1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

ALEXANDER YANES 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC. 

 Defendant. / 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, ALEXANDER YANES (“Plaintiff”), by and through his 

undersigned attorney, sues Defendant, THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) Inc. 

(“Swatch”), and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is an action for damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief by 

Plaintiff against Swatch for race and national origin discrimination under Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the 

Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), and 42 U.S.C. §1981 (“§1981”) as 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 1 of 19
2 

well as for retaliation under Florida’s Private Whistleblower Act, Florida Statute 

§§448.101.104 (“FPWA”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1331 and Title VII. The Court’s supplemental jurisdiction is invoked for the 

Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

3. Venue properly lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b), in that the Defendant maintains offices within this judicial district, 

carries on commerce with citizens of this judicial district at open places of business 

located within this judicial district and Plaintiff both resides and worked for 

Swatch within this judicial district. 

PARTIES AND EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 

4. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male of Cuban heritage that was born in the 

United States of America, sui juris, and, at all times material to this action, was a 

resident of Broward County, Florida. 

5. Swatch is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal corporate 

address located at 1200 Harbor Boulevard, Weehawken NJ. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 2 of 19
3 

6. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to jurisdiction 

under Title VII and the FCRA in that he filed his Charge of Discrimination with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Florida 

Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) within 300 days of the unfair 

employment practices alleged in this Complaint; Plaintiff has filed this suit within 

90 days of receiving a Right to Sue notice from the EEOC which was received on 

July 30, 2022; and Plaintiff is filing this Complaint within the FCRA’s four (4) 

year statute of limitations for the alleged discriminatory acts. Thus, all 

administrative prerequisites have been satisfied and this suit is timely filed. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

7. Alexander Yanes (hereinafter the “Plaintiff”) was hired on or about 

January 29, 2018 as a Watch Technician by The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. 

(hereinafter “Swatch”). 

8. As a Hispanic male of Cuban heritage born in the United States with 

skin colored consistent with a stereotyped expectation of “Caucasians”, a native 

speaker’s understanding and ability to speak English and with an accent consistent 

with most Americans born in Broward County, the Plaintiff faced immediate 

hostility and harassment from a number of his fellow workroom employees as the 

majority were first generation immigrants from Cuba and a significant portion of 

the remainder coming from Spanish-speaking countries throughout Central and 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 3 of 19
4 

South America or the Caribbean. Plaintiff believes this stems from a jealousy from 

his relatively speaking easier and more prosperous upbringing and perceived ease 

of relating to upper management in the Miami and New Jersey offices from the 

shared language and accent. 

9. Prior to filing his complaint with the EEOC and FCHR, Plaintiff did 

not receive any formal or informal disciplinary action from SWATCH. 

10. As soon as Plaintiff started working in the workroom, he began to 

experience hostility, harassment and intimidation from some of the employees who 

were born in Cuba and other Spanish-speaking countries. 

11. At some point in or about the month of April 2018, the Plaintiff began 

taking Zoloft on orders of his personal physician in order to relieve his anxiety 

issues triggered by the continual onsite work harassment. 

12. Throughout his employment with Swatch, the Plaintiff repeatedly 

complained about the continual harassment from his coworkers to his direct 

supervisor and shop manager Andy Czanek, the onsite office manager Jasmine 

Arencibia, and the human resources manager located at the New Jersey 

headquarters, Suzette Truehaft. This continual harassment mainly took the form of 

stealing and/or moving watch parts the Plaintiff was utilizing, intimidation by 

staring at him and “bumping” him physically shoulder to shoulder, and locking 

him inside and/or shutting the door stopping air flow to a high temperature 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 4 of 19
5 

workroom that the Plaintiff was daily required to work in order to clean the 

watches. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, no discipline was imposed on the perpetrators 

of the harassment. 

 13. Although the Plaintiff complained repeatedly in person to the three 

individuals with oversight of his position noted above, the first formal email 

request that Plaintiff sent to address the situation was issued on January 2, 2019 to 

the HR Manager Suzette Truehaft. The Plaintiff specifically complained about the 

constant interference with his work as well as missing parts. The Plaintiff also said 

that he was repeatedly required to work in the cleaning room which was frequently 

over one hundred and two degrees Fahrenheit (102 degrees F) due to inappropriate 

ventilation and mechanisms which generated high heat. The Plaintiff complained 

that coworkers would frequently shut the door or “lock him” in the high 

temperature room and that he was starting to frequently throw up due to the high 

heat and dehydration. The Plaintiff asked to be transferred to any other position or 

any other location as a result. 

 14. The Plaintiff was not transferred to another position or location, but 

did receive the maximum authorized raise on or about February 2019 and was 

under the belief he was making more than anyone in his particular job specialty. 

