1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT BERRY,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

BOYETT’S VACUUM 

PUMPING, INC.,

DEFENDANT.

_______________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ROBERT BERRY, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Berry”), by and through his undersigned attorney, and sues the Defendant, 

BOYETT’S VACUUM PUMPING INC., (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Defendant” or “Boyett’s”), and submits this Complaint which alleges the 

following:

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)

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

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 1 of 22
2

Statutes. Plaintiff further brings this action for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq, as he was not paid overtime for any 

hours worked over forty (40) per week, even though he was a “non-exempt” 

employee, and thus entitled to such wages under federal law and common law 

quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

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

§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, the FLSA 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), as the unlawful employment 

practices were committed in this judicial district. 

6. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to the filing of 

this suit.

7. On or about January 13, 2020, Plaintiff dual filed a charge of 

discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for investigation. On April 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 2 of 22
3

29, 2020, Plaintiff received a determination from the FCHR. On October 5, 2020, 

Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, thereby notifying him

of his right to institute a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., against Defendant within 90 days of 

receipt thereof.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff is a Caucasian male and a citizen of the State of Florida, 

Escambia County and who resides in Pensacola, Florida. 

9. Defendant, Boyett’s, is a for-profit company licensed to do and is 

doing business in Florida. Defendant’s principal place of business is located in 

Pensacola, Florida and provides portable sanitation services throughout Northwest 

Florida and South Alabama. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAA), and Section 3(d)

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d); an enterprise within the meaning of 

Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r); and an enterprise engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 

Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

10. During all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an 

“employee” of Defendant within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 3 of 22
4

FACTS

11. Plaintiff is a 51 year old Caucasian male. 

12. Plaintiff was employed by Boyett’s from September 2009, until his 

unlawful termination on December 6, 2019. 

13. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Service Technician.

14. Since Plaintiff began working for Boyett’s, in September 2009, he

performed the duties and responsibilities of his position in a satisfactory manner. 

15. Plaintiff is a retired member of the United States Military and suffers 

from physical disabilities to his wrists and knees for which he has a thirty (30) 

percent disabled rating from the VA. 

16. In July 2018, Plaintiff had multiple procedures to repair his wrist and 

knee. 

17. Plaintiff underwent a wrist fusion as well as a total knee 

replacement. 

18. Due to Plaintiff’s disability, an accommodation of a helper was 

needed to assist him with some of the physical labor he was required to perform as 

a service technician. 

19. Shortly after his knee surgery, Defendant fired Plaintiff telling him

that he was “no use” to them with his disabilities now worse. 

20. Plaintiff had to get Defendant’s son, Logan Boyett, involved to 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 4 of 22
5

undue the termination, but as a condition of Plaintiff’s continued employment with 

Defendant he was required to sign an employment agreement that included a noncompete clause and a termination due to disability clause.

21. This requirement had never been asked or required of Plaintiff in the 

previous nine (9) years of his employment with Defendant. 

22. The termination due to disability clause is discriminatory on its face 

as it specifically attempts to justify any future termination of Plaintiff due to his 

disability. 

23. After Plaintiff’s knee surgery his co-workers were not pleased that 

he needed a helper to assistance him with some of his daily routes.

24. Plaintiff’s co-workers were not pleased that Defendant rehired him 

and in the months following Plaintiff’s surgery, his co-workers continued to 

complain about him having a helper assist him on routes. 

25. In the months following his surgeries, Defendant hired two new 

employees that took some time to train.

26. Once the last employee was trained and doing work on his own, 

Defendant fired Plaintiff a week later. 

27. Defendant had grown tired of hearing Plaintiff’s co-workers complain 

about him having a helper.

28. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s physical disabilities and 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 5 of 22
6

actually terminated his employment in December 2019 because of his disabilities.

29. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(a) he has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or 

more major life activities: he suffers from a lack of 

mobility. 

