1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. ____________-CIV-___________/____________ 

 

YULIANA SARDINAS, an individual, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

ASSUREUS, INC., a Florida Corporation, 

Defendant. 

_______________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS (referred to as “Plaintiff” and “SARDINAS”), 

was an employee of Defendant, ASSUREUS, INC., a Florida Corporation (referred to as 

“Defendant” and “ASSUREUS”), and Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for violations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., as amended through the 

ADA Amendments Act of 2008, P.L. 110-325, § 2, 122 Stat. 3553 (the “ADAAA”), the Florida 

Civil Rights Act, F.S. §760.01 et seq., and Florida Statutes §760.50, Discrimination on the basis 

of AIDS, AIDS-related complex, and HIV prohibited. 

2. SARDINAS is an individual who at all times material to this Complaint resided in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this Court, and who has suffered from the 

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). 

3. At all times material to this Complaint, ASSUREUS has owned and operated an 

insurance agency business with a corporate office located at 1880 NE 163rd Street, North Miami 

Beach, Florida 33162 in Miami-Dade County, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 1 of 27
2

4. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331, §1332, §1337 and 

§1367, and 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all of the events, 

or a substantial part of the events, giving rise to this action, occurred in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, Miami Division.

6. In or around May 2021, ASSUREUS hired SARDINAS as a Customer Service 

Representative in Defendant’s insurance agency based upon a regular rate of $17.00 per hour. 

7. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was an “employee” of ASSUREUS

within the meaning of the ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(4), and the FCRA, F.S. §760.10(1)(a).

8. At all times material to this action, ASSUREUS was an “employer” of SARDINAS 

within the meaning of the ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), and the FCRA, F.S. §760.02(7), because 

Defendant was a business engaged in interstate commerce and had Fifteen (15) or more employees 

in each of Twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the year 2021 or the preceding year. 

9. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was an individual with one or more 

chronic medical (physiological) conditions, namely HIV, an infection that attacks the body’s 

immune system, specifically Plaintiff’s white blood cells called CD4 cells.

10. At all times material to this action between May 2021 and October 2021, 

SARDINAS suffered from a “physical impairment” within the meaning of the ADA, 29 C.F.R. 

§1630.2(h)(1), as a result of SARDINAS’s HIV and resulting medical issues, including but not 

limited to, Plaintiff suffering from one or more physiological disorders or conditions affecting one 

or more of SARDINAS’s major bodily functions, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s body 

systems including but not necessarily limited to SARDINAS’s hemic and immune systems, for 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 2 of 27
3

which Plaintiff took prescription medication (Biktarvy) to try and treat SARDINAS’s medical 

condition.

11. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was substantially limited in one or 

more “major life activities” within the meaning of the ADA and ADAAA, 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i), 

including but not necessarily limited to the operation of one or more of Plaintiff’s major bodily 

functions including but not necessarily limited to functioning of SARDINAS’s hemic and immune

systems.

12. Between May 2021 and October 2021, SARDINAS successfully carried out her 

essential job duties as a Customer Service Representative for ASSUREUS. 

13. On or around Monday, October 4, 2021, SARDINAS requested and received 

permission from ASSUREUS’s management, including but not necessarily limited to (1) Aviva 

Druin, an owner of ASSUREUS, and (2) Plaintiff’s supervisor Patricia Fernandez, who was an 

assistant to Defendant’s owner, for Plaintiff to take time off from work on or around October 6 or 

7, 2021 to get blood work done in connection with upcoming medical and dental appointments.

14. Late in the day on or around Wednesday, October 6, 2021, SARDINAS again 

communicated with Ms. Fernandez about a medical appointment for which Plaintiff would be late 

to work on Thursday, October 7, 2021, as part of which SARDINAS expressly discussed with Ms.

Fernandez that SARDINAS had a medical condition that required blood work be completed.

15. Similarly, on the morning of October 7, 2021, SARDINAS sent a reminder to 

ASSUREUS early in the morning—through a group messenger that ASSUREUS used for sending 

and receiving employee communications—that Plaintiff would be in to work later in the day on 

October 7th and SARDINAS also provided further updates to ASSUREUS during the morning on 

October 7th about when Plaintiff would be done with her appointment.

