1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ERIKA LINNAN,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

COX COMMUNICATIONS GULF COAST LLC,

DEFENDANT.

__________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ERIKA LINNAN, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Linnan”), by and through her undersigned attorney, sues the defendant, COX 

COMMUNICATIONS GULF COAST, LLC., (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Defendant” or “Cox”), alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action to remedy discrimination on the basis of disability 

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

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

12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAA),

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

Statutes.

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

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 18
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. 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 dual filed a 

Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations 

(“FCHR” No.: 201921655) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC” No.: 15D202000174) on September 17, 2019. On May 13, 

2020, more than 180 days since Plaintiff’s charge was filed, 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 August 21, 2020. 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 18
3

PARTIES

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

Okaloosa County and who resides in Crestview, Florida. She was employed by

Defendant from June 2011, until August 25, 2019. 

8. Defendant, Cox Communication (“Cox”), is a communications and 

entertainment company that provides internet, telephone, and home security 

services to residential customers across the United States. 

9. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the ADA, ADAA, 

and the Florida Civil Rights Act as it employs in excess of twenty (15) employees. 

FACTS

10. Plaintiff is a thirty-seven (37) year old Caucasian female.

11. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the ADA, ADAA, 

and the Florida Civil Rights Act as it employs in excess of twenty (15) employees.

12. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant, on or about June 8, 

2011, as an Inbound Sales Rep I in Defendant’s Call Center. 

13. Plaintiff was promoted to Supervisor of Inbound Sales on 

September 28, 2013. 

14. On April 12, 2014, Plaintiff transferred to a role in Cox Business 

where she was an Inside Sales Rep. 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 18
4

15. On March 28, 2015, Plaintiff was promoted to a Retail Store 

Manger II (“SMII”), over the Pensacola, Bayou Blvd. store. 

16. The SMII role is responsible for managing all store operations for 

two Cox Owned Retail Stores including a team of sales and sales support 

employees. This role pro-actively monitors store revenues, store operational 

17. Within about a year Plaintiff was moved to cover 3 retail stores, 

West Pensacola, Crestview, and Destin. 

18. Plaintiff was advised by both Christine “Chris” Six (Regional 

Manager) and Brian Jones that the West Pensacola and Destin stores were doing so 

poorly they were on the list as possible stores to be closed. 

19. Plaintiff was able to get the stores and the teams to produce and to

have the stores removed from closure list. 

20. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, she performed the 

duties and responsibilities of a SMII in a satisfactory manner. Throughout 

Plaintiff’s time as a Retail Store manager for Cox, she was given a number of 

awards, including, Winner's Circle, Torch Award, Homerun Award, NPS, and 

Homelife Champion to name a few. 

21. On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff suffered a medical emergency while at 

work that required her to be transported by ambulance to a local hospital. 

22. Pseudotumor cerebri occurs when the pressure inside a persons skull 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 18
5

(intracranial pressure) increases for no obvious reason. It's also called idiopathic 

intracranial hypertension.

23. Pseudotumor cerebri symptoms mimic those of a brain tumor and 

often include: severe headaches that might originate behind your eyes; a

whooshing sound in your head that pulses with your heartbeat; nausea, vomiting or 

dizziness; vision loss; brief episodes of blindness, lasting a few seconds and 

affecting one or both eyes; difficulty seeing to the side; double vision; seeing light 

flashes; neck, shoulder or back pain. 

24. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s disability, when she was taken 

to the hospital March 15, 2019.

A. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s disability.

B. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(i) she had a physical impairment that substantially limited 

one or more major life activities: Plaintiff suffered from 

mobility, vision, fatigue;

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

and treatment of her physical disabilities. 

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

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

as having such impairments.

19. Plaintiff’s disabilities substantially affected one or more major life 

activity such as concentration and mobility. 

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

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 5 of 18
6

position as a SMII and could have done so with or without an accommodation had 

Defendant allowed her to return to her position as a SMII. 

21. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff was denied light duty work after 

notifying Defendant of her light duty restrictions and was placed on FMLA leave. 

22. Plaintiff could perform the duties necessary for her position other 

than slight lifting restrictions instructed by her physician. 

23. On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a revised return to work 

document, with the only restriction being that she could not perform heavy lifting.

24. Again, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s request to return to work and 

refused to grant her, a SMII, the reasonable accommodation of restricted heavy 

lifting. 

25. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff returned to work. 

26. Upon Plaintiff’s arrival back to work, she immediately started to 

receive retaliatory threats and was notified by her co-workers that while she was 

out on medical leave Ms. Six came into the store offices the last week of June to 

inform everyone that Plaintiff was no longer the store manager.

