1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MANLEY

PLAINTIFF,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

READY MIX USA LLC

DEFENDANT.

_________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Robert Manley, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or 

“Manley”), by and through his undersigned attorney, sues defendant, Ready Mix 

USA, LLC. (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “Ready Mix”) and 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 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; and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 

(ADAA). 

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

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

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 17
2

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

5. 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 filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR” No.: 

201807940) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC” No.: 15D201800749) on June 12, 2018. On March 12, 2019, Plaintiff 

received a “Reasonable Cause” determination from the FCHR. Plaintiff thereafter 

requested his 90 day Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC which was 

received on August 30, 2020. 

PARTIES

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

resident of Santa Rosa County who resides in Navarre, Florida. Plaintiff worked 

for Defendant as from December 18, 2017, until his constructive discharge on May 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 17
3

14, 2018. 

7. Defendant, Ready Mix, is concrete supplier providing communities 

throughout the southeastern quadrant of the United States. Defendant is an 

employer within the meaning of the ADA and FCRA, as it employs in excess of 15 

employees. 

FACTS

8. Plaintiff is a 50 year old Caucasian male.

9. Defendant hired Plaintiff on December 18, 2017, as a CDL Concrete 

Truck Driver. 

10. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, he performed the 

duties and responsibilities of his position in a satisfactory manner and was not the 

subject of any disciplinary issues prior to his request for an accommodation. 

11. Plaintiff suffers from a sleeping disorder commonly referred to as 

sleep apnea, a serious condition in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts 

during the course of sleep. 

12. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability:

(a) he has a physical impairment that substantially major life 

activities: Plaintiff suffers from the inability to breath while sleeping 

which changes neurocognitive functions which in turn make it 

difficult to focus, concentrate, and complete daily tasks and can 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 17
4

further cause anxiety, brain fog and depression.

(b) Plaintiff is under the treatment of a doctor for the care 

and treatment of his physical disabilities. 

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

(d) he was regarded (perceived or otherwise) by Defendant

as having such impairments.

13. Plaintiff’s disabilities substantially affected the major life activities of 

focus and concentration. 

14. On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff coordinated a meeting with three 

managers to request a reasonable accommodation of a change to his start time due 

to complications with his disability.

15. Defendant agreed and allowed Plaintiff to begin his work day a 

couple of hours after his regular scheduled start time so that he could get an 

appropriate amount of rest due to complications with his disability. 

16. This new schedule lasted for three weeks with no issue. 

17. On April 9, 2018, Mr. Allen Duncan, a different manager than that 

of the initial meeting with Plaintiff, conducted a meeting concerning Plaintiff’s 

disability.

18. Mr. Duncan stated to Plaintiff he was not medically compliant to 

neither operate nor conduct his work duties as a CDL Concrete Truck Driver and 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 17
5

that he would be moved to a different position.

19. Defendant demoted Plaintiff and insisted that he provide proof that 

he was able to perform the essential functions of the position. 

20. Plaintiff again stated that his disability did not interfere with his 

ability to perform the essential functions of his position, but that he only needed 

the slightly altered start time accommodation. 

21. As a result of Mr. Duncan’s unsupported decision to medically 

disqualify Plaintiff from his CDL Concrete Truck Driver Position, Plaintiff was 

reassigned to a different position with a cut in pay. 

22. Plaintiff continuously contacted human resources and higher 

management concerning his demotion but he received no response.

23. After numerous failed by Plaintiff attempts to speak with human 

resources, Plaintiffs General Manager, Bobby Lindsey, spoke with him and 

indicated that he should resign from his position due to his disability and requested 

accommodation. 

24. In response, Plaintiff stated that he did not want to resign or be 

reassigned but rather retain his position as a CDL Concrete Truck Driver with 

Defendant and asked Mr. Lindsey how he could fix the issue. 

25. Mr. Lindsey did not provide Plaintiff with any sort of remedy to retain 

his position and notified Plaintiff that he would be placed on four (4) day leave. 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 17
6

26. Plaintiff reminded Defendant that he already had a medical card that 

allowed him to drive the truck that Defendant had him driving prior to requesting 

the delayed start time to his shift. 

