1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 1:22cv23288

CORTEZ OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ADVENIR LIVING, LLC,

Defendant,

___________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff, CORTEZ OLIVER (hereinafter referred to as “OLIVER”), sues the Defendant, 

ADVENIR LIVING, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as 

“ADVENIR”) and states as follows:

1. This is an action for damages being brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964.

PARTIES

2. The Plaintiff, OLIVER, is an individual over the age of eighteen (18) years of age, 

residing in Buford, Gwinnett County, Georgia.

3. The Defendant ADVENIR, is a limited liability company organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

4. All times material hereto, Defendant ADVENIR was a Miami-based full-service 

real estate company with a focus on multi-family apartment communities.

5. At all times material hereto, OLIVER was employed by ADVENIR as a Regional 

Director of Operations, overseeing properties located in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

South Carolina.

6. At all times material hereto, ADVENIR’s corporate leadership team and human 

resources operated out of the corporate office located in Miami-Dade County, Florida

JURISDICTION & VENUE

7. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 USC 

§1331, as this Court has original jurisdiction over federal questions arising under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

8. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 USC 

§1332(a) because the matter in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, exclusive of costs, 

it is between citizens of different states, and because the Defendant has certain minimum contacts 

with the State of Florida such that the maintenance of the suit in this district does not offend 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 

9. Venue in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is 

proper pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and causes of action occurred in this judicial district, and because 

Defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district at the time of the 

commencement of the action. 

10. On or about April 7, 2022, OLIVER timely filed a charge with the United States 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against ADVENIR for discrimination in 

employment and for retaliation. The EEOC issued its Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue on July 

11, 2022 for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A copy of the Right to Sue 

letter is attached as Exhibit “A”. 

11. All conditions precedent to bringing this cause of action have been met or have 

been waived by the Defendant. 

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

12. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(2)(a), et seq., prohibits 

employers from discriminating against individuals based upon their race.

13. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(3)(a), prohibits 

employers from engaging in retaliatory practices against individuals who have objected to 

discriminatory treatment and/or practices.

14. ADVENIR is a covered employer to which the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

applies in that it employs more than fifteen (15) people who are present “for each working day in 

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

15. OLIVER began working for ADVENIR on December 1, 2020 as a Regional 

Director of Operations. When he was hired, he was not provided with complete formal training or 

complete onboarding regarding the Defendant’s properties and procedures. 

16. In or about September 2021, ADVENIR hired a woman named Dena Hilyer as a 

Regional Director to even the workload within OLIVER’s regions.

17. Shortly after Hilyer began her employment, OLIVER discovered that Hilyer, who 

is a white/Caucasian woman, and another employee who was hired to be an assistant property 

manager and who is also a white/Caucasian woman, were being paid more at a Dawsonville, GA

property than Black employees who were performing for the same type jobs at a larger Marietta, 

GA property. In addition to being paid more, the white employees had less responsibility than the 

Black employees, because the Dawsonville property only had 240 units, whereas the Marietta 

property had 304 units. 

18. When OLIVER questioned the pay disparity between the Caucasian and Black 

employees, Regional VP Heather Gaff told OLIVER not to worry about it, that the company knew 

his value and that he would be getting a pay raise soon, indicating to OLIVER that he was getting 

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

paid less than white/Caucasian employees.

19. In addition to the pay disparity, OLIVER also noticed that Hilyer was being given 

newer and more favorable properties, with fewer residents and fewer problems to oversee than the 

properties he was assigned to manage. 

20. OLIVER also discovered that the recently hired white/Caucasian employees went 

through an onboarding process and were provided training by the Defendant that had never been 

offered to him. OLIVER inquired to receive the same training but was still never awardee the 

training.

21. OLIVER verbally discussed the pay and workload disparity with his manager, 

Heather Gaff, who agreed to address the situation.

22. In October 2021, OLIVER discovered that ADVENIR was enforcing its mask 

mandate policy in a discriminatory manner in that black employees were held to a different 

standard than white employees in regard to when and where the employees would be required to 

wear a mask.

23. In December 2021, after OLIVER lodged several verbal complaints regarding 

disparate treatment based upon race, OLIVER was told by Heather Gaff that his job was in 

jeopardy.

24. On or about December 22, 2021, OLIVER emailed a formal complaint of racial 

discrimination and retaliation to Ruth London, the Defendant’s Human Resources Director and 

Carl Swafford, the Defendant’s Chief Operation Officer of Operations. 

25. On or about January 13, 2022, Carl Swafford flew to Georgia and terminated 

OLIVER in person. Since the specific purpose of the meeting was to terminate CORTEZ, it was 

clear that the decision to terminate had been made in the Defendant’s Miami based corporate 

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

office. 

