EXHIBIT 1 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 1 of 53
Case Number: CACE-22-014269 Division: 04 

Filing # 157959704 E-Filed 09/22/2022 02:24:14 PM 

FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET 

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing 

and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the 

plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant 

to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.) 

I. CASE STYLE 

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Kimberlv Maus. Luan Malushi. Francisco Vetancourt. Richard Fortunato 

Plaintiff Case # 

Judge 

vs. 

Citv of Fort Lauderdale 

Defendant 

II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM 

Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of 

the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim 

shall not be used for any other purpose. 

• $8,000 or less 

• $8,001-$30,000 

• $30,001- $50,000 

• $50,001-$75,000 

• $75,001 -5100,000 

IS) over $100,000.00 

III. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most 

definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader 

category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines. 

- 1 -

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERX 09/22/2022 02:24:12 PM.**** 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 2 of 53
CIRCUIT CIVIL 

• Condominium 

n Contracts and indebtedness 

• Eminent domain 

• Auto negligence 

• Negligence—other 

• Business governance 

• Business torts 

• Environmental/Toxic tort 

• Third party indemnification 

• Construction defect 

• Mass tort 

• Negligent security 

• Nursing home negligence 

• Premises liability—commercial 

n Premises liability—residential 

• Products liability 

• Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure 

• Commercial foreclosure 

• Homestead residential foreclosure 

• Non-homestead residential foreclosure 

• Other real property actions 

•Professional malpractice 

• Malpractice—business 

• Malpractice—medical 

• Malpractice—other professional 

M Other 

n Antitrust/Trade regulation 

• Business transactions 

• Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance 

• Constitutional challenge—proposed amendment 

• Corporate trusts 

Kl Discrimination—employment or other 

• Insurance claims 

• Intellectual property 

n Libel/Slander 

• Shareholder derivative action 

• Securities litigation 

• Trade secrets 

• Trust litigation 

COUNTY CIVIL 

• Small Claims up to $8,000 

• Civil 

• Real property/Mortgage foreclosure 

-2-

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 3 of 53
• Replevins 

• Evictions 

• Residential Evictions 

• Non-residential Evictions 

• Other civil (non-monetary) 

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the 

Administrative Order. Yes • No 13 

IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply): 

E3 Monetary; 

• Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief; 

• Punitive 

V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ] 

VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? 

• yes 

M no 

VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED? 

IE! no 

• yes If "yes," list all related cases by name, case number, and court. 

VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? 

12 yes 

• no 

IX. DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE? 

• yes 

121 no 

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of 

my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of 

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. 

Signature: s/ Tonia Haddad Coleman Fla. Bar # 176737 

COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT 

(Specify) 

8 

Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney) 

Tonia Haddad Coleman 

(type or print name) 

09/22/2022 

Date 

-3-

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 4 of 53
Filing # 157959704 E-Filed 09/22/2022 02:24:14 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 

SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN 

AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, 

FLORIDA 

KIMBERLY MAUS, LUAN MALUSHI, 

RICHARD FORTUNATO, and CASE NO.: 

FRANCISCO VETANCOURT, 

Plaintiffs, JUDGE: 

vs. 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 

Defendant. 

/ 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs Kimberly Maus ("Maus"), Luan Malushi ("Malushi"), Richard Fortunato 

("Fortunato"), and Francisco Vetancourt ("Vetancouif'), by and through their undersigned counsel, 

hereby file this Complaint against Defendant, the City of Fort Lauderdale (hereinafter "the City"), 

and state as follows: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

1. This is an action brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA") 

and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") 

by a white, female Lieutenant (now Captain) of the City for the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, 

and three white male Sergeants (now Lieutenants) of the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department 

("FLPD") who were wrongfully discriminated against and skipped for promotion by a newly-hired 

black police chief, Larry Scirotto ("Scirotto"), who desired to have his command staff mirror 

himself, and admitted as much. Plaintiffs sue for race and gender discrimination. 