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 3 of 27
4

16. When SARDINAS returned to ASSUREUS’s office in approximately the late 

afternoon of October 7, 2021, SARDINAS showed Ms. Fernandez proof from Plaintiff’s 

healthcare provider, Care Resource Community Health Centers, that Plaintiff’s absence from work

was for medical reasons—which documentation reflected that SARINAS had HIV—Ms.

Fernandez became angry and questioned why SARDINAS had not previously disclosed to

ASSUREUS that Plaintiff had HIV. 

17. SARDINAS was both shocked and upset by Ms. Fernandez's questions about

Plaintiff’s medical condition on or around October 7, 2021 and SARDINAS objected to Ms. 

Fernandez why it mattered to ASSUREUS that Plaintiff had HIV or how SARDINAS’s medical 

condition had anything to do with Plaintiff carrying out her duties as a Customer Service 

Representative for ASSUREUS because SARDINAS was fully capable of performing her essential 

duties for Defendant. 

18. However, SARDINAS observed that Ms. Fernandez remained angry on or around 

October 7, 2021 and Ms. Fernandez notified SARDINAS that Plaintiff’s employment with 

ASSUREUS was immediately terminated.

19. ASSUREUS’s termination of SARDINAS’s employment on or around October 7, 

2021 was based upon SARDINAS’s disability/handicap, HIV, and/or was because of 

SARDINAS’s exercise of her rights to object to disability/handicap or HIV discrimination, all in 

violation of the ADA, FCRA, and F.S. §760.50.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATVIE REMEDIES

20. On November 11, 2021, SARDINAS filed a Charge of Discrimination against 

ASSUREUS with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and 

Florida Commission for Human Relations (FCHR), EEOC Charge No. 510-2022-00899, alleging 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 4 of 27
5 

that she had been subjected to disability/handicap discrimination as well as retaliation in violation 

of the ADAAA and FCRA. A copy of SARDINAS’s Charge of Discrimination is attached hereto 

as Exhibit A. 

21. On or around March 4, 2022, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Suit 

Rights to SARDINAS in connection with Charge No. 510-2022-00899, a copy of which RTS 

Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

22. As of June 1, 2022, more than One Hundred and Eighty (180) days have passed 

since the filing of SARDINAS’s Charge of Discrimination on November 11, 2021 and the FCHR 

did not issue any determination concerning SARDINAS’s Charge. As a result, pursuant to F.S. 

§760.11(18), which provides that in the event that the FCHR fails to conciliate or determine 

whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under that section within 180 days of the filing 

of the complaint, an aggrieved person may file a civil action “as if the commission determined that 

there was reasonable cause,” SARDINAS has exhausted all administrative remedies under Florida 

as well as Federal law.

23. SARDINAS’s Complaint in this action is being filed with the Court on June 1, 2022 

within Eighty-Nine (89) days of SARDINAS’s of the EEOC’s Dismissal and Notice of Suit Rights 

for Charge No. 510-2022-00899. 

24. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have either occurred or been 

waived.

COUNT I

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations of Paragraphs 1 

through 24 as if fully set forth herein and further states that this is an action against ASSUREUS, 

INC. for disparate treatment and disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 5 of 27
6

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., as amended through the ADA Amendments 

Act of 2008, P.L. 110-325, § 2, 122 Stat. 3553. (“ADAAA”).

25. The Americans with Disabilities, the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12112(a), 

prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job 

application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee 

compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 

26. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS suffered from HIV which affected, 

inter alia, Plaintiff’s hemic and immune systems during SARDINAS’s employment with 

ASSUREUS between approximately May 2021 and October 2021. 

27. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS suffered from one or more 

“physical impairments” within the meaning of the ADA and ADAAA, 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(h)(1), 

as a result of HIV, a physiological disorder or condition which affected (a) SARDINAS’s hemic 

and immune systems; and (b) one or more of SARDINAS’s major bodily functions, including but 

not necessarily limited to the functioning of SARDINAS’s hemic and immune systems.

28. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was substantially limited in one or 

more “major life activities” within the meaning of the ADA and ADAAA, 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i)(ii), 

including but not necessarily limited to the operation of a major bodily function including the 

functions of SARDINAS’s hemic and immune systems.

29. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was an individual with a 

“disability” as defined by the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(1), because Plaintiff (a) 

suffered physical impairments that substantially limited one or more major life activities; (b) had 

a record of such impairments; and/or (c) was regarded by ASSUREUS as a person with such 

impairments.

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 6 of 27
7

30. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS had to endure substantial 

limitations as a result of Plaintiff’s HIV and related medical condition(s) within the meaning of 

the ADA and ADAAA, 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j), because SARDINAS’s medical condition(s)

substantially limited Plaintiff’s ability to perform one or more major life activities—including but 

not necessarily limited to the functioning of SARDINAS’s hemic and immune systems—as 

compared to most people in the general population.

31. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was “disabled” within the meaning 

of the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A), because SARDINAS’s HIV and related 

medical conditions constitute one or more actual physical impairments that substantially limit one 

or more of SARDINAS’s major life activities.

32. In addition, at all times material to this action, SARDINAS was also “disabled” 

within the meaning of the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(C), because SARDINAS was 

regarded by ASSUREUS as having a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more 

of her major life activities as a result of SARDINAS’s HIV and related medical condition(s).

33. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was a “qualified individual” as that

term is defined by the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(8), because Plaintiff was able to 

satisfactorily perform the essential functions of her job as a Customer Service Representative for

ASSUREUS between approximately May 2021 and October 2021 with or without reasonable 

accommodation by Defendant.

34. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was a “qualified individual with a 

disability” within the meaning of the ADA and ADAAA, 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(m) and 42 U.S.C. 

§12111(8), because SARDINAS possessed the requisite skill and experience to carry out her

essential duties as a Customer Service Representative for ASSUREUS between approximately 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 7 of 27
8

May 2021 and October 2021, and SARDINAS likewise was capable of performing the essential 

functions of her job despite SARDINAS’s disability, with or without reasonable 

accommodation(s) by ASSUREUS.

35. ASSUREUS terminated SARDINAS’s employment in October 2021 because of 

SARDINAS’s actual and/or perceived disability, HIV, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12112(a).

36. The reasons relied upon by ASSUREUS in October 2021 for terminating 

SARDINAS’s employment were false and a pretext for discrimination against SARDINAS

because of her disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12112(a).

37. ASSUREUS knowingly and willfully engaged in conduct prohibited by the ADA 

and ADAAA against SARDINAS because of her disability so as to discourage, dissuade and/or 

otherwise dishearten SARDINAS.

38. SARDINAS’s actual and/or perceived disability was a motivating factor in 

ASSUREUS’s decision to terminate SARDINAS’s employment in October 2021, in violation of 

42 U.S.C. §12112. 

39. ASSUREUS’s violations of the ADA and ADAAA were intentional and were done 

with malice or reckless indifference to SARDINAS’s rights guaranteed under the laws of the 

United States.

40. SARDINAS has suffered lost earnings, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem and 

damages as a direct result of ASSUREUS’s violations of the ADA and ADAAA.

41. SARDINAS has retained the undersigned counsel to represent her in this action and 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205, SARDINAS is entitled to recover her reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs from ASSUREUS. 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 8 of 27
9 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, demands judgment against Defendant, 

ASSUREUS, INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief including but not limited to 

reinstatement and/or front pay, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, expert fees and 

such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. 

COUNT II

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations of Paragraphs 1 

through 24 as if fully set forth herein and further states that this is an action against ASSUREUS, 

INC. for Retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12203, as 

amended through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, P.L. 110-325, § 2, 122 Stat. 3553. 

42. The Americans with Disabilities, ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12203(a), 

provides that: “No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has 

opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a 

charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing 

under this chapter.” 

43. Similarly, the ADA and ADAAA also provide, 42 U.S.C. §12203(b), that it shall 

“be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or 

enjoyment of, or an account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her 

having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted 

or protected by this chapter.” 

44. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was an individual with a 

“disability” as defined by the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1), because Plaintiff (a) 

suffered one or more physical impairments that substantially limited one or more major life 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 9 of 27
10

activities, namely Plaintiff’s HIV; (b) had a record of such impairments; and/or (c) was regarded 

by ASSUREUS as a person with such impairments.