27. Plaintiff also pointed out that there were two other employees with 

similar medical issues who were taken off driving due to safety concerns, but this 

was only after their medical cards were revoked. 

28. Defendant still claimed that this was not good enough and insisted 

on a more concise documentation from the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

certified doctor. 

29. Additionally, Plaintiff informed Mr. Duncan that he had been 

performing the essential functions of his position in an exemplary manner and 

without incident since the time of his hire. 

30. Plaintiff provided this additional information as well and further 

pointed out that his doctor that provided the first fit for duty notice was DOT 

certified. 

31. Plaintiff was again notified of a position reassignment from his 

previous reassigned position and an additional cut in pay after he was transferred to 

a manual labor position at the reassigned plant location. 

32. On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff was finally reinstated to his original 

position as a CDL Concrete Truck Driver, but was paid hourly instead of per load, 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 6 of 17
7

which resulted in a lower amount of income.

33. Upon Plaintiff’s return, in addition to being paid less than what he 

had been prior to his requested accommodation, he was treated differently by 

management and coworkers and was the subject of retaliatory and discriminatory 

comments made pertaining to his disability. 

34. On May 14, 2018, because of Defendant’s retaliatory and unfair 

treatment after the demotions and pay cuts directly related to his disability, 

Plaintiff was forced to resign his position. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS (ADAA))

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

paragraph 1 through 34 of this complaint with the same force and effect as if set 

forth herein.

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

disability 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

(ADAA).

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

Defendant within the meaning of Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 7 of 17
8

U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, 12203; the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments 

of 2008 (ADAA).

38. 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 (ADAA), as the 

Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

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

for the Plaintiff’s constructive discharge, is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s 

retaliation and discrimination against him for engaging in a protective activity and 

for any actual or perceived disability. 

40. The adverse personnel action, the constructive discharge 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 (ADAA), and such action clearly constituted 

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

41. 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 8 of 17
9

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

Defendant’s employment. 

42. 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.

43. 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. 

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

cost pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-

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

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))

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

in paragraph 1 through 34 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 

disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment with 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 9 of 17
10

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

(ADAA).

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 (ADAA).

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 (ADAA), as the 

Defendant employed more than 15 employees. 

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

for the Plaintiff’s constructive discharge, 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 constructive discharge 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 (ADAA), and such action clearly constituted 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 10 of 17
11

a prohibited employment practice, contrary to the public policy of the ADA and

ADAA.

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 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 her discharge from 

Defendant’s employment. 

52. 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.

53. 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. 

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 (ADAA).

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 11 of 17
12

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

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

CHAPTER 760 ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES)

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

contained in paragraph 1 through 34 of this complaint with the same force and 

effect as if set forth herein.

56. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his 

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. 

57. 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.

58. 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. 

59. Any possible assertion that there was a viable business 

justification for the Plaintiff’s cons, 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-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 12 of 17
13

60. The adverse personnel action, the constructive discharge 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. 

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 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 discriminatory constructive discharge that lead to his 

discharge from Defendant’s employment. 

62. As a result of being wrongfully and unlawfully discriminated 

against 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.

63. 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. 

64. 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 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 13 of 17
14

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DISABILITY RETALIATION - 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 34 of this complaint with the same force and 

effect as if set forth herein.

66. 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.

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 constructive discharge is entirely pretextual for Defendant’s 

retaliation against him for engaging in a protective activity and for any actual or 

perceived disability. 

70. The adverse personnel action, the constructive discharge of 

Plaintiff’s employment clearly violated Plaintiff’s right under the Florida Civil 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 14 of 17
15

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.

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 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. 

72. 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.

73. 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. 

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

cost pursuant to Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Chapter 760 et seq., 

Florida Statutes.

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 15 of 17
16

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).

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 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 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 16 of 17
17

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: November 20, 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-05951-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 17 of 17