1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

JANET NICOLATOS, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

CARGO TOURS INTERNATIONAL INC.,

A Foreign Profit Corporation,

 Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANET NICOLATOS, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and through 

her undersigned attorney hereby sues Defendant CARGO TOURS INTERNATIONAL INC., a

Foreign Profit Corporation, (hereinafter “Defendant”), and states:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This is an action brought under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an Amendment to 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)). 

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim contained herein pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §1367, because that claim arises from the same case or controversy and from a 

common nucleus of operative facts. 

4. Venue is proper for the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida because 

Plaintiff was employed in the Southern District of Florida by Defendant, which at all material 

times conducted, and continues to conduct, business in the Southern District of Florida, and 

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

because the acts that give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of 

Florida and because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff at all times pertinent to this complaint resided within the Southern District of Florida. 

Plaintiff is over the age of eighteen and otherwise sui juris. 

6. Plaintiff was, at the time of the facts which give rise to this lawsuit, a pregnant woman. She 

was therefore a member of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) because the terms, conditions, and privileges of 

her employment were affected due to her status as a pregnant woman. 

7. Defendant is a Foreign Profit Corporation with its principal place of business in Doral, 

Florida. All facts which give rise to this complaint occurred in Miami, Florida. 

8. Defendant has, at all times material, employed 15 or more employees for each working day 

in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in accordance with 

Title VII and the FCRA (42 U.S.C. §2000e(b); Fla. Stat. §760.02(7)).

9. Plaintiff was an employee covered by Title VII, and the FCRA in that she was subjected to 

negative, disparate treatment by her employer based her status as a pregnant woman. 

10. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violations of the Title VII and the FCRA as a result of 

the adverse treatment to which Defendant subjected Plaintiff, including but not limited to, 

termination.

11. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a timely Charge of 

Discrimination ("Charge") against the Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission which was dually filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. 

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

12. Plaintiff’s Charge was filed on or about October 26, 2021. The actions complained of herein 

occurred no more than 300 days before that date and/or continued from that date stemming 

from the same actions set forth in the Charge. 

13. Plaintiff was terminated from her position on or about August 9, 2021. Her Charge was 

therefore timely filed. 

14. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on May 24, 2022. This suit is filed in accordance 

with that Notice and within the applicable 90-day time limitation (a copy of the Notice is 

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).

15. The Florida Commission on Human Relations did not issue a finding on Plaintiff’s charge 

within 180 days of the filing of said charges. 

16. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

17. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an account specialist from on or about June 28, 2021,

through on or about August 9, 2021, under the direct supervision of Zaira Huerta (hereinafter 

“Huerta”). 

18. Because of Plaintiff’s extensive experience in the industry, she was fully qualified for the 

position for which she was hired. 

19. On or about July 11, 2021, Plaintiff advised her supervisor, Huerta of her pregnancy.

20. Huerta requested that she attend Plaintiff’s ultrasound to confirm her pregnancy. 

21. Approximately a week after Huerta confirmed Plaintiff’s pregnancy, Huerta demanded

Plaintiff notify the president of the company, Giuseppe Delli Carpini (male) (hereinafter 

“Carpini”), of her pregnancy even though she did not report directly to him. 

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

22. On or about July 14, 2021, Plaintiff informed Carpini of her pregnancy over the phone in front 

of Huerta. 

23. On or about July 25, 2021, Huerta was going to be out on vacation. Huerta told Plaintiff she 

did not want to leave her alone in the office. Therefore, Huerta required that Plaintiff attended 

a training in the New York offices until on or about July 28, 2021.

24. Plaintiff did as she was instructed. However, upon her arrival to New York, Plaintiff 

discovered there was no training scheduled. Furthermore, Defendant made no arrangements 

and/or accommodations for Plaintiff to be picked up and driven while she was in New York,

which caused a lot of stress for Plaintiff.

25. On or about July 29, 2021, Plaintiff returned to the Miami office. Upon her return, Plaintiff 

noticed that Carpini and Huerta were treating her differently.

26. Specifically, over the course of the next few weeks, Huerta and Carpini systematically 

excluded Plaintiff from within the work environment, excluded her from communications, and 

provided none of the requisite job support to Plaintiff. 

