1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

SEAN GLENN

Plaintiff,

v. 

DURANTE EQUIPMENT, LLC, 

Defendant, 

 / 

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff SEAN GLENN sues Defendant DURANTE EQUIPMENT, LLC, and 

alleges:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action by Plaintiff SEAN GLENN, under the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (“ADA”); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623 (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Florida Statute Section 760, to 

redress injury done to him by the Defendant’ discriminatory and retaliatory treatment. This is 

also an action under Florida common law to recover unpaid wages and for attorney’s fees 

thereon pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 448.08. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 1 of 20
2 

and §1343. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s supplemental and pendant jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s state law claims because they arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as 

the federal Case, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1367. 

3. The venue of this action is properly placed in the Southern District of Florida, 

Ft. Lauderdale Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), since the employment practices 

hereafter alleged to be unlawful were committed in Broward County, Florida. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff SEAN GLENN (“Glenn” or “Plaintiff”) is a resident of Broward

County, Florida, who was employed by Defendant DURANTE EQUIPMENT, LLC. At the 

time of his employment with Defendant resided in Broward County, was a fifty-five (55) year 

old black man who had disability or perceived disability is a member of certain classes of 

protected persons. 

5. Defendant DURANTE EQUIPMENT, LLC (“Durante”), is a Florida limited 

liability corporation offers heavy duty construction equipment for rental and sale in Miami-Dade, 

Broward, and Palm Beach counties and is authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, in

Broward County, Florida, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. Durante is, and at all times 

relevant was, a business whose activity affected interstate commerce. 

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

6. All conditions precedent to this action have been fulfilled. Plaintiff dual-filed a 

Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and with the Florida Commission on Human

Relations within 300 days of the alleged violation. To date, over six (6) months have passed

since the filing of the complaints. On or about August 4, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission issued to Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights with respect to 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 2 of 20
3 

such charge of discrimination, which was received by the Plaintiff on, or about August 4, 

2022. See Exhibit “A.” 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. Plaintiff is a Black man who was employed by Defendant as a new business

developer from December 2020, until his wrongful termination on April 20, 2021. 

8. During his employment, Plaintiff’s duties included bringing in new and 

potential rental/sales customers. 

9. Since early in his tenure with Defendant Plaintiff was subjected to multiple 

derogatory comments and actions based on his race. 

10. Specifically, in January of February 2020, Defendant’s marketing manager, 

Kurt (ULN) offered Plaintiff cookies that he referred to as “white supremacist cookies,” 

because they had white macadamia nuts and no chocolate chips. 

11. On another occasion, David D’atilo, a young Caucasian employee who had 

been recently promoted to manager stated that “white guys” weren’t supposed to get its hands 

dirty working or Defendant, “that is for you guys to do,” referring to black employees. 

12. In addition to the racial discrimination that Plaintiff faced, he was the oldest

employee working for Defendant and was targeted and ridiculed for his age. 

13. Nearly every day, Mr. D’atilo called Plaintiff old man, and constantly made 

jokes about his age. 

14. Most of the other employees called Plaintiff old man, and some called him 

“skinny negro”. 

15. Plaintiff first complained of this treatment to Defendant’s sales manager John 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 3 of 20
4 

Donofrio and Defendant’s President Steve Halliwell. 

16. Plaintiff later complained to Defendant’s owner and HR representative, John 

Durante and Greg (ULN), respectively, however no action was taken to correct this behavior.

17. In mid-April 2021, Plaintiff was moved to a front desk counter position, which

was not in the sales position with no possibility of commission, which impacted Plaintiff

income, although this was a completely different role than he was hired for. 

18. Soon after he was moved, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a medical issue 

requiring surgery in May or June 2021, with a four-to-six-week recovery time. 

19. Plaintiff provide his doctor’s note to Greg (ULN) in mid-April. 

20. On, or about April 20, 2021, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated, and he 

was told that he was being let go because he was having a medical procedure. 

COUNT I:

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF CIVIL RIGHT ACT OF 1964: DISCRIMINATION 

BASED ON RACE

21. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-

20 above as if set out in full herein.

22. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class of black citizens.

