1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOSEPH B. SCHANEVILLE, Case No. 

___________________________

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.

Defendant

/

COMPLAINT

Joseph B. Schaneville sues Publix Super Markets, Inc. and alleges:

NATURE OF PROCEEDING

1. This is an action for damages under the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC § 12101 et seq.

PARTIES

2. Joseph B. Schaneville is a resident of and domiciled in 

Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 11
2

3. Publix Super Markets, Inc. (“Publix”) is a Florida 

corporation, with its principal place of business in Lakeland, Florida.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as Mr. Schaneville seeks damages pursuant 

to federal law under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621. This court also has 

jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, due to the diverse 

citizenship of the Plaintiff and Defendant and because the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. 

5. Venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1)

because a Publix operates several grocery stores in this District and is, 

therefore, deemed to reside in this District for purposes of venue under 

28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c)(2).

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

6. Mr. Schaneville filed his charge of age discrimination with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 2, 2019. 

He was subsequently issued Notice of Right to Sue on August 21, 2020. 

Mr. Schaneville’s claims under the ADEA and ADA are now ripe for 

judicial relief. 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 11
3

7. Publix is a private employer, operating one of the largest U.S. 

regional grocery chains throughout the Southeastern United States, and 

employs approximately 193,000 people. Publix, therefore, qualifies as an 

“employer” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Mr. Schaneville is a 63-year-old male who is a licensed and 

registered Pharmacist within the State of Tennessee. 

9. Mr. Schaneville was hired as a pharmacist by Publix in 2009, 

a position for which he was eminently qualified, having worked as a 

professional licensed pharmacist since 1983. 

10. Mr. Schaneville took great pride in his professionalism, work 

ethic, and quality of services which he brought to Publix. He planned to 

work at Publix until retirement.

11. Mr. Schaneville’s direct supervisor at Publix was Reginald 

Gibb, Pharmacy Manager, and his general supervisor was Luis Medina, 

Pharmacy Supervisor who oversees a particular region of stores.

12. Mr. Medina terminated plaintiff’s employment with Publix

and issued a notice of termination on October 8, 2018. The reason given 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 11
4

for Mr. Schaneville’s termination was job performance. This reason was 

a mere pretext for the actual unlawful reasons for Mr. Schaneville’s 

termination.

13. Mr. Schaneville was 60 years old at the time of his 

termination, and was able to continue to perform all of his duties at a 

high level.

14. Publix terminated Mr. Schaneville’s employment because of 

his age, despite the fact that he was well qualified for the position. 

15. Mr. Schaneville was replaced by Michael Do, a 27-year-old.

16. In 36 years as a pharmacist Mr. Schaneville has never been 

disciplined by any board of pharmacy and never received a negative

evaluation until Luis Medina became plaintiff’s pharmacy supervisor. 

17. Mr. Schaneville’s objective measures of output improved 

every year. He was nevertheless terminated despite having superior 

numbers to his substantially younger pharmacy manager who remains 

employed as a pharmacist at Publix.

18. Mr. Schaneville completed the same amount of work as other 

pharmacies in Publix stores with less technician assistance. 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 4 of 11
5

19. Pharmacists at Publix are subject to performance evaluations

administered by a supervisor. Luis Medina forced Mr. Gibb to change Mr. 

Schaneville’s evaluation scores completed by Mr. Gibb, the pharmacy 

manager.

20. Luis Medina also attempted to lower the evaluation scores 

given to plaintiff by two former pharmacy managers: Chipta Aneran, 

Jacqueline Bradley, and Daniel Toombs. Mr. Anerin refused to allow Mr. 

Medina to lower the scores and Ms. Bradley submitted her evaluation 

directly to corporate so that Mr. Medina could not change the scores she 

gave Mr. Schaneville. Mr. Medina forced Mr. Toombs to change an 

evaluation he gave to Mr. Schaneville so that his overall score went from

“exceeding expectations” to merely “meets expectations.”

21. Luis Medina gave preferential treatment to younger 

pharmacists, including with regards to store transfers and better 

workplace conditions. 

22. Mr. Schaneville was provided no severance pay after Publix 

terminated his employment.

23. Mr. Schaneville left Publix with 44 unused sick days. 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 5 of 11
6

24. In October 2015, while employed by Publix, Mr. Schaneville

was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis and was prescribed by a physician 

with special orthopedic shoes for the treatment of his condition. Mr. 

Medina, however, did not permit Mr. Schaneville’s use of the prescribed 

shoes because they were not the appropriate color under store policy and 

refused to make any reasonable accommodation.