45. SARDINAS was at all times material to this action a “qualified individual” as that 

term is defined by the ADA and ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(8), because Plaintiff was able to 

satisfactorily perform the essential functions of her job as a Customer Service Representative for

ASSUREUS between approximately May 2021 and October 2021 with or without reasonable 

accommodation.

46. SARDINAS engaged in statutorily protected activity under the ADA and ADAAA 

during her employment with ASSUREUS by, inter alia, SARDINAS exercising or attempting to 

exercise or enjoy her rights under the ADA, including but not limited to: (a) SARDINAS seeking 

medical care in connection with Plaintiff’s disability; (b) SARDINAS requesting partial time off 

from work at ASSUREUS for October 7, 2021 for Plaintiff’s disability; and (c) SARDINAS

objecting directly to and opposing Patricia Fernandez’s questions on or around October 7, 2021 

about why it mattered to ASSUREUS that Plaintiff had HIV or how SARDINAS’s medical 

condition had anything to do with Plaintiff carrying out her duties as a Customer Service 

Representative for ASSUREUS when Plaintiff was fully capable of performing her essential duties 

for Defendant.

47. ASSUREUS subjected SARDINAS to adverse employment action including but 

not necessarily limited to terminating Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021 based upon 

discriminatory and/or pretextual grounds because of Plaintiff’s disability and Plaintiff’s good faith 

objections to Defendant’s management about discrimination because of an actual or perceived 

disability, all because SARDINAS engaged in statutorily protected activity under the ADA and 

ADAAA. 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 10 of 27
11

48. ASSUREUS’s retaliatory actions against SARDINAS constitute violations of the 

ADA and ADAAA, which prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because 

he has opposed any act or practice made unlawful under the ADA/ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12203(a), 

and also prohibits employers from coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with any 

individual in the exercise or enjoyment of rights under the ADA/ADAAA on account of her having 

exercised or enjoyed or attempted to exercise or enjoy such rights, 42 U.S.C. §12203(b).

49. ASSUREUS’s termination of SARDINAS’s employment in October 2021 was 

unlawful retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12203 because of Plaintiff’s exercise of rights under 

the ADA Plaintiff’s good faith objection to about ASSUREUS’s disparate treatment and disability 

discrimination against her, in violation of the ADA.

50. The fact that SARDINAS engaged in activity protected by the ADA was a 

motivating factor in ASSUREUS’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. §12203.

51. The reasons relied upon by ASSUREUS in October 2021 for terminating 

SARDINAS’s employment were a pretext for unlawful retaliation against SARDINAS in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. §12203.

52. As a direct and proximate result of ASSUREUS’s unlawful retaliation against 

SARDINAS in violation of the ADA, Plaintiff has suffered damages and has been deprived of jobrelated economic benefits, all in amounts to be established at trial.

53. ASSUREUS’s retaliatory actions in violation of the ADA caused SARDINAS to 

suffer damages for emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 11 of 27
12 

54. ASSUREUS’s actions were undertaken intentionally, willfully, and maliciously 

with respect to, or with malice and/or reckless disregard for, SARDINAS’s federally protected 

rights under the ADA, as a result of which Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from Defendant. 

55. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205, SARDINAS is entitled to recover her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs from ASSUREUS as a result of Defendant’s violations of the ADA’s 

anti-retaliation provisions. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, demands judgment against Defendant, 

ASSUREUS, INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief including but not limited to 

reinstatement and/or front pay, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, expert fees and 

such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. 

COUNT III

VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

F.S. §760.10 - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON HANDICAP

Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above and further states that this is an action against ASSUREUS, INC.

for handicap discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, F.S. §760.10 et seq.

 56. Florida Statutes §760.10(1)(a) provides that: “It is unlawful employment practice 

for an employer: To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges 

of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

handicap, or marital status.” Id. (emphasis added).

57. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was an “aggrieved person” within 

the meaning of the FCRA, F.S. §760.02(10). 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 12 of 27
13

58. Despite the facts that SARDINAS satisfactorily performed her essential duties as a 

Customer Service Representative for ASSUREUS between approximately May 2021 and October 

2021 and that SARDINAS was still qualified in October 2021 to work as a Customer Service 

Representative for ASSUREUS, Defendant unlawfully terminated SARDINAS in October 2021

because of Plaintiff’s handicap, in violation of F.S. §760.10(1).

59. ASSUREUS knowingly and willfully discriminated against SARDINAS in 

October 2021 because of Plaintiff’s handicap, in violation of F.S. §760.10(1), when ASSUREUS 

terminated Plaintiff’s employment based upon Plaintiff’s HIV+ condition.

60. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS suffered from a chronic and/or

permanent medical condition as a result of HIV and related medical condition(s), which 

condition(s) constitute an actual or perceived “handicap” within the meaning of the FCRA, as 

SARDINAS’s condition was chronic and involved physical problems including but not necessarily 

limited to the functioning of SARDINAS’s hemic and immune systems. 

61. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was a qualified individual with a 

handicap within the meaning of the FCRA because SARDINAS possessed the requisite skill and 

experience to carry out her duties as a Customer Service Representative for ASSUREUS and 

SARDINAS likewise was capable of performing the essential functions of her job despite 

Plaintiff’s handicap, with or without reasonable accommodation(s) by ASSUREUS.

62. ASSUREUS knowingly and willfully engaged in conduct prohibited by the Florida 

Civil Rights Act against SARDINAS because of Plaintiff’s handicap so as to discourage, dissuade 

and/or otherwise dishearten SARDINAS.

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 13 of 27
14 

 63. When ASSUREUS terminated SARDINAS’s employment in October 2021, a 

motivating factor behind Plaintiff’s termination was SARDINAS’s handicap, in violation of F.S. 

§760.10(1)(a) & (b).

 64. The reasons relied upon by ASSUREUS in October 2021 for terminating 

SARDINAS’s employment were false and a pretext for discrimination against SARDINAS

because of her handicap in violation of F.S. §760.10(1). 

65. ASSUREUS’s violations of F.S. §760.10 were intentional and were done with 

malice and reckless disregard for SARDINAS’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the State 

of Florida, such that SARDINAS is entitled to punitive damages from ASSUREUS pursuant to 

F.S. §760.11(5). 

66. Pursuant to F.S. §760.11(5), SARDINAS is entitled to recover her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs from ASSUREUS as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, demands judgment against Defendant,

ASSUREUS, INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief including but not limited to 

reinstatement and/or front pay, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, expert fees and 

such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems proper.

COUNT IV 

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, F.S. §760.10 

Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above and further states that this is an action against ASSUREUS, INC.

for Retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, F.S. §760.10. 

67. Pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), F.S. §760.10(7), it is “an unlawful 

employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any person because that person 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 14 of 27
15 

has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because 

that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, 

proceeding, or hearing under this section.” 

68. At all times material to this action, SARDINAS was an “aggrieved person” within 

the meaning of the FCRA, F.S. §760.02(10). 

69. SARDINAS engaged in statutorily protected activity within the meaning of the 

Florida Civil Rights Act during her employment with ASSUREUS by, inter alia: (a) SARDINAS

seeking medical care in connection with Plaintiff’s disability; (b) SARDINAS requesting partial 

time off from work at ASSUREUS for October 7, 2021 for Plaintiff’s disability; and (c) 

SARDINAS objecting directly to and opposing Patricia Fernandez’s questions on or around 

October 7, 2021 about why it mattered to ASSUREUS that Plaintiff had HIV or how SARDINAS’s 

medical condition had anything to do with Plaintiff carrying out her duties as a Customer Service 

Representative for ASSUREUS when Plaintiff was fully capable of performing her essential duties 

for Defendant. 

70. ASSUREUS subjected SARDINAS to adverse employment action and retaliation 

because of Plaintiff’s protected activity under the Florida Civil Rights Act, including, inter alia, 

terminating SARDINAS’s employment in October 2021 based upon false and/or pretextual 

grounds because of Plaintiff’s exercise of her rights under the FCRA and Plaintiff’s good faith 

objection to Patricia Fernandez to ASSUREUS’s discrimination against Plaintiff because of an 

actual or perceived handicap, all in violation of F.S. §760.10(7). 

