UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARK PETERS and KAREN 

WISE, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COSCO & ASSOCIATES, INC,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO.: 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, MARK PETERS and KAREN WISE (“Plaintiffs”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, 

COSCO & ASSOCIATES, INC, (“Defendant”) and in support thereof states as 

follows:

JURIDISCTION AND VENUE

1. This suit is brought against Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”).

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by:

a. 42 U.S.C. § 2000

b. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and

c. 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 14
2

3. Venue is proper for the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Florida because:

a. Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendant took place in the 

Northern District of Florida. 

b. The illegal conduct complained of and the resultant injury 

occurred within the judicial district in and for the Northern District of Florida.

c. Additionally, venue lies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (c), because the acts that give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims 

occurred within the Northern District of Florida, and because Defendant is subject 

to personal jurisdiction there due to employing Plaintiffs in the Northern District of 

Florida. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

4. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, 

Plaintiffs individually filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission and Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) 

alleging violations of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) by 

Defendant.

5. On June 4, 2020, the FCHR issued Plaintiffs a letter of Determination 

finding No Reasonable Cause cause to believe that the FCRA was violated.

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 14
3

6. This Complaint is being filed within ninety (90) days of the date in 

which Plaintiffs received their Notice of Determination, and has been filed more 

than one-hundred and eighty (180) days after the Charge of Discrimination was 

filed with the EEOC and FCHR. 

7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been 

fulfilled. 

PARTIES

8. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, who during all material 

times resided in Valparaiso and Crestview, Florida, Okaloosa County, Florida 

located in the Northern District of Florida, and currently resides in Okaloosa 

County, Florida located in the Northern District of Florida.

9. COSCO & ASSOCIATES, INC is a Florida for Profit Corporation

listing its mailing address as 215 E. James Lee Blvd., Cosco Bldg, Crestview, 

Florida 32539 located in Okaloosa County, Florida. See Florida’s Division of 

Corporation website at www.Sunbiz.org Therefore, venue is proper in this Court.

10. According to Defendant’s website, Defendant provides design, 

construction and financing services to ministries throughout the United States 

wishing to construct churches. See www.ChurchDesign.com

11. According to Defendant’s website, Defendant is “dedicated to 

honoring God in all we say and do...”. Id 

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 14
4

12. Defendant is a person within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e(a).

13. Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

14. Defendant is engaged in an “industry affecting commerce” within the 

meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).

15. At all times material to this action, Defendant engaged in unlawful 

religious discriminatory practices against Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII.

16. At all times material to this action, Defendant engaged in unlawful 

sex/gender harassment against KAREN WISE in violation of Title VII.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

17. Plaintiff, Mark Peters was employed by Defendant as Production 

Manager beginning in approximately November 2004.

18. Plaintiff, Karen Wise was employed by Defendant as a Project 

Accountant beginning in approximately February 2016.

19. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were both married 

individuals.1

20. Despite the above, both Plaintiffs were seeking to file for divorce 

from their respective spouses and pursue a relationship together. 

 1 For clarity, Plaintiffs were not married to each other.

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 14
5

21. On approximately August 26, 2019, Mark Peters had a private 

conversation with a co-worker expressing his intention to file for divorce from his 

wife.

22. Two days later, on August 28, 2019, Tim Songster (“Mr. Songster”), 

President of Cosco & Associates, Inc., instructed Mark Peters to meet with him in 

his office.

23. During this meeting, Mr. Songster and three other employees 

confronted Mr. Peters about his intention to file for divorce from his wife.

24. Mr. Songster and the three other employees shared religious scripture 

in an effort to discourage and deter Mr. Peters from seeking a divorce from his 

wife.

25. During this meeting, Mr. Songster was made aware of Mr. Peters’ and 

Mrs. Wise’s growing relationship. 

26. Mr. Songster and the three other employees proceeded to give Mr. 

Peters tasks that were rooted in religious beliefs such as seeking religious marriage 

counseling.

27. Mr. Peters was specifically told to avoid non-religious marriage 

counseling.

28. Further, Mr. Peters was instructed not to communicate with Plaintiff, 

Karen Wise for thirty (30) days.