This opinion was apparently shared by his coworkers. As a result of the raise, the 

Plaintiff was informed he needed to submit a new IRS tax form which he provided. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 5 of 19
6 

However, after turning in the tax form to his manager, someone changed an answer 

to a race related question and indicated that he was a tax-exempt Native American. 

This “prank”/harassment had serious financial repercussions as the Plaintiff knew 

he had received a raise but did not catch that taxes were not being withheld. The 

following year, the Plaintiff had a substantial tax bill due and it placed him under 

severe financial strain as he had not been saving for the burden. 

 15. The Plaintiff was involved in a car accident September 22, 2019. The 

following day he went to a Memorial Healthcare System’s Urgent Care Center and 

was provided a soft cervical collar due to a neck sprain. 

 16. The Plaintiff’s shop manager Andy Czanek sent an email September 

30, 2019 stating “Boy you should have gone ETO (Extended Time Off) from the 

beginning on. Tito is out today it would have been a nice day for you, Haha.” 

“Tito” was the name of one of the Plaintiff’s principal harassers with the legal 

name of Gustavo Jaramillo. This email provides proof that management was 

aware that coworkers were harassing the Plaintiff. 

 17. On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff complained to Andy Czanek and 

Jasmine Arencibia that coworkers were continuing to close the door to the cleaning 

room leaving him subjected to high heat temperatures. 

 18. On November 1, 2019, as the harassment continued despite continual 

complaints to his direct supervisor, shop manager and HR manager, the Plaintiff 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 6 of 19
7 

complained directly via email to Peter Foster, Vice President of Customer Service, 

a high level executive at the New Jersey headquarters responsible for oversight of 

all service centers. The Plaintiff complained about loud and angry verbal fights 

with Gustavo “Tito” Jaramillo and Maikel “Mike”/”Micheal” Roqueta, 

missing/stolen parts, having his work “sabotaged” and a hostile work environment. 

Peter Foster agreed to meet with the Plaintiff, “Tito”, “Michael”, Andy Czanek and 

three other coworkers that were harassing the Plaintiff regularly. 

 19. On November 12, 2019, the Plaintiff met with Peter Foster and 

everyone listed in the November 1, 2019 e-mail. As the Plaintiff complained about 

work being sabotaged and that he was being harassed, “Michael” started yelling 

and banging on the desk. The Plaintiff said “See this is what I’m talking about, 

this hostile work environment.” Peter Foster’s response was only that “Alex if you 

were being falsely accused wouldn’t you be angry?” The meeting was then halted 

abruptly and as far as the Plaintiff is aware no further action was taken. 

 20. The harassment would continue including repeated “bumping” and 

“hostile approaches” while the Plaintiff was working on watch components. This 

would cause the entire work to become disrupted and result in a lot of lost 

productivity. 

 21. As the pain did not recede, the Plaintiff went to the Spine Institute for 

an MRI on November 24, 2019 which found a C3 broad based bulging annulus, C4 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 7 of 19
8 

right paracentral herniation, C5 broad based bulging annulus, C6 posterior central 

disk herniation with flattening of the ventral thecal sac, L3 broad based bulging 

annulus and mild foraminal stenosis bilaterally, L4 broad based bulging annulus, 

and L5 broad based bulging annulus which abutes the S1 nerve. 

 22. On November 27, 2019, the Plaintiff emailed HR Manager Suzette 

Truehaft and Andy Czanek letting them know of the MRI results and that current 

work setup was causing pain. Instead of working to accommodate his injuries, 

Swatch roughly around this time eliminated the “cleaning crew” which added 

additional duties including requiring the Plaintiff to lift more than seventy five 

pounds (75 lbs) as well as mop and dust the entire service center. 

 23. The Plaintiff complained directly to Peter Foster again on December 

19, 2019, about the harassment as he felt “smothered” and harassed while working 

on machines. Peter Foster responded that he watched the video and saw two 

occasions where people did appear to approach the Plaintiff for no reason and enter 

his personal space, but as far as Alex was aware no action was taken. 

 24. At some point in December 2019, the Plaintiff had an in-person 

meeting with Jasmine Arencibia and Andy Czanek and Plaintiff was told he 

needed to stop being “so sensitive” to the ongoing harassment from his coworkers 

and that he needed to deal with the situation on his own as management was tired 

of the complaints. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 8 of 19
9 

 25. At some point in January 2020, the Plaintiff found out that his taxes 

had not been withheld and it put him in an economic crisis because he had received 

a raise the previous year and did not suspect he would owe a huge tax bill. 

Plaintiff asked to see the tax form which triggered the issue and someone had 

altered his completed form to indicate he selected tax exempt “Native American”. 

The altered selection had a different ink than what was used for the rest of the 

form. 