2. Jurisdiction, including concurrent jurisdiction over the Title VII claims, is 

I 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 !• 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 5 of 53
conferred upon this Court pursuant to § 26.012 of the Florida Statutes, § 760.10 of the Florida 

Statutes, Article I, Section 23, of the Florida Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 

3. Venue is proper because the events or omissions giving rise to the cause of action 

occurred in Broward County, Florida. 

4. Plaintiffs were and continue to be citizens of the United States and employed in 

Broward County, Florida. 

5. Plaintiffs were, and currently are, employees of the City of Fort Lauderdale, located 

in Broward County, Florida. 

6. Defendant's main headquarters were and are located in Fort Lauderdale, Broward 

County, Florida. 

7. Defendant conducts and transacts business in Broward County, Florida and is a 

Florida municipal corporation. The City at all material times was and is an employer as defined by § 

760.02(7) of the Florida Statutes. 

8. Defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an 

employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). 

9. On or about December 22, 2021, Plaintiffs each timely filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with the FCHR and the EEOC. More than one hundred-eighty (180) days have 

elapsed after the filing of the Charges of Discrimination without the FCHR's either conciliating any 

of the matters or making a finding adverse to Plaintiffs, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to maintain this 

action. A right to sue letter for each Plaintiff was received from the Department of Justice ("DOJ") 

on or about September 19,2022. 

10. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have been performed. 

11. Each Plaintiff is protected by: 

2 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301» 954467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 6 of 53
a. The race and sex discrimination provisions of the FCRA; 

b. Article I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution, which makes freedom from 

governmental race discrimination a fundamental right; and 

c. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963,42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. 

GOVERNING LAW 

12. Section 760.10(1) of the Florida Statutes provides in relevant part: 

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: 

(b) To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in 

any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment 

opportunities, or adversely affect any individual's status as an employee, because of 

such individual's race, color,... sex,... national origin [or] age. .. 

§ 768.10(1) FLA. STAT. (2022). 

13. Freedom from racial or national origin discrimination is a fundamental right under 

Art. I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution. 

14. Section 760.11(6) of the Florida Statutes declares that a prevailing plaintiff in an 

action under the FCRA may recover her reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses. 

15. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 governs unlawful 

employment practices and provides in relevant part that 

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees 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. 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Title VII 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 also permits a prevailing, plaintiff in an 

action under Title VII to recover her reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses. 

3 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467,1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 7 of 53
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 

16. Larry Scirotto, who is black, became the chief of police for the City in June 2021, 

and immediately established that promoting blacks and "people like him" was a priority, and did so 

at the expense of white males and females who had earned their rank and positions following years 

of service. 

17. Scirotto, at all times material, acted toward Plaintiffs based on the authority vested in 

him as chief of police of the City, and the City's management and policy makers acquiesced in and 

ratified his treatment of Plaintiffs; some applauded and encouraged it from the dais in City meetings 

and in media outlets. 

18. Scirotto began promoting off of the eligible/extended Captain and Lieutenant lists in 

August 2021, skipping the Plaintiffs based upon race and gender. 

19. In October 2021, all four Plaintiffs filed a grievance with the City, alleging 

discrimination. The City declined to address the matter, and later told the media that no complaints 

were filed. See correspondence attached hereto as "Exhibit A" 

20. In November 2021, the City hired an independent investigator to explore the 

accusations surrounding Chief Scirotto and his discriminatory practices. 

21. In December 2021, Plaintiffs each filed a charge of discrimination with the 

EEOC/FCHR, alleging discrimination based upon race and sex. 

22. On February 25, 2022, the independent investigation was completed, and a formal 

finding issued. A summation of the outcomes concluded that "there is a very divisive atmosphere 

within the Department based on the perception the Chief is intentionally using race, gender and 

sexual orientation as attributes necessary for promotions. While the goal to diversify is an important 

and laudable goal it must be accomplished in a legally permissible manner. Specifically, diversity 

4 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301' 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 8 of 53
must be accomplished in a manner ensuring all members' rights are protected." See Report of 

Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process dated February 25, 2022, 

attached hereto as "Exhibit B. " 

