UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.:

SONIA RUSSELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

DRMP, INC., 

a Florida Profit Corporation, 

Defendant.

_______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, SONIA RUSSELL (“Ms. Russell” or “Plaintiff”), brings this action pursuant to 

the Family and Medical Leave Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“the FMLA”), seeking 

recovery from DRMP, INC. (“DRMP” or “Defendant”) for back pay, an equal amount as 

liquidated damages, other monetary damages, reinstatement, injunctive relief, equitable relief, 

front pay, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337 and the 

FMLA, and the authority to grant declaratory relief under the FMLA, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2201, et seq. 

PARTIES AND VENUE

2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, and resided in 

Palm Beach County, Florida. 

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 7
3. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida, and 

therefore the proper venue for this case is the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District 

of Florida.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was an employer covered by the FMLA, 

because it was engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce which employed 50 or 

more employees within 75 miles of where Plaintiff worked, for each working day during each of 

20 or more calendar workweeks, prior to seeking leave under the FMLA. 

6. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee entitled to leave under the 

FMLA, based on the fact that she: (a) had a daughter who suffered from serious health conditions 

as defined by the FMLA, necessitating Plaintiff to take FMLA leave; and (b) was employed by 

Defendant for at least 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours during the relevant 12-month 

period prior to her seeking to exercise her rights to FMLA leave.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff worked for Defendant, most recently as an Office Manager in Boca Raton, 

Florida, from March 19, 2019, until her termination on October 14, 2021. 

8. On June 21, 2021, Ms. Russell disclosed to DRMP Human Resources Vice 

President Tracie Samillano that Ms. Russell’s daughter was suffering serious health conditions, 

specifically major depression, suicidal ideations, and drug addiction, and had recently been 

admitted to a psychiatric hospital to treat and address same.

9. On June 25, 2021, Ms. Russell applied and was approved for intermittent FMLA 

leave in order to treat and address her daughter’s serious health conditions. 

10. Almost immediately, DRMP began retaliating against Ms. Russell for availing 

herself of intermittent FMLA leave, and interfering with her exercise of same.

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 7
11. On June 30, 2021, DRMP Survey Manager Matt Floyd filed a false “report” with 

Human Resources in DRMP’s Orlando headquarters wrongly accusing Ms. Russell of having 

taken a 2-hour lunch that day.

12. Ms. Russell had not theretofore been subjected to such pettifogging and spurious 

harassment or clock-watching from DRMP.

13. By July 7, 2021, Ms. Russell had conclusively proved to DRMP, including to her 

DRMP Supervisor, Adam Maze, that Mr. Floyd’s “report” had been entirely false.

14. On or about that same day, July 7, 2021, Ms. Russell noticed that her job duties 

were being advertised as “open” on DRMP’s job listings for DRMP’s Boca Raton, Florida, office.

15. Ms. Russell notified Mr. Maze of this.

16. Mr. Maze stated with vexation that Mr. Floyd had obviously overstepped his 

authority via this most recent blatant interference with and retaliation against Ms. Russell.

17. Mr. Maze stated that he, Mr. Maze, is the Boca Raton office leader, and the only 

one who makes such decisions.

18. On October 12, 2021, Ms. Russell availed herself of FMLA leave in order to treat 

and address her daughter’s serious health conditions.

19. The very next day, October 13, 2021, Mr. Floyd ranted at Ms. Russell, stating “you 

are a dumb idiot” and “I am going to see that you will not be around here much longer.” 

20. Stunned, shocked, and terrified, Ms. Russell left Mr. Floyd’s office and informed 

Mr. Maze about DRMP’s most recent FMLA interference and retaliation.

21. In response, Mr. Maze stated, “Matt is too busy to talk about this today.”

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 3 of 7
22. Mr. Maze further stated that Mr. Floyd did not want to know any details relating to 

Ms. Russell’s daughter’s serious health conditions, or Ms. Russell’s eligibility for, or utilization 

of, FMLA leave.

23. According to Mr. Maze, Mr. Floyd didn’t “want to know anything about it or who 

was involved.”

24. The very next day, October 14, 2021, Ms. Samillano and Mr. Maze called Ms. 

Russell into the conference room.

25. At that time, Ms. Samillano and Mr. Maze informed Ms. Russell that DRMP had 

decided to terminate her employment, effective immediately.

26. Defendant’s adverse employment actions were taken to interfere with, and in 

retaliation for, Ms. Russell notifying DRMP of her daughter’s serious health conditions, and in 

retaliation for Ms. Russell requiring unpaid and requesting leave pursuant to the FMLA in order 

to treat and address same.

27. Defendant did not have a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, for its actions.

28. Any reason provided by Defendant for its actions is a pretext, designed to cover up 

FMLA interference and retaliation.

29. Defendant’s conduct constitutes intentional interference and retaliation under the 

FMLA.

30. The timing of Plaintiff’s use or attempted use of what should have been protected 

FMLA leave, and Defendant’s termination of her employment, alone demonstrates a causal and 

temporal connection between her protected activity and the illegal actions taken against her by 

Defendant.

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 4 of 7
31. Defendant purposefully and intentionally interfered with and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for her utilization or attempted utilization of what should have been protected FMLA 

leave.

32. As a result of this illegal conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including loss of 

employment, wages, benefits, and other remuneration to which she is entitled. 

33. Defendant lacked a subjective or objective good faith basis for its actions, and 

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to liquidated damages. 

34. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A., to 

represent her in the litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I- UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE UNDER THE FMLA

35. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 

1-34, above. 

36. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected by the FMLA.

37. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected from interference under the 

FMLA.

38. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff by subjecting her 

to spurious “discipline” for using FMLA leave, by advertising her job as open while she was still 

employed based on her use of FMLA leave, by abusing and insulting Plaintiff and threatening her 

because she required, requested, and utilized FMLA leave, and by otherwise refusing to allow 

Plaintiff to freely exercise her right to utilize FMLA leave to which she was entitled. 

39. As a result of Defendant’s willful and unlawful acts by interfering with Plaintiff for 

exercising or attempting to exercise her rights pursuant to the FMLA, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages and incurred reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 5 of 7
40. As a result of Defendant’s willful violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for back pay, an equal 

amount as liquidated damages, immediate reinstatement into her position/injunctive relief, other 

monetary damages, equitable relief, declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and 

any and all further relief that this Court determines to be just and appropriate. 

COUNT II- RETALIATION UNDER THE FMLA

41. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-

34, above. 

42. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected by the FMLA.

43. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was protected from retaliation under the 

FMLA.

44. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her 

to spurious discipline, by insulting her and threatening her, and by terminating her employment

for utilizing or attempting to utilize what should have been FMLA-protected leave, and for her

request for FMLA leave. 

45. Defendant acted with the intent to retaliate against Plaintiff, because Plaintiff 

exercised or attempted to exercise her rights to take approved leave pursuant to the FMLA.

46. As a result of Defendant’s intentional, willful and unlawful acts by retaliating 

against Plaintiff for exercising or attempting to exercise her rights pursuant to the FMLA, Plaintiff 

has suffered damages and incurred reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

47. As a result of Defendant’s willful violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

liquidated damages.

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 6 of 7
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for back pay, an equal 

amount as liquidated damages, immediate reinstatement into her position/injunctive relief, other 

monetary damages, equitable relief, declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and 

any and all further relief that this Court determines to be just and appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED this 20th day of September, 2022. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Noah E. Storch

Noah E. Storch, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0085476 

 RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

 10368 W. SR. 84, Suite 103 

 Davie, Florida 33324 

 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 

 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 

 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81452-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 7 of 7