27. Prior to Plaintiff returning to work, she was never formally 

informed that she was not the store manager. 

28. The same week that Plaintiff returned to work, she was placed on 

an employee corrective action plan. 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 6 of 18
7

29. Ms. Six then informed employees and team members that if 

Plaintiff were to come into the store to be nice to her but that she was not allowed 

in the back. Ms. Six also told the staff that if Plaintiff were to come back it would 

not be in the position of store manager for Crestview and Destin store locations. 

Ms. Six also told two staff members to clean out Plaintiff’s office.

30. Ms. Six further informed these employees and team members that

Plaintiff was not her choice, that she inherited her and just needed enough 

complaints to get her out, so Ms. Six required that if any team members had any 

kind of issue with Plaintiff that they were to immediately file a complaint against 

her. 

31. Ms. Six also discussed Plaintiff personal medical information with 

these employees and team members and informed them that Plaintiff was not fit to 

return to work and was being investigated for falsification of medical records and 

releases to return to work.

32. Ms. Six’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions towards Plaintiff 

resulted in a toxic working environment wherein Plaintiff’s ability to perform her 

duties and responsibilities were being directly undermined by Ms. Six actions. 

33. Plaintiff reported Ms. Six’s actions to Defendant’s HR department 

and asked for help and support against the retaliatory and hostile work 

environment.

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 7 of 18
8

34. Plaintiff’s complaints went unanswered by HR and thus MS. Six’s 

treatment of Plaintiff continued with more false accusations and complaints with 

the intent to terminate Plaintiff or make her quit.

35. On August 11, 2019, due to the continued workplace 

discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff was forced to resign from her 

position as a SMII with Defendant.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS (ADAA))

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

paragraph 1 through 35 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

disability, perceived or otherwise, 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.

38. 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 8 of 18
9

39. 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. 

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

for the treatment of Plaintiff that lead to her resignation, is entirely pretextual for 

Defendant’s retaliation and discrimination against her for engaging in a protective 

activity and for any actual or perceived disability. 

41. 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 

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

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

42. 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 discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

43. As a result of the wrongful and unlawful retaliatory actions that 

lead to her discharge from Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff has been 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 9 of 18
10

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.

44. 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. 

45. 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.

SECOND 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))

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

in paragraph 1 through 35 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

disability, perceived or otherwise, 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.

48. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 10 of 18
11

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.

49. 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. 

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

for the treatment of Plaintiff that lead to her resignation, is entirely pretextual for 

Defendant’s retaliation and discrimination against her for engaging in a protective 

activity and for any actual or perceived disability. 

51. 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 

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

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

52. 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-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 11 of 18
12

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

Defendant’s employment. 

53. As a result of the 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.

54. 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. 

55. 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)

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

contained in paragraph 1 through 35 of this complaint with the same force and 

effect as if set forth herein.

57. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her

disability, perceived or otherwise, in the terms, conditions, and privileges of 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 12 of 18
13

Plaintiff’s denied employment in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, 

as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., Florida Statutes. 

58. 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.

59. 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. 

60. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business 

justification for the treatment of Plaintiff that lead to her resignation, is entirely 

pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and discrimination against her for engaging 

in a protective activity and for any actual or perceived disability. 

61. 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. 

62. 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-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 13 of 18
14

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

Defendant’s employment. 

63. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful and unlawful discriminatory 

acts against Plaintiff 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.

64. 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. 

65. 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)

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

contained in paragraph 1 through 35 of this complaint with the same force and 

effect as if set forth herein.

67. This is an action to remedy retaliation by the Defendant in 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 14 of 18
15

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

Florida Statutes.

68. 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.

69. 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. 

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

for the treatment of Plaintiff that lead to her resignation, is entirely pretextual for 

Defendant’s retaliation against her for engaging in a protective activity and for any 

actual or perceived disability. 

71. 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 ADAA.

72. 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 15 of 18
16

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

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

Defendant’s employment. 

73. As a result of the 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.

74. 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. 

75. 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: 

a. Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein are violation of 

the ADA, ADAA and Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA);

Case 3:20-cv-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 16 of 18
17

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

ADAA and Florida Civil Rights Act (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 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.

i. Awarding Plaintiff Front Pay in lieu of reinstatement;

ii. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

iii. Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages; 

iv. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action together with a 

reasonable attorney’s fees; and,

e. 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-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 17 of 18
18

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 11, 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-05938-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/11/20 Page 18 of 18