COUNT I – RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE 

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

26. The Plaintiff readopts and restates the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) 

through twenty-five (25) as if more fully set forth herein.

27. OLIVER is an employee within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964.

28. Between December 1, 2020 and January 13, 2022, OLIVER was subjected to 

different terms and conditions of his employment, including rates of pay, based upon his race, 

African American.

29. ADVENIR had a pattern and practice of paying black employees less money than

white employees for the same positions, even though statistically the white employees had less 

work due to overseeing fewer units/properties.

30. In addition, OLIVER was informed by a former employee of ADVENIR who 

worked in human resources that he had to fight to get OLIVER paid close to what other white 

Regional Directors were being paid.

31. ADVENIR also assigned black employees, such as OLIVER, older communities 

with higher crime rates, in less affluent neighborhoods, and with more problems, than the 

properties assigned to white employees. 

32. After OLIVER questioned Heather Gaff, Regional VP about the disparate 

employment practices, he was told that his job was in jeopardy even though he had never received 

a poor evaluation, nor was he placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP).

33. On January 13, 2022, after OLIVER had submitted a formal written complaint to 

human resources and to Carl Swafford, the Senior VP of Operations of ADVENIR, he was 

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 5 of 8
6

summarily fired by Mr. Swafford.

34. Prior to being terminated, OLIVER had not been placed on a PIP nor was he offered 

the opportunity to step down to a community manager position as ADVENIR had previously done 

for a white Regional Director within the same time period that OLIVER was terminated. 

35. ADVENIR’S disparate treatment of black employees, such as the Plaintiff, 

OLIVER, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

36. As a result of ADVENIR’S actions, OLIVER has suffered and will continue to 

suffer both economic and non-economic harm. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CORTEZ OLIVER, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and award the following relief: 

a. Declaratory relief, including but not limited to a declaration that Defendant ADVENIR

discriminated against OLIVER on the basis of race;

b. Appropriate injunctive relief, including but not limited to reinstatement of OLIVER’S

position with ADVENIR and an order restraining ADVENIR from engaging in further 

discriminatory conduct of the types alleged in this Complaint; 

c. Back pay in an amount to be determined at trial; 

d. In the event reinstatement is not granted, front pay; 

e. Compensatory and consequential damages, including for emotional distress against 

defendant ADVENIR; 

f. Punitive damages against defendant ADVENIR; 

g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate; 

h. Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and 

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 6 of 8
7

i. Any such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II – RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

ACT OF 1964

37. The Plaintiff readopts and restates the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) 

through twenty-five (25) as if more fully set forth herein.

38. OLIVER is an employee within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964.

39. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against employee who object 

to discriminatory conduct in the workplace.

40. Between September 1, 2021 and December 22, 2021, OLIVER complained both 

verbally and in writing, about disparate treatment of black employees, including himself, as 

compared to white employees.

41. On January 13, 2022, OLIVER was terminated for engaging in protected activity; 

to wit: complaining about disparate treatment and discrimination in the workplace. 

42. Carl Swafford, the individual who terminated OLIVER was one of the same 

individuals to whom OLIVER had complained to about discrimination and disparate treatment.

43. ADVENIR’s stated reasons for the termination of OLIVER was pretextual.

44. ADVENIR’S retaliatory discharge of Plaintiff, OLIVER, violated Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

45. As a result of ADVENIR’S actions, OLIVER has suffered and will continue to 

suffer both economic and non-economic harm. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CORTEZ OLIVER, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and award the following relief: 

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 7 of 8
8

a. Declaratory relief, including but not limited to a declaration that Defendant ADVENIR 

retaliated against OLIVER in response to his complaints of discrimination on the basis of race; 

b. Appropriate injunctive relief, including but not limited to reinstatement of OLIVER’S 

position with ADVENIR and an order restraining ADVENIR from engaging in further 

discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of the types alleged in this Complaint; 

c. Back pay in an amount to be determined at trial; 

d. In the event reinstatement is not granted, front pay; 

e. Compensatory and consequential damages, including for emotional distress against 

defendant ADVENIR; 

f. Punitive damages against defendant ADVENIR; 

g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate; 

h. Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and 

i. Any such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED.

Respectfully submitted on this 11th day of October, 2022.

/s/ Barbra A. Stern

Barbra A. Stern, Esquire

Fla. Bar No. 526576

Law Offices of Barbra Stern PA

808 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 102

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Phone: (954) 743-4710

Direct Dial (954) 239-7249

barbra@sternlawoffice.com

ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:22-cv-23288-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 8 of 8