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 14
6

29. Finally, Mr. Peters was instructed to take thirty (30) days of paid leave 

in an effort to seek religious counseling, pray, and reconsider his decision to file 

for divorce.

30. During Mr. Peter’s thirty (30) days of paid leave, Mr. Peters received 

several text messages from Defendant sharing religious scripture relating to the 

sanctity of marriage and family.

31. On approximately September 30, 2019, Mr. Peters returned to work 

from his thirty (30) days of paid leave and was questioned by Defendant regarding 

his status on filing for divorce.

32. In response, Mr. Peters made clear that he was no longer sharing 

personal decisions with co-workers and that his decision to file for divorce had not 

changed.

33. On October 4, 2019, Defendant required Mark Peters to sign an 

updated policy to the company handbook regarding non-fraternization. See 

attached Exhibit A.

34. On October 7, 2019, Defendant required Karen Wise to sign a newly 

implemented policy to the company handbook regarding non-fraternization. See 

attached Exhibit B.

35. Defendant’s newly implemented non-fraternization policy specifically 

allows for intra-office relationships so long as;

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 14
7

a. The employees engaged in the romantic or dating relationship 

notify Tim Songster as soon as the relationship commences; and

b. The employees engaged in the romantic or dating relationship 

acknowledge they may be asked to sign a document acknowledging 

that their relationship is entirely consensual and free from coercion 

and harassment.

c. The employees engaged in the romantic or dating relationship 

acknowledge that if the relationship is between a more senior and 

more junior employee, the more senior employee may be subject to 

demotion to remove any potential conflict of interest.

Id

36. Despite signing the non-fraternization policy, both Mr. Peters and 

Mrs. Wise were terminated less than a week later on October 10, 2019.

37. Both Mr. Peters and Mrs. Wise were provided letters outlining the 

basis for their termination. See attached Exhibit C.

38. Defendant provides the basis for Mr. Peters’ and Mrs. Wise’s 

termination stating in part;

“The decision is based primarily on concerns we have related 

to your judgment... While we have received no complaints 

regarding this relationship, the Company has made the decision 

that it will not allow such a relationship to continue and that the 

decision to engage in such a relationship demonstrates poor 

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 14
8

judgment inconsistent with the Company’s core values and 

goals.”

Id. Emphasis added

39. Plaintiffs, Mr. Peters and Mrs. Wise, were terminated due to conflicts 

with Defendant’s religious beliefs and values by;

a. Seeking a dissolution of marriage from their respective 

spouses; and

b. Engaging in an extramarital relationship together.

40. Additionally, throughout Karen Wise’s employment, Mr. Songster 

engaged in a pattern of sexually harassing behavior directed at Mrs. Wise.

41. Specifically, numerous times during Mrs. Wise’s employment, Mr.

Songster questioned Mrs. Wise on how she was hired at Cosco & Associates, Inc. 

stating that he only hired old, fat, and ugly women so that they will not be a 

distraction towards him or any other men employed at the company.

42. On another occasion, Mr. Songster approached Mrs. Wise stating he 

had a dream about her while his wife was asleep next to him. He proceeded to 

explain that he believed Mrs. Wise was “wild” and if Mrs. Wise ever approached 

him for sex he would close his office door, regardless of business hours, and lay 

Mrs. Wise across his office table to have sex with her.

43. On more than one occasion, Mrs. Wise had to return to work after 

business hours to grab items she forgot. Due to feeling uncomfortable being alone 

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 14
9

with Mr. Songster, Mrs. Wise brought her adult son with her for protection from 

Mr. Songster. Mr. Songster later informed Mrs. Wise that she was lucky she was 

not alone otherwise they would have engaged in sexual favors. 

44. In approximately November 2018, Mr. Songster explained to Mrs. 

Wise that if she accompanied him on a private flight for a dedication ceremony in 

Pennsylvania, he and Mrs. Wise could join the “Mile High Club”.2

45. The hostile advances by Mr. Songster directed towards Ms. Wise were 

unwelcomed.

46. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were 

intentional. 

47. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were 

willful. 

APPLICABLE STATUTES

48. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil 

Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., provides in pertinent part as 

follows;

Employer practices. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer-

(1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, 

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such 

individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

 2 The “Mile High Club” generally refers to engaging in sex while on an airplane.

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 14
10

Emphasis added.