 26. On March 12, 2020, the Plaintiff notified Swatch that he was going to 

report them to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the 

continuing harassment and asked for a copy of the harassment policy. The 

Plaintiff was never provided a copy of the harassment policy. 

 27. On or about March 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the 

EEOC about the ongoing harassment, about the high heat issue and that other 

employees would attempt to purposefully trigger his hand tremors due to the 

anxiety and not allow him to complete his work. 

 28. On March 16, 2020, the Plaintiff had a large thermal mug he used to 

stay hydrated while in the cleaning room subject to high heat temperatures. 

Jasmine Arencibia, the office manager threw it away and stated to him that it was 

because it had been left in the cleaning room. The Plaintiff had left the mug out 

several times before without incident or warning. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 9 of 19
10 

 29. On March 17, 2020, The Plaintiff received an email from his manager 

Jasmine Arencibia stating that he would be teamed up with “Tito” (the one of the 

principal harassers) and would have to work on Thursdays which was in direct 

conflict with the custody agreement where he needed to pick up his daughter (this 

was previously known). The custody agreement had been provided to the 

employer previously and was used to create a schedule without conflict in the past. 

The Plaintiff complained to Jasmine Arencibia, Andy Czanek and Suzette Truehaft 

and nothing was done. 

 30. Similarly, On March 17, 2020, Andy Czanek complained about 

Plaintiff’s work product for the first time, and the Plaintiff reminded Andy that his 

herniated disks prohibiting him from bending down without pain, that he was being 

required to lift more than seventy five pounds (75 lbs.) to operate the machines and 

the temperature in the cleaning room was never fixed. No accommodations were 

made to match the Plaintiff’s herniated disks, in fact Swatch had removed smaller 

ultrasonic machines that the Plaintiff could more easily operate for larger versions 

and they fired a “cleaning crew” which worked with the larger machines requiring 

him to take on their duties. 

 31. After EEOC Letter was filed, the Plaintiff was not allowed to take any 

additional time off even for health or family related issues. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 10 of 19
11 

32. On March 19, 2020, the Mayor of Miami closed down all businesses 

within the city except for essential workers. 

 33. On March 20, 2020, Swatch required the Plaintiff to report to work 

anyways in order to place tools and other things in to storage. Afterwards, the 

Plaintiff was notified his work was being terminated and he should apply for 

unemployment. 

 34. Swatch attempted to reopen May 11, 2020, and allegedly sent the 

Plaintiff an email to with an “offer” to return to work. Due to the hostile work 

environment, lack of accommodations and disability related to his injuries, the 

Plaintiff did not accept the offer to return to work. 

 35. The city was not reopened for nonessential businesses until May 20, 

2020. 

 36. On June 16, 2020, the Office of Disability Determination had the 

Plaintiff meet with their licensed psychologist because he was on Zoloft and other 

medications and wanted an independent examination of him. The examiner found 

in diagnostic impressions Axis 1 is Unspecified Depressive Disorder, Unspecified 

Anxiety Disorder, R/O Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent, R/O Obsessive 

Compulsive Disorder, Axis 2 R/O Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. 

For the next three years, Plaintiff was placed on disability social security. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 11 of 19
12 

37. On June 29, 2020, the Plaintiff was sent a letter from Swatch stating 

“As of the date of the letter, you have not reported to work since May 11, 2020 and 

you have exhausted all available 2020 time off accruals. In addition, we have not 

received medical certification of any incapacity to perform the essential functions 

of your job.” The letter further stated that they were treating his absence as a 

resignation and his position was terminated effective July 2, 2020. 

38. The Plaintiff went into an intensive outpatient therapy program for his 

anxiety at Memorial Healthcare Systems Outpatient on July 27, 2020 and was in 

the program for eight weeks with Tracy Klein. 

39. On December 23, 2020, there was an attack on the Plaintiff and his 

car while was driving on US 95 Southbound wherein a bowling ball sized object 

was thrown from a white pickup truck and smashed into his front grill which 

caused approximately $6,000 worth of damage. The Plaintiff was unable to 

identify the perpetrators as it occurred too quickly and out of the blue. He filed a 

claim with Geico car insurance. Similarly, Plaintiff notified the EEOC of the 

attack and Plaintiff’s belief that it was connected to Swatch. LinkedIn notified him 

that ”Micheal” had visited the Plaintiff’s personal LinkedIn website on December 

3, 2020 at 4:35 pm. This was 20 days before his car was attacked. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 12 of 19
13 

40. On June 23, 2021, Geico called the Plaintiff and said that someone 

had repeatedly called them saying that the Plaintiff been involved in an accident in 

Ohio. This allegation was fraudulent. 

