegations were made against and about Plaintiff 

regarding not working with the nurses and being condescending to them. He also 

received an unwarranted reprimand for inappropriate behavior in the workplace and 

low productivity, discussed below, after he learned that while he was on vacation, six 

months of his work was missing and/or had been destroyed. Plaintiff was never 

given a chance to refute these allegations against him. Had he been given that 

opportunity, Plaintiff would have shown that he was actually exceeding expectations

and did not do what he was accused of doing. He was then falsely accused of putting 

his hands on a nurse and yelled at when he directed nurses to do their jobs. Johnson 

and her nurses also hid written documentation of Plaintiff’s productivity which 

adversely affected his employment with Defendant. At least one or more of the 

nurses under Johnson directed an inmate to report a prison rape against Plaintiff. 

15. Most of these nurses and other coworkers of Plaintiff who were working 

under Johnson would team up against Plaintiff such that he was made to feel like an 

outsider and as though he did not belong. They would regularly joke amongst 

themselves about Plaintiff in negative and harmful ways, almost as if they sought to 

provoke Plaintiff into acting out in some way to their conduct toward him which 

became unbearable. Nonetheless, Plaintiff found a way to carry himself in a 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 6 of 27
7

professional manner and continue doing his job the best he could for as long as he 

could.

16. On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff reported negligence and violations of 

law on behalf of Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff reported that Defendant assigned

Plaintiff new patients for evaluation without Plaintiff’s prior knowledge; and that it 

misclassified patients and failed to notify Plaintiff when rapes were reported by 

inmates, in violation of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), 34 

U.S.C. §30301, et seq. Plaintiff also reported actions by Defendant’s nursing staff 

constituting violations of Florida’s Nurse Practice Act, § 464.001, et seq., Fla.Stats., 

including without limitation Paragraphs (1)(j) and (n) of § 464.018, Fla.Stats.

17. Following his reporting, Defendant took no corrective action, and 

Plaintiff was targeted with retaliation and subject to increased hostility and 

heightened criticism. 

18. From Plaintiff’s hiring, Defendant has always been aware of his 

ADHD. Due to this condition, Plaintiff is prescribed daily medications. However, 

Plaintiff was repeatedly mocked by the nursing staff for his use of medications by, 

including without limitation, Kent, Harrel, and White. By way of example, 

employees of the Defendant’s nursing staff would regularly ask Plaintiff if he took 

his medication that day. Despite Plaintiff’s reporting to Defendant’s upper 

management regarding this discriminatory behavior, the mistreatment continued. 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 7 of 27
8

Furthermore, the nursing staff regularly showed a lack of respect and insubordination 

toward Plaintiff, who was their supervisor, by way of publicly questioning his 

medical opinion and directives. 

19. On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff wrote an email to John Lay reporting the 

continued mistreatment by the nursing staff. Plaintiff specifically informed Lay of 

the insubordination and lack of teamwork. Lay responded and set up a meeting with 

Plaintiff to discuss his concerns. However, following his conversation with Lay, the 

disparate treatment and insubordination continued. 

20. On December 15, 2016, Defendant notified Plaintiff that all of his 

records of productivity were lost and/or could not be found. Plaintiff immediately 

emailed Johnson and requested that she call him to discuss the loss of his records.

However, Plaintiff never received a call from Johnson to explain the situation. The

following day, Plaintiff began a pre-approved vacation.

21. During his vacation, Plaintiff worked via email. However, Plaintiff 

received hostile and condescending emails from Johnson. Upon his return from 

vacation, in or around January 2017, Plaintiff was issued a written “final warning” 

for profanity use, insufficient productivity in patient care, and a violation of 

Defendant’s code of conduct. Plaintiff responded by providing evidence to prove the 

allegations of insufficient productivity in patient care was contrived. He also told 

Johnson that he was not the only person who cussed but was the only one 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 8 of 27
9

disciplined. Johnson verbalized that the warning would remain effective for a period 

of only six (6) months, and her so stating was also witnessed by her secretary, f/n/u

Bush. Moreover, Johnson also verbalized that the reprimand was meant to be 

downgraded to a verbal warning. Nevertheless, Defendant refused to downgrade the 

reprimand to a verbal warning. In comparison, numerous similarly situated 

employees, including American-born and non-disabled employees Kent and Patty 

Reister, both females, used profanity on the job with no corrective action ever taken. 