27. On or about August 9, 2021, Plaintiff was terminated without valid cause. The reason provided 

by Defendant that they loss important clients and the lobster business as a whole was false. 

28. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff contends that after her termination, Defendant hired a 

male employee to replace her. 

29. Plaintiff’s pregnancy was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to 

terminate her employment. 

30. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to represent her in this action and has agreed to pay 

it reasonable fees.

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

COUNT I

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION 

OF THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1978

31. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-30, of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein:

32. Defendant was under obligation to treat Plaintiff the same as any other non-pregnant

employee, which includes providing the same job opportunities, benefits and treatment under 

the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

33. Without just cause or reason, Defendant, through Carpini and Huerta subjected Plaintiff to 

disparate treatment and terminated her employment without cause. 

34. Carpini and Huerta mistreated Plaintiff by systematically excluding her from within the work 

environment and/or consistently treating her in a disparaging manner. Carpini and Huerta 

excluded her from communications and provided none of the requisite job support. 

35. Further, Huerta demanded to accompany Plaintiff to an ultrasound to confirm her pregnancy. 

36. Defendant did not treat male employees in this same manner. Huerta did not demand to do 

the same with anu other temporarily disabled employees.

37. Without just cause or a good faith reason, Defendant, terminated Plaintiff’s employment on 

August 9, 2022. for no apparent reason. 

38. Further, and prior to her termination, Plaintiff was required to attend a four-day training in 

New York without being offered the same benefits and transportation accommodations that 

other non-pregnant employees received. 

39. At all times, Carpini, Huerta, and/or other employees within Defendant’s company acted 

within the scope of their duties. 

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

40. Defendant’s representatives and agents had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s pregnancy at the 

time they terminated Plaintiff. 

41. At the time it was notified, Defendant had a duty the same manner it treated any other 

temporarily disabled employees. 

42. Plaintiff’s sex, and specifically her pregnancy, was, at minimum, a motivating factor in 

Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff and/or Defendant’s decision to send Plaintiff to 

New York while Huerta was on vacation. 

43. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including but not limited 

to, lost wages and benefits, pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, §706(g).

44. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for her protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964. Defendant, by and through their officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, 

and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its managers and/or other employees. Therefore, 

Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at 

trial. 

45. Defendant’s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that: 

A. The Court award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate her for past and 

future pecuniary losses, including injury to her professional reputation, and emotional 

pain and suffering caused by Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory treatment in 

an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

§706(g);

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

B. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable 

attorney’s fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

C. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION)

46. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1–30, inclusive, as 

though same were fully re-written, and says:

47. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action were met or waived. Plaintiff’s Charge of 

Discrimination was dually filed with both the EEOC and the Florida Commission on Human 

Relations (“FCHR”). The FCHR did not issue a determination within the permissible time 

frame. 

48. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Fla. 

Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11, based on her status as a pregnant woman. 

49. Plaintiff was subject to adverse employment action (termination). Her pregnancy was, at 

minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate. 

50. Defendant affected Plaintiff’s compensation, terms, and conditions, or privileges of 

Plaintiff’s employment. 

51. At all times, Defendant was aware of its failure to provide Plaintiff with the same terms and 

conditions or privileges of employment it would provide to other temporarily disabled

employees and/or other non-pregnant employees. 

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s willful actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

emotional distress and other compensatory and actual damages and has been compelled to 

retain the services of counsel to represent her on this matter.

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

53. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages and benefits, pursuant to the provisions of the FCRA.

54. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for her protected rights under the FCRA. Defendant, by and 

through their officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful 

conduct of its managers and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to 

punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

55. Defendant’s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that:

A. Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate her for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to her 

professional reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant’s 

discriminatory and retaliatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in 

accordance with the FCRA, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11;

B. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable 

attorney’s fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

C. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 8 of 9
9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff JANET NICOLATOS demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts of this 

Complaint so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: August 22, 2022

By: /s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive 

Suite 290

Miami FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Case 1:22-cv-22661-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 9 of 9