23. Scirotto was fired a week later, on March 4, 2022, "following allegations of 

discriminatory practices for promotions." The City announced: "We strive to be diverse in our 

organization. We strive to represent the community that we serve. There's just certain lawful ways 

to allow that diversity to happen," he [City Manager Chris Lagerbloom] said, "and in this case, the 

investigative report indicated we didn't quite follow the law in how we were working towards those 

diverse positions." See CNN Article dated March 4, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/05/us/fortlaiiderdale-police-chief also attached hereto as "Exhibit C. " 

24. According to the EEOC, as of April 2022, the City had not filed a response to the 

Plaintiffs' Charges of Discrimination. However the City, in response to an inquiry regarding the 

issue, informed Plaintiffs on April 4, 2022 that it had, in fact "filed a position statement with the 

EEOC which, candidly, is makes admissions beneficial to anyone complaining of the promotional 

process conducted by the former chief." See correspondence attached hereto as "Exhibit D." 

25. On April 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs were notified "for their information" that each was 

being promoted, effective May 15, 2022, with seniority (promotions back dated to 

September/October 2021) and back pay. However, the City had still failed to either respond to the 

EEOC or negotiate these acts with Plaintiffs or their Union. See correspondence attached hereto as 

"Exhibit E." 

26. At the time of the promotions, Maus, Malushi, and Fortunato were no longer on an 

active promotion list, and this unilateral act by the City was considered an Unfair Labor Practice 

and violative of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. According to the Fraternal Order of Police 

5 

Tonja Haddad, P. A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 9 of 53
("FOP"), the Union for Plaintiffs and all sworn FLPD officers at the rank of Lieutenant and below, 

the individuals named for promotion are not on any legitimate promotional 

eligibility list. It is the FOP's understanding that the individuals are being promoted 

as a result of their EEOC complaints filed against the City by the individual 

employees and their private attorney. Moreover, it is not the EEOC or a court of law 

who has ordered this promotional resolution but the agreement of the parties'. The 

City's actions in this regard are highly inappropriate, have potential for serious 

disruption and are in clear violation of fundamental principles of the collective 

bargaining process and in violation of the parties Collective Bargaining Agreements 

as it relates to the promotional process. The City cannot just unilaterally promote 

FOP bargaining unit members and exclude the FOP for the process. The City has 

chosen to intentionally exclude the FOP, a very unwise move. As such a deal has 

significant implications and impacts our bargaining unit members. 

See correspondence attached hereto as "Exhibit F." The FOP further espoused that the City's 

unilateral change of the promotional process (promoting by fiat to avoid litigation) was considered 

by the FOP to be in violation of Chapter 447 of the Florida Statutes. 

27. As a result, claims from officers on the active Captain and Lieutenant lists 

developed, as did claims by those who were promoted before the Plaintiffs, due to the retroactive 

seniority and pay. As such, the City created further hostility and emotional distress by its unilateral 

and improper violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and state law governing the 

promotion process. See Exhibit F. As of the date of filing, these issues are still enduring, and 

attempts to settle these issues between the City and the FOP, including those which affect Plaintiffs' 

seniority and back pay have been ongoing, without permitting Plaintiffs to participate. This includes 

rescission of their seniority. 

28. The City did not file position statements with the EEOC until the end of June 2022. 

Those statements, contrary to the City's official positions in March and April 2022, denied any 

discrimination or wrongdoing by the City. See Exhibits B, C, D, and E. 

1 The City did not negotiate this or reach any agreement with Plaintiffs, As evidenced by the corrcspondcncc, the City 

refused to negotiate anything with Plaintiffs. See Exhibit F. 

6 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 • 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 10 of 53
COUNT I- STATE LAW RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIM 

UNDER S 760.10 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES 

PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY MAUS 

29. PlaintiffMaus reincorporates fact Paragraphs 16-28 as if fully set forth herein. 

30. Maus is a white female who served as a Lieutenant, and at the time Scirotto became 

chief and commenced promoting people, was on the eligibility list to be promoted to Captain. Maus 

was the only female on that list. 

31. Prior to Scirotto becoming chief, Maus had already been promoted to Captain; 

chosen over all others on the list, but the promotion was rescinded due to the Captain for whom she 

was taking over not retiring; thus, she had already been deemed the most qualified for the promotion. 