Moreover, Plaintiff received no written or verbal warning prior to this “final 

warning.”

22. Thereafter, Defendant initiated an investigation into the claims against 

Plaintiff; however, in the course of such investigation Defendant refused to allow 

Plaintiff to provide his statement of events. 

23. On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff received an extremely hostile email 

from Johnson. Johnson stated in the email that Plaintiff was rude and disrespectful 

during a meeting on February 14, 2017. However, this was a contrived allegation, 

and witnesses who could contest the falsehoods including f/n/u Rudolph, 

Defendant’s director of nursing. Further, Johnson specifically stated in her email, “I 

don’t care what your culture is, it is not professional behavior.” Plaintiff had done 

nothing wrong.

24. Moreover, while Johnson informed Plaintiff within the email that the 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 9 of 27
10

content thereof was to stay between the two of them only, with repeated emphasis on 

such confidentiality, Plaintiff later discovered that Johnson had blind copied a third 

party on said email.

25. Plaintiff reported the continued disparate treatment on the basis of at 

least his national origin/race on several occasions to Defendant’s upper management 

with no corrective action taken. 

26. On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint regarding the 

workplace harassment, regarding his discriminatory treatment, and regarding 

Defendant’s continued violation of laws, rules and/or regulations without appropriate 

corrective action. By way of example, Plaintiff reported nurse Clarissa Cooper’s 

attempt to have Plaintiff use an illegal form for his work duties, which incident 

occurred on January 3, 2017. This was reported by Plaintiff in an email to 

supervisors Daniel Cherry, John Lay and Rhonda McAlpin. Moreover, Plaintiff 

requested that a formal investigation into his complaint be initiated. 

27. On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff received a letter indicating that the

investigation into his complaint was completed, and his complaints would be 

appropriately addressed. However, in a conversation with Sarah Brus, Johnson’s 

assistant, Plaintiff was made aware that no corrective action would be taken, and that 

Johnson’s mistreatment would therefore continue unabated.

28. Plaintiff’s complaints had remained ongoing for months despite their 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 10 of 27
11

clear ineffectiveness. Ultimately, in light of Defendant’s failure to take corrective 

action and being faced yet again with mistreatment in the form of an offensive slur 

based on Plaintiff’s national origin within an email Plaintiff received from Johnson, 

in March 2017 Plaintiff was compelled to take his complaints above the purview of 

his supervisors at NWFRC and make a formal complaint to Defendant’s HR and to 

file a formal charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

29. In or around May 2017, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with 

the EEOC regarding the continued disparate and discriminatory treatment based on 

race and other protected characteristics. 

30. On October 12, 2017, Plaintiff saw a patient for multiple complaints,

including but not limited to chest pain, testicular pain, and knee pain. During the 

visit, the patient informed that he had a bullet lodged in his thigh, and requested that 

it be removed. Plaintiff completed a thorough physical examination of the patient, 

ordered that one or more tests be performed, and set a meeting for the following day 

to discuss the results. 

31. The following day, on October 13, 2017, Plaintiff began his normal

morning routine. Shortly thereafter he received the results of tests administered to the

above-mentioned patient, and planned to discuss those results with the patient later 

that day, along with his plan of care to remove the bullet.