23. At all times material hereto, the Defendant failed to comply with the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000 e-2 (a)], which states, “It shall be an unlawful 

employment practice for an employer to: (1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 

individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's 

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 4 of 20
5

or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any 

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

employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

24. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to 

a discriminatory, hostile, and offensive work environment, which was substantially motivated 

by his race, as more fully described in paragraphs 10-20 of this Complaint. 

25. The offensive and discriminatory conduct referred to in paragraphs 10-20 of 

this Complaint was offensive to Plaintiff and would be offensive to a reasonable person.

26. Plaintiff was terminated on, or about, April 20, 2021.

27. Defendant’s decision to discriminate against, and ultimately terminate Plaintiff

was because of Plaintiff’s race. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in 

Defendant’s decision to discriminate against Plaintiff.

28. The Plaintiff was qualified for the position.

29. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment 

asserted by Defendant is a mere pretext for the actualreasonsforthe discriminatory treatment.

30. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights protecting a person from discrimination due to his race. The discrimination 

based on race constitutes unlawful discrimination.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

32. The Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the 

requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

33. The failure of Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 5 of 20
6 

its violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following: 

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations of 

Title VII; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under Title VII for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof; 

f) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and 

g) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just. 

COUNT II: 

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 CHAPTER 760:

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE

34. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 and above as if set out in full herein. 

35. At all times material hereto, the Defendant failed to comply with the Florida

Civil Rights Act of 1992 [Florida Statutes Section 760.10] which states,

“It is an 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”

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 6 of 20
7

36. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class of black citizens

37. Defendant’s decision to discriminate against Plaintiff was because of his race. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor that caused Defendant to discriminate 

against Plaintiff.

38. At all relevant times, including the time of discrimination, Defendant was 

aware that Plaintiff was black.

39. At the time of the unlawful discrimination, the Plaintiff did satisfactorily 

perform the essential functions assigned to him by the Defendant.

40. The Plaintiff was qualified for the position apart from his apparent race.

41. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to 

a discriminatory, hostile, and offensive work environment, which was substantially motivated 

by his race, as more fully described in paragraphs 10-20 of this Complaint. 

42. The Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the 

requirements of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760.

43. The failure of Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and 

its violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

44. Defendant through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with 

malicious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s State protected rights, discriminated against 

Plaintiff because of his race in violation of the Act with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff

different from other employees.

45. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant and Plaintiff’s treatment

was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant’s unjustified discrimination against 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 7 of 20
8 

Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race. 

46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental anguish, humiliation, and pain 

and suffering.

47. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the Plaintiff’s treatment asserted by 

Defendant is a mere pretext for the actual reason, Plaintiff’s race. 

48. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights protecting a person from discrimination due to its race. Discrimination based 

on race constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, 

Chapter 760. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following: 

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations of 

the FCRA; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under the FCRA for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof; 

f) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and 

g) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just. 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 8 of 20
9 

COUNT III: 

VIOLATION OF THE ADA – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

49. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 above as if set out in full herein.

50. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a medical condition that required surgery with a 

four-to-six-week recovery time. 

51. In mid-April Plaintiff notified Defendant of his need for surgery, by providing 

a doctor’s note. 

52. On, or about April 20, 2021, shortly after providing the doctor’s note, 

Plaintiff’ was terminated and he was told that he was being let go because he was having a 

medical procedure. 

53. Plaintiff’s condition qualifies as a disability or was regarded as a disability by 

Defendant, within the meaning of the ADA. 

54. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s medical condition, including the specific 

circumstances surrounding the treatment of his condition. 

55. At all times during his employment, Plaintiff was qualified to perform the 

essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodations. 

56. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices and 

discrimination in violation of the ADA by treating Plaintiff differently than similarly situated 

employees in the terms and conditions of his employment. 

57. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disabilities, in 

violation of the ADA. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s disability was a motivating factor in the 

Defendant’s decision to discriminate against Plaintiff. 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 9 of 20
10 

58. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment asserted by Defendant is a mere pretext for the actual reasons for the termination 

from employment, Plaintiff’s disability.

59. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent 

to the Plaintiff’s rights protecting a person from discrimination due to disability. The 

discrimination on the basis of disability constitutes unlawful discrimination.

60. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following: 

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations of 

the ADA; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under the ADA for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and continues 

to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and 

f) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and 

just.

COUNT IV: 

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 

61. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 above as if set out in full herein.

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 10 of 20
11 

62. Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff as described above is based on Plaintiff’s 

disabilities or Defendant’s perception of the same. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s disability was a 

motivating factor in the Defendant’s decision to discriminate against Plaintiff. 

63. Defendant did not treat similarly situated, non-disabled individuals in the same 

manner.

64. Defendant thereby discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and 

benefits of his employment in violation of the FCRA. 

65. Plaintiff has been subjected to disparate treatment because of his disability or 

handicap in violation of the FCRA, and because of such actions by Defendant he has suffered 

both irreparable injury and compensable damage unless and until this Court grants relief. 

66. Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to the FCRA. 

67. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described actions of Defendant, 

Plaintiff has suffered, is now suffering, and will continue to suffer, emotional pain and mental 

anguish. Furthermore, as a direct and proximate result of such actions by Defendant, Plaintiff

has been, is being, and will be in the future, deprived of income in the form of wages and of 

prospective benefits solely because of Defendant’s conduct. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following: 

a) Issue a declaration that the acts and practices of Defendant complained of in 

this Complaint are in violation of the FCRA; 

b) Award injunctive relief ordered by the Court enjoining and permanently 

restraining these violations of the FCRA by Defendant; 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 11 of 20
12 

c) Award actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe benefits 

and damages;

d) Award compensatory damages for past, present, and future mental anguish, 

pain and suffering, and humiliation caused by Defendant’s intentional 

discrimination, according to proof; 

COUNT V: 

VIOLATION OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF

1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (ADEA): DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE 

68. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 above as if set out in full herein.

69. Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on, or about, December 2020 

until his termination on April 20, 2021. 

70. On numerous occasions, as more fully described in paragraphs 10-20 of this 

Complaint, Plaintiff was ridiculed and treated differently because of his age. 

71. At all times material hereto, the Defendant failed to comply with the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a) et seq., as amended, which states,

“It shall be unlawful for an employer: (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 

individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's 

age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or 

tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect 

his status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or (3) to reduce the wage rate

of any employee in order to comply with this chapter.”

72. The discrimination of Plaintiff by Defendant was caused by Defendant being 

aware of Plaintiff’s Age.

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 12 of 20
13

73. At all relevant times, including the time of his termination, Defendant was 

aware that Plaintiff was 55 years old.

74. At the time of the unlawful discrimination, the Plaintiff did satisfactorily 

perform the essential functions assigned to him by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was qualified 

for the position apart from his apparent Age.

75. The Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the 

requirements of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.

76. The failure of Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and 

its violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

77. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and 

with malicious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, discriminated 

against Plaintiff on account of his age in violation of the Act with respect to its decision 

to treat Plaintiff different from other employees.

78. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment was directly and

proximately caused by the Defendant’s unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because 

he was 59 years old, in violation of the Act.

79. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment asserted by Defendant is a mere pretextforthe actualreasonsforthe termination 

from employment, Plaintiff’s Age.

80. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to 

the Plaintiff’s rights protecting a person from discrimination due to his age. The 

discrimination on the basis of Age constitutes unlawful discrimination.

81. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 13 of 20
14 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following: 

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations 

of the ADEA;

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under the ADEA for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer;

d) Liquidated damages;

e) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award;

f) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and

g) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just. 

COUNT VI: 

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: RETALIATION

82. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-

20 and above as if set out in full herein.

83. At all times material hereto, the Defendant failed to comply with the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000 e-2 (a)], Section 704(a), which makes it unlawful for an 

employer to retaliate against an individual “because he has opposed any practice made an 

unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 14 of 20
15

subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (emphasis added).

84. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the 

requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and specifically of 

Section 704(a) of the Act, which specifically makes it unlawful to retaliate against employees 

who oppose or participate in statutorily protected activity.

85. The failure of Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and 

its violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

86. Defendant through its practices and policies as employers, willfully, and with

malicious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, retaliated against 

Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s complaints.

87. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s sales 

manager John Donofrio, Defendant’s President Steve Halliwell, Defendant’s owner John

Durante, Defendant’s HR representative and Greg (ULN) regarding the discriminatory

treatment described in paragraphs 10-30 of this Complaint. 

88. Instead of taking action to resolve his complaints Plaintiff was moved to

another job with no possibility for commission, and then terminated.

89. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, 

Plaintiff suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

90. Any alleged nonretaliatory reason for terminating Plaintiff asserted by the 

Defendant is a mere pretext for the actual reasons for termination, Plaintiff’s participation in 

protected activity.

91. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights to engage in protected activity.

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 15 of 20
16 

92. Retaliation on the basis of having engaged in protected activity constitutes 

unlawful retaliation.

93. As a result of the retaliation, Plaintiff has incurred substantial monetary losses 

and has suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation.

94. Defendant’s acts, through its agents, were done with malice and reckless 

disregard for Plaintiff’s federally protected civil rights. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following: 

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations of 

Title VII; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under Title VII for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof; 

f) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and 

g) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just. 

COUNT VII:

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1922 CHAPTER 760;

RETALIATION

95. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-

20 and above as if set out in full herein.

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 16 of 20
17

96. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s sales 

manager John Donofrio, Defendant’s President Steve Halliwell, Defendant’s owner John

Durante, Defendant’s HR representative and Greg (ULN) regarding the discriminatory

treatment described in paragraphs 10-30 of this Complaint. 

97. Instead of taking action to resolve Plaintiff’s complaints he was moved to

another job with no possibility for commission, and then terminated.

98. The Defendant’s above listed actions againstPlaintiffweremotivated by an

intent to retaliate against Plaintiff for his protected activity under the FCRA.

99. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliation against Plaintiff, he has 

suffered, and continues to suffer, loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation and physical injuries and 

distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations of 

the FCRA; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under the FCRA for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof;

f) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 17 of 20
18 

g) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just. 

COUNT VIII: 

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981 

100. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 of this Complaint as if set out in full herein.

101. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class of black citizens.

102. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was in a contractual relationship with the 

Defendant within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981, as amended. 

103. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant, the 

Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s rights by depriving him of his right to the enjoyment of all 

benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of his employment contract as is enjoyed by nonblack citizens, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981(b), as amended. 

104. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff has not enjoyed 

the same benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of employment, as have non-black

employees of the Defendant. 

105. The Defendant’s treatment, practices and policies directed toward Plaintiff, as 

more fully described in paragraphs 10-20 of this Complaint, denied Plaintiff the full and equal 

benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by 

non-black citizens, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981, as amended. 

106. The Defendant’s treatment, practices and policies directed toward Plaintiff, as 

more fully described in paragraphs 10-20, denied Plaintiff the right to make and enforce 

contracts as enjoyed by non-black citizens, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981, as amended. 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 18 of 20
19

107. Through its actions and treatment of Plaintiff, the Defendant intended to 

discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s race. 

108. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff has been 

subjected to a discriminatory, hostile, and offensive work environment because of his race, as 

more fully described in paragraphs 10-20 of this Complaint. 

109. The Defendant, at all times, had knowledge of the discriminatory acts and 

conduct in this Complaint.

110. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered 

embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, and other forms of damage. 

111. Plaintiff has suffered damages of an on-going and continuous nature.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against the Defendant for its violations 

of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981, as amended; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered; 

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 for the 

embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has 

suffered; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Enjoin the Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and anyone acting in 

concert with them, from discriminating, harassing, and retaliating against 

Plaintiff and any employee; 

f) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and 

g) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this court deems equitable and 

just.

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 19 of 20
20 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated: November 2, 2022. 

s/ Brandon J. Gibson 

Brandon J. Gibson 

Florida Bar No: 0099411 

E-mail: bgibson@rtrlaw.com

REIFKIND, THOMPSON, & RUDZINSKI, LLP

3333 W. Commercial Blvd, Ste. 200 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 

Telephone: (954) 370-5152 

Facsimile: (954) 370-1992 

Counsel for Plaintiff(s) 

Case 0:22-cv-62036-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 20 of 20