41. At some point in the beginning of December 2021, Geico notified the 

Plaintiff that they were still receiving fraudulent calls from people including one 

named Crystal (which the Plaintiff does not believe to be coincidental as he works 

daily with crystals in watches) and another named Michael Hernandez (likely 

named after an alleged serial killer as well as possibly being connected to 

“Michael”), as well as people with the names similar to Maikel. The Plaintiff 

believes that these names were being left as both a clue to the identity as well as an 

active threat. 

42. The Plaintiff received an Email from Geico on March 2, 2022, which 

stated that the calls were continuing. At this point, the Plaintiff updated the EEOC 

with the evidence showing that Swatch employees were continuing the harassment 

long after his separation from employment. 

43. On July 30, 2022, Plaintiff received a “Right to Sue” Letter from the 

EEOC. 

44. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action 

or these conditions have been waived or otherwise excused. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 13 of 19
14 

45. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to represent him in this 

action and is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee for his services. 

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF FCRA (RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN 

DISCRIMINATION) 

46. This is an action for discrimination based upon race under the FCRA. 

47 Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in 

paragraphs 1-45 and incorporates these allegations herein by this reference. 

48. Swatch violated the FCRA by discriminating against Plaintiff based 

upon his race and national origins for reasons including but not limited to, failing 

to stop the hostile work environment created by some of the Plaintiff’s Spanishspeaking coworkers, requiring him to work in a high temperature room, refusing 

accommodations for his car accident-related injuries, and allowing further 

harassment and intimidation to occur after the Plaintiff filed his EEOC complaint.

49. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has been 

damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ALEXANDER YANES, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC., to remedy the 

race and national origin discrimination of Plaintiff by: 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 14 of 19
15 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension and 

retirement plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages; 

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages; 

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 

Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes. 

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN 

DISCRIMINATION) 

50. This is an action for discrimination based upon race under Title VII. 

51. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in 

paragraphs 1-45 and incorporates these allegations herein by this reference. 

52. Defendant violated Title VII by discriminating against Plaintiff based 

upon his race for reasons including but not limited to failing to stop the hostile 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 15 of 19
16 

work environment created by some of the Plaintiff’s Spanish-speaking coworkers, 

requiring him to work in a high temperature room, refusing accommodations for 

his car accident-related injuries, and allowing further harassment and intimidation 

to occur after the Plaintiff filed his EEOC complaint. 

53. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the Title VII, Plaintiff has 

been damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ALEXANDER YANES, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC., to remedy the 

race and national origin discrimination of Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension and 

retirement plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages; 

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages; 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 16 of 19
17 

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 

Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes. 

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF §1981 (RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN) 

54. This is an action for discrimination based upon race/national origin 

under 42 U.S.C. §1981. Defendant deprived Plaintiff of his rights of equal 

protection of the law against discrimination on the basis of race and national 

origin. 

55. Plaintiff reasserts the general allegations as set forth above in 

paragraphs 1-45 and incorporates these allegations herein by this reference. 

56. Defendant violated §1981 by intentionally and purposefully treating 

Plaintiff differently in the terms and conditions of his employment because of his 

race and national origin, including but not limited to, failing to stop the hostile 

work environment created by some of the Plaintiff’s Spanish-speaking coworkers, 

requiring him to work in a high temperature room, refusing accommodations for 

his car accident-related injuries, and allowing further harassment and intimidation 

to occur after the Plaintiff filed his EEOC complaint. 

57. Defendant’s discriminatory actions had the purpose and effect of 

denying the Plaintiff rights in connection with his employment with Swatch that 

employees outside his race and national origin were allowed to enjoy. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 17 of 19
18 

58. As a result of Defendant’s violations of §1981, Plaintiff has been 

damaged. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ALEXANDER YANES, prays that this Court will: 

a. Order Defendant, THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC., to remedy the 

race and national origin discrimination of Plaintiff by: 

i. Paying appropriate back pay; 

ii. Paying prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

iii. Paying front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

iv. Paying for lost benefits including medical insurance, pension and 

retirement plan; 

v. Providing any other relief that is appropriate. 

b. Enter an order against Defendant for compensatory damages; 

c. Enter an order against Defendant for punitive damages; 

d. Grant Plaintiff costs and a reasonable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 

Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes. 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 18 of 19
19 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, ALEXANDER YANES., hereby demands trial by jury on all 

claims triable by right of jury under state or federal law. 

Dated this 27th day of October 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

Daniel H. Hunt, Esq. 

 Daniel H. Hunt, Esq. 

 P.O. Box 565096 

 Miami, FL 33256 

 Independent Co-Counsel with Marble Law 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Telephone: (305) 495-5593 

E-mail: dhuntlaw@gmail.com 

Florida Bar No.: 121247 

Case 0:22-cv-61999-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 19 of 19