32. That morning, October 13, 207, after Plaintiff got to work and while he 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 11 of 27
12

was viewing a specimen through a microscope, he was approached from behind by 

Nurse Kent. Plaintiff immediately felt threatened and that her actions violated his 

personal space, particularly when she placed her breasts on his back and proceeded 

to ask Plaintiff what he was looking for and if he would show her. Plaintiff asked 

Kent to please respect his personal space and to step back, which immediately caused 

Kent to respond in a hostile or otherwise negative manner. As Plaintiff reported 

verbally to his supervisors at work that day and in writing days later by describing 

how this incident “was very uncomfortable for [Plaintiff] and at the time [Plaintiff] 

decided to continue with [his] day and properly address it later.” This was among 

the incidents and violations Plaintiff was never afforded the opportunity to fully 

present his statement of events up his chain of command as he was quickly 

terminated just days later on October 20, 2017.

33. Later that day, October 13, 2017, an employee of the nursing staff 

questioned if Plaintiff was feeling alright, to which Plaintiff responded no, as he had 

worked for forty (40) consecutive hours and also had dealt with a family emergency 

that same morning. However, Plaintiff verbalized that he was excited to see the

patient mentioned above when he came in. 

34. A member of the nursing staff subsequently informed Plaintiff that he 

would not be allowed to see the patient or perform any care on him. When Plaintiff 

questioned him, the nursing staff member responded that he had been present for 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 12 of 27
13

some or all of a meeting with Johnson that morning at which Johnson had stated that 

Plaintiff was not allowed to perform any care on said patient. Moreover, Johnson had 

stated in such meeting that she had spoken with the warden, and that he had directed 

that foreign body removal was not allowed. 

35. Being the institutional medical director (“IMD”), Plaintiff was surprised 

that Johnson did not approach him to address the situation, as Defendant’s policy and 

procedures stated that authority devolved upon the IMD to exercise his or her final 

clinical judgment concerning the delivery of medical care to patients. When Plaintiff 

asked the nurse if he knew when this decision was made, the nurse responded that it 

was only put in palace approximately fifteen (15) minutes earlier. 

36. Based on his knowledge that final decisionmaking authority regarding 

patient care was his, at the scheduled time Plaintiff began moving toward the 

location for the meeting with the patient; however, he was stopped by members of 

Defendant’s nursing staff. Despite Plaintiff informing those nursing staff members 

that Johnson’s directive was directly contrary to Defendant’s policies and 

procedures, they refused to allow Plaintiff to perform his duties. 

37. Thereafter, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Johnson, with f/n/u

Richards, an administrative assistant, as a witness. The door was left open, and

Johnson falsely stated both that she was unaware of any decision to refuse Plaintiff 

access to the patient and that she had just learned of it a few seconds earlier. Plaintiff 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 13 of 27
14

knew this to be a lie. Johnson then explained the reasoning behind the decision, such 

being that elective procedures are not permitted by Defendant. However, Plaintiff 

knew this to be false, as patients had been previously approved for elective 

procedures. Plaintiff subsequently reported to Johnson, in Lay’s presence, that she 

had violated Defendant’s policies and procedures; Lay responded that, “there is no 

policy, it is just common sense.”

38. Later that day, after Plaintiff had clocked out for the day, Johnson 

questioned if Plaintiff had finished his report--his report on the nursing staff member 

and on Vandermark, an advanced registered nurse practitioner (“ARNP”)--to which 

Plaintiff responded in the negative, and that he would complete his report over the 

weekend. Johnson responded that her boss needed the report, and then called her 

supervisor and informed via speaker phone that Plaintiff would comply with 

company policy and provide the report as soon as he was able to. Plaintiff responded 

to Johnson, with her supervisor still listening by phone, that he would need to consult 

with the legal department before turning in any report. 

39. Immediately after Plaintiff mentioned having to consult with the legal 

department, Johnson’s supervisor announced that Plaintiff was suspended pending 

further investigation. 

