1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CIVIL ACTION NO:

MARIANNE KANE, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., NORTH 

PALM BEACH COUNTY SURGERY 

CENTER, LLC and COLUMBIA PALM 

BEACH GP, LLC,

 Defendants.

___________________________________/

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff Marianne Kane, a former Operating Room Registered Nurse at North 

County Surgicenter brings this action asserting claims under the Family Medical Leave Act 

(“FMLA”) against Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc. (“HCA”), North Palm Beach County Surgery 

Center, LLC and Columbia Palm Beach GP, LLC (collectively, the “Company”). 

2. Specifically, Ms. Kane was unlawfully terminated while she was on FMLA eligible 

leave for a medically necessary surgery and retaliated against when she was denied a job 

opportunity at the Company. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as this action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights under 

the FMLA. 

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District.

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 7
2

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Marianne Kane is a former employee of Defendants. At all relevant 

times herein, Ms. Kane met the definition of an “employee” and/or “eligible employee” since she 

worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months prior to her leave and worked in a location that 

employed 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. 

6. Defendant HCA Healthcare, Inc. is a foreign not-for-profit corporation with its 

principal place of business located One Park Plaza, Nashville, TN 37203.

7. Defendant North Palm Beach County Surgery Center, LLC is a domestic not-forprofit corporation with its principal place of business located at 2840 Sixth Avenue S., Lake 

Worth, FL 33461. At all times relevant herein, North Palm Beach County Surgery Center, LLC

met the definition of an “employer” and/or “covered employer” under all the FMLA. 

8. Defendant Colombia Palm Beach GP, LLC is a foreign corporation with its 

principal place of business located at One Park Plaza, Nashville, TN 37202. 

9. Defendants North Palm Beach County Surgery Center, LLC and Colombia Palm 

Beach GP, LLC are listed on Ms. Kane’s W2. 

10. Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc. managed the terms and conditions of Ms. 

Kane’s employment and jointly employed and/or part of an integrated enterprise with Defendants 

North Palm Beach County Surgery Center, LLC and Colombia Palm Beach GP, LLC. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Background 

11. Ms. Kane has been working as a Registered Nurse since 1976. 

12. In 2016, Ms. Kane started working at North County Surgicenter as an Operating 

Room Registered Nurse. 

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 7
3

13. On February 18, 2022, Ms. Kane took protected-FMLA to have reconstructive 

surgery, which was medically necessary due to pain and the loss of upper body range of motion. 

14. On March 24, 2022, while Ms. Kane was still on FMLA leave, HCA terminated 

her employment. 

15. As a result, HCA interfered with Ms. Kane’s right to be restored to her same 

position following her FMLA leave. 

16. After her termination, Ms. Kane sought to apply for a per diem position at North 

County Surgicenter. 

17. Ms. Kane was not given an interview and shortly after her application the position 

was removed from the website. 

18. Upon information and belief, Ms. Kane was denied the job opportunity because 

she had notified the Company of her intention to bring legal claims after her termination. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Interference (Retaliation) in Violation of the FMLA)

Against All Defendants

19. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation in the 

preceding factual allegations at paragraphs 11-15, as though fully set forth herein.

20. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” within the 

meaning of the FMLA. Plaintiff, a full-time employee of Defendants, at all relevant times 

worked at least 1,250 hours in any 12-month period, and specifically did so during the 12-month 

period preceding her termination. 

21. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were a “covered employer” within the 

meaning of the FMLA. Defendants employ 50 or more employees during at least 20 calendar 

weeks over the covered period within a 75-mile radius of Plaintiff’s work location. 

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 3 of 7
4

22. As described above, Plaintiff’s leave in March 2022 qualified and approved for 

FMLA leave because she experienced serious health conditions that made her unable to perform 

the functions of her job. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D).

23. The FMLA makes it unlawful for “any employer to interfere with, restrain, or 

deny the exercise of or attempt to exercise, any right provided under this subchapter.” 29 U.S.C. 

§ 2615(a)(1). 

24. The Department of Labor is responsible for enacting regulations to carry out the 

purpose of the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2654.

25. The Department of Labor’s enacting regulations provide that (1) “On return from 

FMLA leave, an employee is entitled to be returned to the same position the employee held when 

leave commenced, or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms and 

conditions of employment” 29 C.F.R. § 825.214; and (2) “employers cannot use the taking of 

FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions or 

disciplinary actions. . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c). 

26. In enacting these regulations, the Department of Labor took the position that 

“[a]lthough section 2615(a)(2) of the Act also may be read to bar retaliation (see Bryant v. Dollar 

General Corp., 538 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2008)), the Department believes that section 2615(a)(1) 

provides a clearer statutory basis for § 825.220(c)'s prohibition of discrimination and retaliation.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,934, 67,986 (Nov. 17, 2008).

27. By the actions described above, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under 

the FMLA by using her FMLA qualifying leave as a negative factor in the decision to terminate 

her employment and not reinstating her to her same or equivalent position. 

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 4 of 7
5

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful interference in violation 

of the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or other economic 

harm for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages, liquidated damages, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expenses, and other equitable relief that the Court deems just and proper.

29. In the event that the Court determines that Plaintiff’s claim falls under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 2615(a)(2), Plaintiff has alleged that she was terminated because she took qualifying FMLA 

leave. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the FMLA)

Against All Defendants

30. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation in the 

preceding factual allegations at paragraphs 16-18, as though fully set forth herein.

31. Plaintiff through counsel notified Defendants that she intended to bring legal 

claims for violations of the of the FMLA. 

32. Plaintiff subsequently applied and was denied a per diem position at North 

County Surgicenter. 

33. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was denied the job opportunity because she 

asserted legal claims against Defendants. 

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliation in violation of 

the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or other economic harm 

for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages, liquidated damages, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expenses, and other equitable relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 5 of 7
6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against 

Defendants, containing the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants 

complained of herein violate the laws of the United States;

B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants and their partners, 

officers, owners, agents, successors, employees and/or representatives, and any and all persons 

acting in concert with them, from engaging in any such further unlawful conduct, including the 

policies and practices complained of herein;

C. An award of damages against Defendants, or any jointly or severally liable entity 

or person, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate 

Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, an award of 

back pay and loss of benefits through the date of trial and front pay and future loss of benefits if 

the equitable remedies of employment, reinstatement and promotion are not feasible;

D. An award of liquidated damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

E. Prejudgment interest on all amounts due; 

F. An award of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and,

G. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 6 of 7
7

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.

Dated: September 20, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

By: _____________________________

Bryan Arbeit, Bar No. 1010329

8151 Peters Rd, 4th Fl.

Plantation, FL 33324

Tel: (954) 694-9610

barbeit@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 9:22-cv-81453-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 7 of 7