1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIFFANY A. FOWLER

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

CASH’S OF MARY ESTHER, INC. 

DEFENDANT.

_________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Tiffany A. Fowler, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Fowler”), by and through her undersigned attorney, sues the defendant, Cash’s of 

Mary Esther, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant” or “Cash’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 Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes; Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-

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

Family Medical Leave Act and Florida's Workers' Compensation Retaliation Law 

§ 440.205, Florida Statutes. 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 1 of 23
2

2. Defendant is considered an employer within the terms and conditions 

of the FMLA. Defendant employs fifty (50) or more employees within 75 miles of 

the worksite of Plaintiff. 

3. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from June, 2017, until her involuntary 

termination on June 9, 2018. Plaintiff is considered an "eligible employee" for 

purposes of the FMLA as she has been employed: (1) for at least 12 months by 

Defendant, and (2) for at least 1,250 hours of service with Defendant in the 

previous 12-month period.

4. The FMLA does not contain an exhaustion requirement and Plaintiff 

is not required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit. 

5. Plaintiff further seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). 

6. 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. 

7. 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. 

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

this suit. Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination was dual filed with the Florida 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 2 of 23
3

Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) and United States Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on November 15, 2018. On May 15, 2019, 

more than 180 days since the charge was filed, the FCHR had not concluded its 

investigation or made a determination within 180 days pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 

760.11(3). Plaintiff thereafter requested and her 90 day Notice of Right to Sue 

letter from the EEOC was mailed on July 10, 2019, but not received until on or 

about July 25, 2019.

PARTIES

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

Santa Rosa County and who resides in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. She was 

employed by the Defendant approximately from June 1

st

, 2017 until June 9, 2018. 

10. Defendant, Cash’s of Mary Esther, Inc., (“Cash’s”), owns and 

operates a number of establishments throughout northwest Florida to include 

entertainment lounges and package stores where alcoholic beverages are served 

and sold. Defendant is located in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Defendant is an 

employer within the meaning of the ADA, FMLA and the Florida Civil Rights Act 

as it employs more than 15 employees. 

FACTS

11. Plaintiff is a 31 year old Caucasian female. 

12. In June of 2017, Defendant hired Plaintiff as a bartender and store 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 3 of 23
4

clerk and she worked in Defendant’s lounge locations and package stores. 

13. Plaintiff performed her duties and responsibilities in a more than 

satisfactory manner. 

14. On or about May 28, 2018, Plaintiff was injured during the course 

and scope of her employment when she was punched in the right eye and then 

kicked in the head multiple times by a customer.

15. The punch cut Plaintiff’s eye and the subsequent kicks to her head 

and eye caused her eye to become infected. 

16. As a result of the multiple blows to her head Plaintiff lost conscience 

and was dazed, confused and disorientated when she finally came to. 

17. Plaintiff was not offered any help or assistance by Defendant, whom 

refused to even call an ambulance after the attack. 

18. Plaintiff had complained and warned management and the owner 

several weeks before the incident that the working conditions were unsafe.

19. Plaintiff’s complaints were to no avail. 

20. As a result of Plaintiff’s injuries, she suffered a severe eye infection 

that resulted in a loss of 70% of her vision in her right eye. 

21. Immediately after the incident, Plaintiff was terminated by Mr. Cash 

Moore for allegedly over pouring drinks that same night. 

22. This allegation was a complete fabrication by Mr. Moore and just an 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 4 of 23
5

excuse to terminate Plaintiff after the incident. 

23. Mr. Moore’s daughter then allegedly rehired Plaintiff thirty minutes 

later and she was instructed to return to work on June 3, 2018. 

24. Plaintiff requested addition time off to recover and seek treatment for 

her injuries, but her requests were denied and she was threatened with termination. 

25. Plaintiff continued to request additional time off to recover from 

injuries and was denied this reasonable accommodation.

26. Plaintiff also continued to complain to Defendant that she was in fear 

of her personal safety at work and that her injuries were caused by a workplace 

incident which left her partially blind in her right eye.

27. On June 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a formal workers compensation claim 

and was subsequently terminated that same day for no call no show.

28. Defendant has had knowledge of Plaintiff’s disabilities, eye and head 

injuries, since May 28, 2019, and afterwards, when she informed Defendant that 

she suffered from an eye infection, head injuries, loss of vision and stress and 

fatigue.