40. Prior to Plaintiff informing Johnson that he intended to seek legal 

counsel, Defendant had never mentioned any possible suspension. 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 14 of 27
15

41. On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant notifying 

him that he was terminated based on allegations of his unproductivity, that he used 

profanity in the workplace, and that he had been violent in the workplace. As stated 

above, female employees including Kent and Rister regularly used profanity with 

immunity and were certainly not fired for it. Additionally, Plaintiff was not 

unproductive but his records were stolen or hidden from him and he had not been 

violent in the workplace. These allegations were contrived.

42. These reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were clearly contrived by 

Defendant as an attempt to cover up the fact its actions against Plaintiff were actually 

motivated by the discriminatory practices of its decisionmaking employees and 

retaliation against Plaintiff for continuing to report these practices. 

43. In addition to the several complaints made by Plaintiff to his supervisors 

verbally and in writing throughout his employment with Defendant referenced in part 

above, Plaintiff also summarized these and several subsequent incidents of the 

mistreatment through his first EEOC charge filed in May 2017 which was referenced 

in his written incident report to Defendant dated October 13, 2017, wherein he 

referred to his earlier EEOC charge against Johnson for racial discrimination, 

supplemental EEOC technical assistance questionnaire and related documentation 

dated October 17, 2017, additional EEOC charges including that executed October 

17, 2017 and supplemented with further documentation just days later. Plaintiff 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 15 of 27
16

never hesitated to open himself to scrutiny by doing the right thing and reporting 

Defendant’s violations, and he did so even after the system repeatedly failed him and 

was wrongfully terminated on October 20, 2017 as a result.

44. Defendant did not terminate Plaintiff for any valid reason. Rather, 

Plaintiff was terminated because of his protected whistleblower activity in reporting 

violations of laws, rules and/or regulations, because of his national origin (Cuban), 

because of his actual or perceived disability and/or record of impairment and/or

because of his reporting of discrimination including without limitation by filing a 

charge of discrimination.

45. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent his interests in this 

cause and is obligated to pay a fee for his services. Defendant should be made to pay 

said fee, along with reasonable expenses incurred in connection with this action, 

under applicable law.

COUNT I-PRIVATE EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER 

RETALIATION

46. Paragraphs 1-6, 9-12, 15-17, 19-24, 26-28, 30-45 above are realleged 

incorporated.

47. This count sets forth a claim of private employee whistleblower 

retaliation, and is brought under §448.101 et seq., Fla.Stats.

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 16 of 27
17

48. As set forth in greater detail above, while in Defendant’s employ, 

Plaintiff objected to certain practices of Defendant that were in violation of laws, 

rules and/or regulations or that he reasonably and objectively believed were in 

violation of such laws, rules and/or regulations.

49. After Plaintiff objected, Defendant terminated him. 

50. Plaintiff was terminated because he disclosed one or more activities, 

policies and/or practices of Defendant that were in violation of one or more laws, 

rules and/or regulations or that he reasonably and objectively believed were in 

violation thereof, and Plaintiff brought such activities, policies and/or practices to the 

attention of a supervisor and/or to the attention of Defendant, and afforded 

Defendant a reasonable opportunity to correct such activities, policies and/or 

practices, and/or objected to and/or refused to participate in one or more activities, 

policies and/or practices of Defendant which were in violation of one or more laws, 

rule and/or regulations and/or that he reasonably and objectively believed were in 

violation thereof.

51. The disclosures made by Plaintiff are protected under §448.102, 

Fla.Stats.

52. As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff’s participation in the 

whistleblowing activities referenced above and Defendant’s retaliation, Plaintiff has 

been damaged, which damages include but are not limited to emotional pain and 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 17 of 27
18

suffering, lost wages, other tangible and intangible damages, and should be awarded 

all compensatory damages allowed by law. These damages occurred in the past, are 

occurring at present, and will likely continue into the future. Plaintiff is also entitled 

to equitable/injunctive relief under this count, as well as to an award of punitive 

damages.