71. ASSUREUS’s termination of SARDINAS’s employment in October 2021 was 

unlawful retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act because of Plaintiff’s exercise of 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 15 of 27
16

her rights under the FCRA and Plaintiff’s good faith objection to ASSUREUS’s disparate 

treatment and discrimination, in violation of F.S. §760.10(7).

72. The fact that SARDINAS engaged in activity protected by the FCRA was a 

motivating factor in ASSUREUS’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021, in 

violation of F.S. §760.10(7).

73. The reasons relied upon by ASSUREUS in October 2021 for terminating 

SARDINAS’s employment was a pretext for unlawful retaliation against SARDINAS in violation 

of F.S. §760.10(7).

74. ASSUREUS’s violations of §760.10 were intentional and were done with malice 

and reckless disregard for SARDINAS’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the State of Florida, 

such that SARDINAS is entitled to punitive damages from ASSUREUS pursuant to F.S. 

§760.11(5).

75. SARDINAS has suffered lost earnings, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem and 

damages as a direct result of ASSUREUS’s violations of F.S. §760.10(7).

76. Pursuant to F.S. §760.11(5), SARDINAS is entitled to recover her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs from ASSUREUS as a result of ASSUREUS’s violations of the FCRA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, demands judgment against Defendant, 

ASSUREUS, INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, equitable relief including but not limited to front pay, injunctive relief, 

interest, attorney’s fees, costs, expert fees and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court 

deems proper.

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 16 of 27
17 

COUNT V 

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTES §760.50 BECAUSE OF HIV+ STATUS

Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 24 above and further states that this is an action against ASSUREUS, INC.

for discrimination because of Plaintiff’s HIV+ status in violation of F.S. §760.50, Discrimination

on the basis of AIDS, AIDS-related complex, and HIV prohibited. 

77. Florida Statutes §760.50(3)(b), Discrimination on the basis of AIDS, AIDS-related 

complex and HIV prohibited, provides that: 

“No person may fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, segregate or 

classify any individual in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive that 

individual of employment opportunities or adversely affect his or her status as an 

employee, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of 

knowledge or belief that the individual has taken a human immunodeficiency virus 

test or the results or perceived results of such test unless the absence of human 

immunodeficiency virus infection is a bona fide occupational qualification of the 

job in question.” 

78. Likewise, F.S. §760.50(6)(a) provides that “any person aggrieved by a violation of 

[§760.50] shall have a right of action in the circuit court and may recover for each violation: 

1. Against any person who violates a provision of this section, liquidated 

damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. 

2. Against any person who intentionally or recklessly violates a provision of 

this section, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater.

3. Reasonable attorney’s fees.

4. Such other relief, including an injunction, as the court may deem 

appropriate.” 

79. On or around October 7, 2021, ASSUREUS learned that SARDINAS was HIV+.

80. Upon learning that SARDINAS was HIV+ on or around October 7, 2021 and 

Patricia Fernandez questioning why Plaintiff had not earlier notified ASSUREUS that SARDINAS 

suffered from HIV, ASSUREUS discriminated against SARDINAS on the basis of Defendant’s 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 17 of 27
18 

knowledge and/or belief that SARDINAS was HIV+ when Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s 

employment because of her HIV, in violation of F.S. §760.50(3)(b).

81. ASSUREUS’s violations of F.S. §760.50 were willful, intentional, and were done 

with malice and reckless disregard for SARDINAS’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the 

State of Florida. 

82. SARDINAS has suffered lost earnings, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, and 

damages as a direct result of ASSUREUS’s violations of F.S. §760.50(3)(b). 

83. Pursuant to F.S. §760.50(6)(a), SARDINAS is entitled to recover her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs from ASSUREUS. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, YULIANA SARDINAS, demands judgment against Defendant, 

ASSUREUS, INC., for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and such other and further relief as 

this Honorable Court deems proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

YULIANA SARDINAS demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: June 1, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: s/KEITH M. STERN 

 Keith M. Stern, Esquire 

 Florida Bar No. 321000 

 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com 

 LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.