(b) Plaintiff is under doctor’s care for treatment of his physical 

disabilities. 

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

(d) he was regarded by his employer as having impairments.

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

mobility. 

31. Plaintiff had the ability to perform the essential functions of his

position with or without a reasonable accommodation and did so in a satisfactory

manner. 

32. Defendant knowingly and intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff 

by terminating his employment because of his requested accommodation and by 

treating other similarly situated non-disabled individuals more favorably than 

Plaintiff because of him moving slower and needing a helper. 

33. This continual and intentional discrimination and harassment by 

Defendant lead to Plaintiff’s unlawful termination.

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 6 of 22
7

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

for Plaintiff’s termination, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

35. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, he was a 

driver/laborer, not a supervisor and did not have the authority to hire, fire, switch 

or change an employee’s schedule without permission or force an employee to 

work a different schedule. Plaintiff was an hourly employee that was required to 

punch in and out of work. 

36. As a driver/laborer, Plaintiff was required to perform tasks associated 

with septic tank pumping and delivery of portable restrooms trailers, like driving 

a flatbed truck and performing manual labor such as setting up restroom trailers, 

pumping out the vacuum truck, cleaning of grease traps and septic tanks and use a 

shovel or other tools to dig and expose tank lids. 

37. In order to perform his duties, Plaintiff worked approximately fifteen 

(15) hours a week in excess of the standard forty (40) hour work week or

approximately two thousand (2,000) hours of overtime in the three years 

preceding his termination on December 6, 2019. 

38. As a part of Plaintiff wages, he was to be paid a non-discretionary 

one percent (1%) commission for customer retention and five percent (5%) for 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 7 of 22
8

new sales or rentals of portable toilets and commercial grease trap services. 

39. In addition to the additional overtime hours worked but that were 

unpaid by Defendant, it underpaid Plaintiff for all overtime hours it did pay as it 

did not properly calculate the regular rate of pay to include the non-discretionary 

one percent (1%) commission for customer retention and five percent (5%) for 

new sales or rentals of portable toilets and commercial grease trap services. 

40. Defendant’s business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor 

Standards Act applies. Both the Defendant’s business and the Plaintiff’s 

driver/laborer/ sales work for the Defendant affected interstate commerce. 

41. The Defendant is an employer and enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce as it provides portable sanitation services in Northwest Florida and 

South Alabama. 

42. The Defendant controlled the day to day operations of its business

including matters concerning hiring, firing, payroll, setting employee hourly rates, 

schedules and policies, making procedures, setting goals, marketing, setting rates 

and prices, and other business operations. 

43. The Defendant supervised the operations of its business, including 

hiring and firing employees, setting store hours and schedules and establishing the 

duties and responsibilities of all its employees. 

44. The Defendant had gross earnings in excess of $500,000 annually for 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 8 of 22
9

the years 2017, 2018, and 2019.

45. Defendant, at all times material, was the employer of Plaintiff within 

the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

46. Plaintiff, at all times material, was an employee of Defendant within the 

meaning of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

47. Defendant hired Plaintiff to provide services in Northwest Florida and 

South Alabama and paid him an hourly rate and then as a salaried employee. 

48. At all times material hereto, from August 2009 until Plaintiff’s 

involuntary termination in December 2019, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 

40 hours per week, including weekend work. 

49. At all times material herein, the Defendant controlled the Plaintiff’s day 

to day activities, supervised, and/or had operational control over the Plaintiff, 

setting the Plaintiff’s rate of pay, determining if overtime was to be paid, setting 

Plaintiff’s work schedule including the number of days and assigning the 

Plaintiff’s work duties. 

50. Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities as driver/ laborer/ salesman were

not servicing, managing or administrating Defendant in the way intended by the 

administrative or any other exemption regulations as set forth in the FLSA. 

51. At all times material hereto, Defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 201-209, because Plaintiff performed services for the Defendant for which no 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 9 of 22
10

provisions were made by Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff for the hours worked 

in excess of forty within a work week.

52. Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all 

hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week and failed to properly 

calculate his regular rate of pay for purposes of determining his actual overtime 

rate as it did not properly calculate the regular rate of pay to include the nondiscretionary one percent (1%) commission for customer retention and five 

percent (5%) for new sales or rentals of portable toilets and commercial grease 

trap services.

53. Defendant knew and was aware at all times that the Plaintiff was not 

being paid overtime wages or the correct overtime rate as required by the FLSA. 

54. Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff’s 

overtime wages or the correct overtime rate of pay as required by the FLSA as 

Defendant knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed 

to investigate whether the Defendant’s payroll practices were in accordance with 

the FLSA. 

55. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and is obligated to pay 

them a reasonable fee for their services pursuant to the FLSA. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS (ADAA))

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 10 of 22
11

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

paragraph 1 through 55 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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. 

60. 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 him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 11 of 22
12

61. 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.

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 he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained 

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

wrongful, unlawful and retaliatory actions of Defendant that lead to his discharge 

from Defendant’s employment. 

63. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions that 

lead to his 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 his, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee 

for his professional services. 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 12 of 22
13

65. 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))

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

paragraph 1 through 55 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

67. 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.

68. 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.

69. 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. 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 13 of 22
14

70. 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 his for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

71. 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.

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 he has lost wages, associated job benefits; and in addition, he has sustained 

compensatory damages, based upon emotional distress, associated with the 

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

Defendant’s employment. 

73. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully retaliatory actions 

that lead to his 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.

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 14 of 22
15

74. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to assist him, in the 

prosecution of this action, and he 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 Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 

12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act “FLSA”)

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

paragraph 1 through 55 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

77. Defendant is an employer covered by the minimum wage and 

overtime requirements set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

78. As employees for Defendant, Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 

the maximum weekly hours permitted under the FLSA but were not paid 

overtime for those excess hours.

79. Plaintiff does not qualify for an exemption from the wage and 

overtime obligations imposed by the FLSA.

80. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant have known that 

Plaintiff was not exempt from the wage and overtime obligations imposed by the 

FLSA. 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 15 of 22
16

81. Defendant knew that it was required to pay Plaintiff for all hours 

worked. 

82. In spite of such knowledge, Defendant willfully withheld and 

failed to pay the wages and overtime compensation to which Plaintiff was

entitled Pursuant to the FLSA, Plaintiff was entitled to compensation for all 

hours worked and for the unpaid overtime at a rate of one and one half times his 

regular rate and to properly calculate the regular rate of pay to include the nondiscretionary one percent (1%) commission for customer retention and five 

percent (5%) for new sales or rentals of portable toilets and commercial grease 

trap services.

83. Because Defendant’s failure to pay such wages was willful

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 255(a), Plaintiff is entitled to overtime wages for the 

three years preceding his termination on December 6, 2019.

84. The exact amount of compensation, including overtime 

compensation that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff is unknown at this time, as 

many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the 

possession of Defendant or were not kept by them. However, it is estimated that 

in the three year preceding his termination, Plaintiff work approximately two 

thousand hours of overtime. 

85. The FLSA requires employers to make, keep, and preserve 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 16 of 22
17

records of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, 

and to preserve such records. 

86. Plaintiff is entitled to review the Defendant’s records of hours 

worked to determine the exact amount of overtime owed by Defendant. 

87. Absent Defendant keeping these records as required by law, 

Plaintiff is entitled to submit his information about the number of hours worked.

88. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff compensation for all hours 

worked and/or at the lawful overtime rates is not based on good faith or 

reasonable grounds, or a belief that such failure is not in violation of FLSA. 

89. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is therefore entitled to 

liquidated damages in an amount equal to the compensation and/or overtime 

which they have not been paid.

90. Plaintiff has been required to file this action as the result of 

Defendant’ actions in failing to pay his proper compensation. 

91. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §216(b).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(ACCRUED AND UNPAID WAGES AND COMMISSIONS - FLORIDA STATUTE 448.08)

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

in paragraphs 1 through 55 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 17 of 22
18

set forth herein.

93. This is an action for unpaid commissions pursuant to FLORIDA 

STATUTE 448.110.

94. Defendant received substantial and valuable benefits from Plaintiff for 

services provided by Plaintiff in the three years preceding his termination on 

December 6, 2019.

95. Plaintiff is entitled the actual and total wages earned by him for 

services rendered. 

96. The calculation of unpaid overtime is based on approximately two 

thousand overtime hours worked by Plaintiff in the three years preceding his 

termination on December 6, 2019. 

97. Defendant’s intentional misclassification of Plaintiff resulted in 

unpaid overtime compensation.

98. Defendant has failed or otherwise refused to pay Plaintiff, in whole or 

in part, the wages earned during this time period.

99. In accordance with Florida statute, Plaintiff is entitled to the total and 

actual wages owed to him. 

100. Under the circumstances of this case, it would be inequitable for 

Defendant to retain the full amount of benefits conferred upon and realized by it, 

without payment to Plaintiff for the actual and total wages owed to her.

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 18 of 22
19

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(QUANTUM MERUIT)

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

paragraphs 1 through 55 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

102. This is an action for damages in quantum meruit. 

103. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff the commissions, overtime or other 

monies earned. 

104. Plaintiff was denied due compensation. As a result, Defendant has 

been unjustly enriched by Plaintiff’s labor and efforts. 

105. For the three years preceding his termination on December 6, 2019,

Defendant has failed or refused to pay Plaintiff, in whole or in part, for the 

overtime, commissions or other monies he earned for services provided and from 

which Defendant directly benefited. 

106. Under the circumstances of this case, it would be inequitable for 

Defendant to retain the benefit of the commissions earned by Plaintiff without 

payment of the full and actual value thereof. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment - Alternative Claim)

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

paragraphs 1 through 55 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 19 of 22
20

forth herein.

108. This is an action in equity for unjust enrichment. This claim is being 

pled as an alternative claim to Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action in this Complaint 

and in the event that it is determined Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under 

Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action. 

109. Defendant received substantial and valuable benefits from Plaintiff for

the services rendered to it.

110. Plaintiff is entitled the actual and total commissions, wages or other 

monies earned prior to his involuntary termination. 

111. Defendant has failed or otherwise refused to pay Plaintiff, in whole or 

in part, the total commissions, wages or other monies earned and otherwise owed 

for service rendered.

112. No adequate or complete remedy at law exists to Plaintiff for relief of 

the failure of Defendant to compensate Plaintiff for the reasonable value of the 

services he provided and from which Defendant benefited.

113. Under the circumstances of this case, it would be inequitable for 

Defendant to retain the full amount of benefits conferred upon and realized by it, 

without payment to Plaintiff for the actual and total commissions owed to him.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 20 of 22
21

judgment: 

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

the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; 

the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAA), Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), Florida Statutes and other common law claims asserted 

herein. 

b. Enjoining and permanently restraining those violations of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAA), Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), Florida Statutes and other common law claims asserted 

herein, and 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;

c. Directing Defendant to place Plaintiff in the position he would have 

occupied but for Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of him and make him whole 

for all earnings he 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; 

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 21 of 22
22

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

reasonable attorney’s fees; and,

d. 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: December 30, 2020. By: /s/ Clayton M. Connors 

CLAYTON M. CONNORS 

Florida Bar No.: 0095553

Email: cmc@westconlaw.com

THE LAW OFFICES OF 

CLAYTON M. CONNORS, PLLC.

4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A

Pensacola, Florida 32503

Tel: (850) 473-0401

Fax: (850) 473-1388

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Case 3:20-cv-06030-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 12/30/20 Page 22 of 22