29. Both Mr. Moore and Plaintiff’s supervisors, were aware of her injuries

and disability.

30. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(a) she has a physical and/or mental impairment that substantially 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 5 of 23
6

limits one or more major life activities: she suffers from suffers from permeant 

vision loss, stress and fatigue;

(b) Plaintiff is under doctor’s care for treatment of her physical disabilities. 

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

(d) she was regarded by her employer as having impairments.

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

sight, concentration and mobility. 

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

position with or without a reasonable accommodation at the time of her request for 

accommodation. 

33. Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s medical condition and refused to 

discuss any type of accommodation, FMLA leave or acknowledge that her injuries 

and vision loss were related to her working environment. 

34. Defendant acquired more than sufficient knowledge that Plaintiff’s

absences or inability to work was because of her disability and for an FMLAqualifying reason.

35. Defendant’s supervisors never notified Plaintiff of her eligibility to

take FMLA leave.

36. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff’s medical 

conditions were or could have been qualified under the FMLA as Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 6 of 23
7

supervisor had knowledge of the Defendant’s FMLA policies and procedures. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(FLORIDA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION RETALIATION § 440.205)

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

paragraph 1 through 36 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

38. Defendant’s conduct and commissions constitutes intentional 

discrimination and unlawful employment practices based upon Workers’ 

Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205. 

39. Defendant’s acts were with malice and with reckless disregard for 

Plaintiff’s statutorily protected rights.

40. This is an action to remedy discrimination and retaliation on the basis 

of Plaintiff’s engaging in protective activity of informing Defendant of a work 

related injury and seeking workers compensation benefits in the terms, conditions, 

and privileges of his employment with Defendant in violation of the Workers’ 

Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205.

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

for the Plaintiff’s demotion, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s retaliation and 

discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity. 

42. The adverse personnel action, Plaintiff’s termination, clearly violated 

Plaintiff’s right under the Workers’ Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 7 of 23
8

and such action clearly constituted a prohibited employment practice, contrary to 

the public policy of the State of Florida.

43. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Workers’ 

Compensation Law. FLA. STAT. § 440.205, 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 demotion that lead to her discharge 

from Defendant’s employment. 

44. As a result of 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.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, (ADA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12111-12117, 12203; THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS OF 

2008 (ADAA))

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

paragraph 1 through 36 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 8 of 23
9

disability 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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. 

50. 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.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 9 of 23
10

51. 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 demotion that lead to her discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

52. 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.

53. 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. 

54. 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 RETALIATION - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§

12111-12117, 12203; THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2008

(ADAA))

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

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 10 of 23
11

paragraph 1 through 36 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

disability 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.

57. 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.

58. 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. 

59. 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 her for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual 

or perceived disability. 

60. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Americans with Disabilities 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 11 of 23
12

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.

61. 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 actions that lead to her discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

62. As a result of 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.

63. 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. 

64. 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.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 12 of 23
13

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION - FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, AS AMENDED,

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

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

paragraph 1 through 36 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

66. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability 

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

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

Florida Statutes. 

67. 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.

68. 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. 

69. 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 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 13 of 23
14

70. The adverse personnel action, the 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. 

71. 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 discriminatory termination that lead to his discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

72. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful and unlawful discrimination 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.

73. 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. 

74. 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.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 14 of 23
15

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY RETALIATION - FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, AS AMENDED,

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

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

paragraph 1 through 36 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

76. This is an action to remedy retaliation by the Defendant in violation of 

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

Statutes.

77. 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.

78. 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. 

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

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

against her for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual or perceived 

disability. 

80. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 15 of 23
16

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.

81. 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 demotion that lead to her discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

82. As a result of 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.

83. 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. 

84. 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.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 16 of 23
17

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FMLA INTERFERENCE - FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C

§§ 2601 ET SEQ.)

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

paragraph 1 through 36 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

86. Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s medical condition and refused to 

discuss any type of accommodation, FMLA leave or acknowledge that her

migraines and respiratory condition were related to her working environment. 

87. Defendant had more than sufficient knowledge that Plaintiff’s

absences were for an FMLA-qualifying reason.

88. Mr. Moore and Defendant’s supervisors, ever notified Plaintiff of her

eligibility to take FMLA leave.

89. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff’s medical 

conditions were or could have been qualified under the FMLA as she had extensive 

personal knowledge of the FMLA and the Defendant’s FMLA policies and 

procedures. 