 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 

 Miami, Florida 33132 

 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 

 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 18 of 27
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 19 of 27
EEOC Form 5 (11/09)

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act

Statement and other information before completing this form.

Charge Presented To:

FEPA

EEOC

Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

Florida Commission on Human Relations

State or local Agency, if any

and EEOC

Name (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)

Yuliana Sardinas

Home Phone (Incl. Area Code) Date of Birth

Street Address City, State and ZIP Code

Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Against

Me or Others. (If more than two are named, list under PARTICULARS below.)

Name

AssureUs, Inc.

No Employees, Members

15+

Phone No (Incl Area Code)

(305) 956-7818

Street Address

1880 NE 163rd Street

City, State and ZIP Code

North Miami Beach, Florida 33162

Name No Employees, Members Phone No (Incl Area Code)

Street Address City, State and ZIP Code

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).) DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

RACE COLOR SEX RELIGION NATIONAL ORIGIN Earliest Latest

Oct 7, 2021

RETALIATION AGE DISABILITY GENETIC INFORMATION

OTHER (Specify) CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

In or around May 2021, I began working as a Customer Service Representative for AssureUs, Inc. in Respondent's insurance agency.

Between approximately May 2021 and early October 2021, I satisfactorily performed my duties as a Customer Service Representative for

Respondent.

On or around Monday, October 4, 2021, I requested and received permission from Respondent's management, including but not

necessarily limited to (1) Aviva Druin, an owner of the business, and (2) my supervisor Patricia Fernandez, who was an assistant to the

owner, to take time off from work on or around October 6 or 7, 2021 to get blood work done in connection with upcoming medical and

dental appointments.

Late in the work day on Wednesday, October 6, 2021, I again communicated with Patricia Fernandez about medical appointment for

which I would be late to work on Thursday, October 7, 2021, as part of which I discussed with Patricia Fernandez that I have a medical

condition that required blood work be completed.

Similarly, on the morning of October 7, 2021, I sent a reminder to Respondent early in the morning--through a group messenger that

Respondent used for sending and receiving employee communications--that I would be in to work later in the day on October 7th and I

also provided further updates to Respondent during the morning on October 7th about when I would be done with my appointment.

However, when I returned to work in the afternoon of October 7, 2021 and provided Patricia Fernandez with documentation from my

healthcare provider for my partial-day absence from work, Patricia Fernandez became angry and questioned why I had not previously

disclosed to Respondent that I had a medical condition and disability. I was shocked and upset by Patricia Fernandez's questions about

my medical condition and I objected to why it mattered what my medical condition and disability were or how this had anything to do

with me carrying out my duties as a Customer Service Representative for Respondent. Despite this, Patricia Fernandez remained angry

and notified me that my employment was immediately terminated.

I believe Respondent subjected me to disparate treatment and discrimination because of my disability and Respondent retaliated

against me by firing me because of my disability and/or because I exercised my rights and objected to disability discrimination, all in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Civil Rights Act.

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I will advise the

agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate fully with them in the

processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

NOTARY – When necessary for State or Local Agency Requirements

I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

11/11/2021

Yuliana Sardinas (Nov 11, 2021 16:15 EST)

Date Charging Party Signature

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

(month, day, year)

510-2022-00899

EEOC-MDO 

Received 11/11/2021

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 20 of 27
Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 21 of 27
EXHIBIT B 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 22 of 27
Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 23 of 27
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Miami District Office

100 SE 2nd St ,Suite 1500

Miami ,Florida ,33131

(800) 669-4000

Website: www.eeoc.gov

On Behalf of the Commission: 

Digitally Signed By:Roberto Chavez

03/04/2022

Roberto Chavez 

Acting Director

Cc:

Aviva Druin 

Owner

ASSUREUS, INC.

avivadruin@gmail.com 

Keith M Stern

AttorneyLAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.

kms@workingforyou.com 

Please retain this notice for your records. 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 24 of 27
Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (Release Date)

INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC 

(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law. If you also 

plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits may be shorter and 

other provisions of State law may be different than those described below.) 