COUNT II-NATIONAL ORIGIN-BASED DISCRIMINATION 

53. Paragraphs 1-6, 9-13, 15, 19-21, 23-29, 39-45 above are realleged and 

incorporated. 

54. This count sets forth a claim for discrimination based upon national 

origin, brought under Chapter 760, Fla.Stats.

55. Plaintiff has been the victim of discrimination on the basis of his

national origin in that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees of 

Defendant who were born and raised in the United States, and has been subjected to 

hostility and poor treatment on the basis, at least in part, of his national origin. 

56. Defendant is liable for the differential treatment and hostility toward 

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 took no action at 

all to prevent the abuses to Plaintiff. Furthermore, Defendant knowingly condoned 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 18 of 27
19

and/or ratified the differential treatment of Plaintiff as more fully set forth above 

because it allowed the differential treatment and participated in same. 

57. Defendant’s known allowance and ratification of these actions and 

inactions actions created, perpetuated and facilitated an abusive and offensive work 

environment within the meaning of the statutes referenced above. 

58. In essence, the actions of agents of Defendant, which were each 

condoned and/or ratified by Defendant, were based on Plaintiff’s national origin and 

in violation of the laws set forth herein. The discrimination complained of herein 

affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s continued employment by

Defendant. The events set forth herein led, at least in part, to Plaintiff’s termination 

on contrived allegations. 

59. Defendant’s acts and omissions constituted intentional discrimination 

and unlawful employment practices based upon national origin in violation of 

Chapter 760, Fla.Stats.

60. 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 occurring at present, and will likely continue into the future. Plaintiff is 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 19 of 27
20

entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under this count, as well as to an award of 

punitive damages.

COUNT III-DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION 

61. Paragraphs 1-15, 18, 20-21, 30-31, 33, 41-45 above are re alleged and 

incorporated.

62. This count sets forth a claim for disability/perceived disability-based

discrimination, brought under Chapter 760, Fla.Stats.

63. Plaintiff has been the victim of discrimination on the basis of his 

disability or perceived disability. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment by

Defendant, he was treated differently than similarly situated non-disabled/perceivedas-disabled employees.

64. Defendant is liable for the differential treatment and its refusal to 

accommodate Plaintiff, which adversely affected the terms and conditions of 

Plaintiff’s employment by Defendant. Defendant 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 took no action at all to prevent the abuses to Plaintiff.

65. In essence, the actions of agents of Defendant, which were each 

condoned and/or ratified by Defendant, were disability/perceived disability-based 

and in violation of the laws set forth herein.

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 20 of 27
21

66. The discrimination complained of herein affected terms, conditions, 

and privileges of Plaintiff’s continued employment by Defendant. The events set 

forth herein led, at least in part, to Plaintiff’s termination.

67. Defendant's acts and omissions constituted intentional discrimination 

and unlawful employment practices based upon Plaintiff’s actual or perceived 

disability, or upon his record of having an impairment.

68. 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 occurring at present, and will likely continue into the future. Plaintiff is also 

entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under this count, along with an award of 

punitive damages.

COUNT IV-RETALIATION

69. Paragraphs 1-7, 9-15, 18-36, 39-45 above are re-alleged and 

incorporated.

70. This count sets forth a claim for unlawful retaliation after Plaintiff 

reported unlawful employment practices adversely affecting him under Chapter 760, 

Fla.Stats.

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 21 of 27
22

71. The foregoing unlawful actions by Defendant were purposeful.

72. Plaintiff voiced opposition to unlawful employment practices during his

employment by Defendant and was the victim of retaliation thereafter, as related in 

part above. The events set forth herein led, at least in part, to Plaintiff’s termination.

73. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class because he reported unlawful 

employment practices and was the victim of retaliation thereafter. There was a causal 

connection between the reporting of the unlawful employment practices and the 

adverse employment actions taken thereafter.

74. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing unlawful acts and 

omissions, Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, expense, loss of 

benefits, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to reputation, illness, lost wages, loss 

of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and other tangible and intangible damages. 