90. Defendant unlawfully interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under the 

Family and Medical Leave Act when it acquired sufficient knowledge that

Plaintiff’s leave was for an FMLA-qualifying reason.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 17 of 23
18

91. Defendant knew or should have known of Plaintiff’s eligibility to

take FMLA and refused, international or otherwise, to notify Plaintiff of his FMLA

leave rights within five business days.

92. FMLA requires an employer to give an employee whose leave may be 

covered by FMLA written notice detailing the specific expectations and 

obligations of the employee and explaining any consequences of a failure to meet 

these obligations.

93. Defendant refused to notify Plaintiff of her FMLA rights and it’s

refusal was with malice and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s federally 

protected rights.

94. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury 

and monetary damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices unless 

and until this Court grants relief. 

95. 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. 

96. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to the FMLA. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA PRIVATE SECTOR WHISTLE-BLOWER’S ACT

Fla. Stat. Sections 448.101—448.105)

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 18 of 23
19

97. Plaintiff restates and re-avers the allegations contained within 

Paragraphs 1-36 of the Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

98. This is an action for a violation of the Florida Private Sector Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. Sections 448.101—448.105. 

Florida Statute § 448.102 provides in pertinent part, as follows:

Prohibitions. – An employer may not take any retaliatory 

personnel action against an employee because the 

employee has:

* * *

Provided information to, or testified before, any 

appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity 

conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an 

alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the 

employer.

Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, 

policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation 

of a law, rule, or regulation.

99. At all material times herein, Plaintiff was an employee of the 

Defendant; Cash’s, within the meaning of Florida Statute Section 448.101(3).

100. At all material times herein, Defendant, Cash’s, was an employer, 

within the meaning of Florida Statute Section 448.101(3).

101. Most recently, Plaintiff was employed as a bartender/store-clerk for 

the Defendant, and she was qualified for the positions which she held with the 

Defendant, and while serving in this position. 

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 19 of 23
20

102. A few weeks prior to Plaintiff being attacked, Plaintiff reported to 

Defendant that the work environment was unsafe and that she feared for her safety.

103. Plaintiff’s request for additional safety or security at night was denied 

and her objections to continuing to work in an unsafe environment were ignored. 

104. Despite the objections of the Plaintiff, and certainly, these objections 

were based upon the reasonable and good faith beliefs of the Plaintiff, that the 

applicable federal (OSHA) regulations had been violated, no action was 

undertaken by Defendant, to cure or remedy the conditions or violations

105. There was no substantive or reasonable business justification for the 

termination of Plaintiff’s employment; she had not been previously warned of a 

deficient job performance.

106. Plaintiff reported and objected, according to a reasonable and bona 

fide good faith belief, to the activities, policies and or practices of the Defendant, 

which violated pertinent regulatory laws, rules and regulations, namely OSHA. 

107. Plaintiff’s discharge was in close proximity to the aforementioned 

legal objections, in that Plaintiff was ultimately terminated on June 9, 2018.

108. There was no legitimate business reason, or business justification, for 

implementing the termination of the Plaintiff from her employment with the 

Defendant; and Plaintiff’s objections to the Defendant’s legal violations were 

consistently and reasonably made, in good faith.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 20 of 23
21

109. The adverse personnel action, the termination of Plaintiff from her

employment, as described and set forth above, clearly violated Florida Statute 

Section 448.102(3); and such action clearly constituted a prohibited employment 

practice, contrary to the public policy of the State of Florida.

110. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of the Florida Private Sector 

Whistleblower Act, 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 employment. 

111. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully discharged from her

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.

112. 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. 

113. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, 

pursuant to §448.104, Florida Statutes.

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 21 of 23
22

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, Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Florida Private Sector Whistleblower 

Act, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Florida’s Worker’s Compensation 

Retaliation § 440.205, Florida Statue.

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

Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Florida Private Sector Whistleblower Act, 

FMLA, and the Florida’s Worker’s Compensation Retaliation § 440.205 Florida 

Statue.

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;

Case 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 22 of 23
23

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. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 7, 2019. By: /s/ Clayton M. Connors 

CLAYTON M. CONNORS 

Florida Bar No.: 0095553

Email: cmc@westconlaw.com

R. JOHN WESTBERRY 

Florida Bar No.: 244661

Email: rjw@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 3:19-cv-03644-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/07/19 Page 23 of 23