IMPORTANT TIME LIMITS – 90 DAYS TO FILE A LAWSUIT

If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge of discrimination, 

you must file a complaint in court within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Receipt 

generally means the date when you (or your representative) opened this email or mail. You should 

keep a record of the date you received this notice. Once this 90-day period has passed, your 

right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an 

attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and the record of 

your receiving it (email or envelope). 

Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. 

Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your 

attorney. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case 

which shows that you are entitled to relief. Filing this Notice is not enough. For more information 

about filing a lawsuit, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm. 

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION

For information about locating an attorney to represent you, go to: 

https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm. 

In very limited circumstances, a U.S. District Court may appoint an attorney to represent individuals 

who demonstrate that they are financially unable to afford an attorney. 

NOTICE OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (ADAAA)

We recommend that you and your attorney (if you retain one) review the resources at 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability_regulations.cfm. 

HOW TO REQUEST YOUR CHARGE FILE AND 90-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR REQUESTS

There are two ways to request a charge file: 1) a FOIA Request or 2) a Section 83 request. You may 

request your charge file under either or both procedures. EEOC can generally respond to Section 83 

requests more promptly than FOIA requests.

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 25 of 27
Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (Release Date)

Since a lawsuit must be filed within 90 days of this notice, please submit your request for the 

charge file promptly to allow sufficient time for EEOC to respond and for your review. Submit a 

signed written request stating it is a “FOIA Request” or a “Section 83 Request” for Charge 

Number 510-2022-00899 to the District Director at Roberto Chavez, 100 SE 2nd St Suite 1500 

Miami, FL 33131. You can also make a FOIA request online at 

https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login. 

You may request the charge file up to 90 days after receiving this Notice of Right to Sue. After the 

90 days have passed, you may request the charge file only if you have filed a lawsuit in court and 

provide a copy of the court complaint to EEOC. 

For more information on submitting FOIA Requests and Section 83 Requests, go to:

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/index.cfm. 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 26 of 27
Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (Release Date)

NOTICE OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (ADAAA): The 

ADA was amended, effective January 1, 2009, to broaden the definitions of disability to make it 

easier for individuals to be covered under the ADA/ADAAA. A disability is still defined as (1) a 

physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (actual 

disability); (2) a record of a substantially limiting impairment; or (3) being regarded as having a 

disability. However, these terms are redefined, and it is easier to be covered under the new law. 

If you plan to retain an attorney to assist you with your ADA claim, we recommend that you 

share this information with your attorney and suggest that he or she consult the amended 

regulations and appendix, and other ADA related publications, available at 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability regulations.cfm. 

“Actual” disability or a “record of” a disability (note: if you are pursuing a failure to 

accommodate claim you must meet the standards for either “actual” or “record of” a 

disability):

 The limitations from the impairment no longer have to be severe or significant for the 

impairment to be considered substantially limiting. 

 In addition to activities such as performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, 

speaking, breathing, learning, thinking, concentrating, reading, bending, and 

communicating (more examples at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)), “major life activities” now 

include the operation of major bodily functions, such as: functions of the immune 

system, special sense organs and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, genitourinary, 

bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, 

hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions; or the operation of an 

individual organ within a body system. 

 Only one major life activity need be substantially limited.

 With the exception of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, the beneficial effects of 

“mitigating measures” (e.g., hearing aid, prosthesis, medication, therapy, behavioral 

modifications) are not considered in determining if the impairment substantially limits a 

major life activity. 

 An impairment that is “episodic” (e.g., epilepsy, depression, multiple sclerosis) or “in 

remission” (e.g., cancer) is a disability if it would be substantially limiting when active. 

 An impairment may be substantially limiting even though it lasts or is expected to last 

fewer than six months. 

“Regarded as” coverage:

An individual can meet the definition of disability if an employment action was taken because 

of an actual or perceived impairment (e.g., The employer has a defense against a “regarded as” 

claim only when the impairment at issue is objectively BOTH transitory (lasting or expected to 

last six months or less) AND minor. 

 A person is not able to bring a failure to accommodate claim if the individual is covered 

only under the “regarded as” definition of “disability.” 

For more information, consult the amended regulations and appendix, as well as explanatory 

publications, available at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability regulations.cfm. 

Case 1:22-cv-21686-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 27 of 27