These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and will likely 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under this 

count, as well as to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT V-HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

75. Paragraphs 1-7. 9-21, 23-32, 36-40, 42-45 above are re-alleged and 

incorporated.

76. This count sets forth a claim for hostile work environment based on 

Plaintiff’s national origin and actual or perceived disability under Chapter 760, 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 22 of 27
23

Fla.Stats.

77. Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work environment consisting of, 

for example, targeted mistreatment in the form of slurs based on his Cuban heritage, 

berating and belittlement by female coworkers that regularly went behind his back to 

contrive false allegations against him which they knew to be particularly damaging 

to Plaintiff’s employment in that they affected his ability to do his job, and the 

mocking of his actual or perceived disability in a manner of such severity to actually 

exacerbate the symptoms of his impairments.

78. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment by Defendant, he was

subjected to this mistreatment based on his disability and national origin. These 

actions and events were severe and pervasive and adversely affected Plaintiff’s 

ability to perform his job. 

79. The foregoing unlawful actions by Defendant were purposeful. The 

hostility complained of herein affected terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

continued employment by Defendant.

80. Defendant’s mistreatment of Plaintiff was severe, pervasive and affected 

Plaintiff’s ability to fulfill his job duties. Defendant’s actions and inactions against 

Plaintiff led, at least in part, to Plaintiff’s termination.

81. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing unlawful acts and 

omissions, Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, expense, loss of 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 23 of 27
24

benefits, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to reputation, illness, lost wages, loss 

of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and other tangible and intangible damages. 

These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and will likely 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under this 

count, as well as to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT VI

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

81. Paragraphs 1-6, 9-15, 19-21, 23-27, 29, 32, 39-45 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

82. This is an action against Defendant for discrimination based upon 

gender brought under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 

83. Plaintiff has been the victim of discrimination on the basis of his race in 

that he was treated differently than similarly situated white employees of Defendant 

and has been subject to poor treatment on the basis, at least in part, because of his 

gender.

84. Defendant is liable for the differential treatment 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 took no action at all to prevent 

the abuses to Plaintiff. 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 24 of 27
25

85. Furthermore, Defendant knowingly condoned and ratified the 

differential treatment of Plaintiff as more fully set forth above because it allowed the 

differential treatment and participated in same. 

86. In essence, the actions of agents of Defendant, which were each 

condoned and ratified by Defendant, were of a gender-based nature and in violation 

of the laws set forth herein. 

87. The discrimination complained of herein affected a term, condition, or 

privilege of Plaintiff's continued employment with Defendant. 

88. The events set forth herein led, at least in part, to the adverse action 

taken against Plaintiff including without limitation his termination. 

89. Defendant's conduct and omissions constitutes intentional 

discrimination and unlawful employment practices based upon gender in violation of 

Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.

90. 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.

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 25 of 27
26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

(a) that process issue and this court take jurisdiction over this cause;

(b) that this Court enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff 

awarding 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) that this court enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff 

awarding all legally-available general and compensatory 

damages, including damages for economic loss, to Plaintiff from 

Defendant for Defendant’s violations of law enumerated herein;

(d) that this court enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff

permanently enjoining Defendant from future violations of law 

enumerated herein; 

(e) that this court enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff

awarding Plaintiff costs and attorney’s fees as allowed by law;

(f) that this court enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff 

awarding Plaintiff interest and punitive damages where 

appropriate; and 

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 26 of 27
27

(g) that this court grant such other and further relief as is just and 

proper under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

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

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marie A. Mattox

Marie A. Mattox [FBN 0739685] 

MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A.

203 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Telephone: (850) 383-4800

Facsimile: (850) 383-4801

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 

furnished to all counsel of record by CM/ECF this 23rd day of December, 2019.

/s/ Marie A. Mattox

Marie A. Mattox

Case 5:19-cv-00403-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/23/19 Page 27 of 27