25. Mr. Medina’s refusal to allow Mr. Schaneville to use the 

prescribed shoes exacerbated his plantar fasciitis and accompanying 

symptoms. 

26. In August of 2018, while still employed with Publix, Mr. 

Schaneville’s plantar fasciitis worsened, and he was prescribed an aircast 

by an orthopedist. 

27. Mr. Medina intentionally and maliciously refused plaintiff’s

requests for reasonable accommodations regarding his disability, and 

forced plaintiff to work at a pharmacy location that required him to climb 

a six-foot ladder while wearing the prescribed air cast. Mr. Schaneville, 

nevertheless, performed his job for Publix satisfactorily while wearing 

the aircast despite the hazard to his safety and the severe physical 

discomfort it caused him. 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 6 of 11
7

28. Other pharmacies that plaintiff could have reasonably been 

transferred to, or assigned to work at on a temporary basis, did not 

require the use of a six-foot ladder. Alternatively, Publix could have 

temporarily assigned a pharmacy technician to Mr. Schaneville’s location 

who could have safely climbed the ladder in his place. Publix, however, 

prioritized cutting back on the use of pharmacy technicians and did not 

assign one to work at plaintiff’s location. 

29. Publix could have made reasonable accommodations for Mr. 

Schaneville’s plantar faciitis without suffering undue hardship. 

30. Publix’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations 

pursuant to ADA requirements caused Mr. Schaneville to suffer

emotional anguish and physical pain. 

FIRST COUNT 

Discriminatory Termination Based on Age in Violation of the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act

29 U.S.C. 12201 et seq.

31. Mr. Schaneville incorporates the preceding paragraphs by 

reference.

32. Mr. Schaneville was terminated from his position because of 

his age, in violation of the ADEA.

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 7 of 11
8

33. Publix’s discrimination against Mr. Schaneville because of his 

age was willful, in that Publix knew the termination of Mr. Schaneville

under the circumstances was a violation of his legal rights, or 

alternatively, Publix acted with reckless disregard as to whether the 

termination was a violation of his legal rights. 

34. When Mr. Schaneville was terminated by Publix, he was 60 

years old, was performing his job satisfactorily, was well qualified for the 

position, and was replaced by a 27-year-old who was equally or less 

qualified.

35. Publix claims that it terminated Mr. Schaneville’s 

employment due to his performance. This claim, however, is a mere 

pretext for the actual unlawful reason for firing Mr. Schaneville. 

36. Publix’s wrongful termination of Mr. Schaneville because of 

his age has caused him a continued loss of salary, benefits, seniority, and 

the career to which he devoted nearly his entire working life. He has also 

suffered considerable humiliation, embarrassment, and severe emotional 

distress. 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 8 of 11
9

SECOND COUNT 

Failure to Reasonably Accommodate in Violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

42 USC § 12101 et seq.

37. Mr. Schaneville incorporates the preceding paragraphs by 

reference. 

38. Mr. Schaneville developed a medical condition that was a 

disability under the ADA. 

39. Publix failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Mr. 

Schaneville’s disability under the ADA, (42 USC § 12112(b)(5)(A); 29 CFR 

§ 1630.9 & Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9).

40. Providing reasonable accommodations for Mr. Schaneville’s 

disability would not have caused Publix any undue hardship. 

41. Publix intentionally violated the ADA and acted with malice

or reckless indifference to plaintiff’s federally protected rights in 

violation of 42 USC § 1981a(b)(1).

42. As a result of Publix’s willful violations plaintiff suffered 

mental anguish and physical pain and is entitled to damages under 42 

USC § 1981a(b)(3). 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 9 of 11
10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Accept jurisdiction over this matter;

2. Order the Defendants to compensate the plaintiff for his past 

and future loss of wages and benefits, plus interest;

3. Enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for such amount as may 

be awarded by a jury for compensatory damages for his physical and 

emotional suffering and loss of enjoyment of life;

4. Enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for such amount as may 

be awarded by a jury for liquidated damages. 

5. Enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for such amount as may 

be awarded by a jury for punitive damages.

6. Award to the plaintiff all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

incurred in connection with this action;

7. Grant such additional or alternative relief as may appear to 

this Court to be just and equitable. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff respectfully requests trial by jury. 

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 10 of 11
11

Dated: October 22, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

JONES FUSSELL, L.L.P.

By: /s/ John R. Walker 

John R. Walker (LA #2165)

Andrew J. Walker (LA #39056)

P.O. Box 1810

Covington, LA 70434

Telephone: 985-246-7808

Facsimile: 985-235-432

E-mail: awalker@jonesfussell.com

Attorney for Joseph B. Schaneville

Case 3:20-cv-05897-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 11 of 11