COUNT I

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION IN 

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

(MARK PETERS)

49. Plaintiff, Mark Peters, re-alleges and adopts paragraph 1 – 48 as 

though set forth fully herein.

50. Defendant’s acts were intentional, with malice, and in violation of Mr. 

Peter’s protected civil rights under Title VII.

51. Plaintiff, Mark Peters, has been damaged and continues to be 

damaged by Defendant’s illegal conduct and discriminatory actions based on 

religion.

52. The above discrimination was done by Defendant with a reckless 

disregard for Mark Peters’ rights under federal laws. 

53. As a direct and proximate result of the discrimination described 

above, Mark Peters has suffered and continues to suffer loss of employment, loss 

of income, loss of other employment benefits and has suffered and continues to 

suffer mental anguish, distress, humiliation, great expense and loss of enjoyment of 

life.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark Peters, prays for a trial by jury and all legal 

and equitable relief allowed by law including:

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 14
11

a. Back pay and benefits; 

b. Interest on back pay and benefits; 

c. Front pay and benefits and/or lost earning capacity; 

d. Compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering;

e. Injunctive relief; 

f. Prejudgment interest; 

g. Costs and attorney’s fees; and

h. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT II

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION IN 

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

(KAREN WISE) 

54. Plaintiff, Karen Wise, re-alleges and adopts paragraph 1 – 48 as 

though set forth fully herein.

55. Defendant’s acts were intentional, with malice, and in violation of 

Karen Wise’s protected civil rights under Title VII.

56. Plaintiff, Karen Wise, has been damaged and continues to be damaged 

by Defendant’s illegal conduct and discriminatory actions based on religion.

57. The above discrimination was done by Defendant with a reckless 

disregard for Karen Wise’s rights under federal laws. 

58. As a direct and proximate result of the discrimination described 

above, Karen Wise has suffered and continues to suffer loss of employment, loss of 

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 14
12

income, loss of other employment benefits and has suffered and continues to suffer 

mental anguish, distress, humiliation, great expense and loss of enjoyment of life. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Wise, prays for a trial by jury and all legal 

and equitable relief allowed by law including:

a. Back pay and benefits; 

b. Interest on back pay and benefits; 

c. Front pay and benefits and/or lost earning capacity; 

d. Compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering;

e. Injunctive relief; 

f. Prejudgment interest; 

g. Costs and attorney’s fees; and

h. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT III

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED ON SEX IN 

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

(KAREN WISE) 

59. Plaintiff, Karen Wise, re-alleges and adopts paragraph 1 – 48 as 

though set forth fully herein.

60. Defendant’s acts were intentional, with malice, and in violation of 

Karen Wise’s protected civil rights under Title VII.

61. Plaintiff, Karen Wise, has been damaged and continues to be damaged 

by Defendant’s illegal conduct and hostile actions based on sex.

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 14
13

62. The above harassment was done by Defendant with a reckless 

disregard for Karen Wise’s rights under federal laws.

63. The above harassment was serve or pervasive enough to change the 

conditions of employment and create and abusive environment. 

64. As a direct and proximate result of the harassment described above, 

Karen Wise has suffered and continues to suffer loss of employment, loss of 

income, loss of other employment benefits and has suffered and continues to suffer 

mental anguish, distress, humiliation, great expense and loss of enjoyment of life. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Karen Wise, prays for a trial by jury and all legal 

and equitable relief allowed by law including:

a. Back pay and benefits; 

b. Interest on back pay and benefits; 

c. Front pay and benefits and/or lost earning capacity; 

d. Compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering;

e. Injunctive relief; 

f. Prejudgment interest; 

g. Costs and attorney’s fees; and

h. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to amend her Complaint to seek

punitive damages against Defendant

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 14
14

DATED this 1st day of September 2020.

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

/s/ Matthew R. Gunter_____

MATTHEW R. GUNTER, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No. 0077459

Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 

20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor

P.O. Box 4979

Orlando, FL 32802-4979

Tel.: (407) 236-0946

Fax: (407) 867-4791

Email: MGunter@forthepeople.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:20-cv-05785-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 14 of 14