32. There was only one woman at the FLPD at the rank of Captain or higher at this time. 

Scirotto promoted everyone on the list but her; two black males and one white male. 

33. Scirotto made his first promotion to Captain in August 2021. Instead of repromoting Plaintiff, the Chief chose a less qualified black male, Cecil Stone2

, declaring repeatedly 

that he was going to change the "wall of faces" of the Command of the FLPD, stating "that wall is 

too white" and he's "gonna change that." He also based this choice between the two black makes on 

"who was darker." He contacted Maus directly and stated to her "that her 'rank provided him the 

opportunity for some diversity, and [he] took it. Cecil Stone is a competent black male.'" See Report 

of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process dated February 25, 2022, 

pp. 7-9, attached hereto as Exhibit B. -

34. The next promotion occurred on October 3, 2021, and Scirotto promoted Lt. Charlie 

Studders (white male) and Lt. Edgar (Eddie) Cruz (black male). As such, notwithstanding that Maus 

2 It should be noted that after Plaintiffs fticd their discrimination charges, now Captain Stone gave the following 

statement to the media (which was posted with a photo of him in his FLPD uniform) "The tactics used by a few officers 

to discredit the promotions of Black and minority officers with master's degrees, stellar reputations, and cxcmplaiy work 

history, arc nothing short of appalling." 

7 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 11 of 53
had already once been selected as the top candidate on the list, she was the only person not 

promoted off the list. 

35. Caiz and Stone, the two black males, were tied for last place on the exam, and their 

scores were rounded up to make them eligible for the list3. Additionally, they both sat on Scirotto's 

hiring committee, and sat in on his oral boards. 

36. Maus has been a police officer since 1990; longer than anyone promoted over her, 

and has been with the FLPD longer than anyone promoted over her (nine years at FLPD longer than 

one black male, and eleven years longer than the other black male and the white male). She has also 

served as a Lieutenant longer than anyone promoted over her. Maus holds a degree from the 

prestigious Northeastern University, is a certified instructor at the police academy, and after 

spending two years as a patrol Lieutenant, was transferred to operations support where she 

supervised eight (8) units to include Motors, Mounted, Community Engagement, Homeless 

Outreach, and others; a position that had previously been a Captain's position that she was handling 

as a Lieutenant. She spent two (2) years there, and was subsequently transferred to the support 

services bureau, where once again she supervised at least eight (8) units to include records, 

evidence, court liaison, training, and others, filling what was also a Captain's position. She spent 

three (3) years there. As such, prior to these promotions, she spent five (5) years filling a Captain's 

position; no other eligible candidate had done so. 

37. The two black males' highest positions were serving in Road Patrol as Lieutenants, 

and the white male's highest assignment was in the Operations Bureau as a shift Lieutenant. 

38. Maus' employee evaluations going back more than a decade; even before her 

3 42 U.S.C. § 2000c- (1) addresses this issue and governs prohibition of discriminatory use of test scores. It provides that: 

It shall be ail unlawful employment practicc for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants 

or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff seorcs for, or otherwise alter 

the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Id. 

8 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301- 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 12 of 53
promotion to Lieutenant, are all outstanding, and she has performed her job with distinction. She 

has received sixty-four (64) commendations; thirty-two (32) public commendations and thirty-two 

(32) departmental commendations, two (2) officer of the month awards, and two (2) lifesaving 

awards; more than anyone else on the promotion list. 

39. The conduct of the City and its agents proximately, directly, and foreseeably caused 

Maus damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Kimberly Maus prays that this court will: 

a. award judgment against City of Fort Lauderdale for the back pay and benefits to which 

Maus would have been entitled but for the City's discriminatory act of passing her over for 

promotion; 

b. award judgment against the City of Fort Lauderdale for compensatory damages, including 

all losses suffered as listed above; 

c. award Maus all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as delineated in § 760.11(5) of 

the Florida Statutes, and 

d. grant such other and further relief as is just. 

COUNT II- STATE LAW RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIM 

UNDER S 760.10 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES 

PLAINTIFF LUAN MALUSHI 

40. Plaintiff Malushi reincorporates fact Paragraphs 16-28 as if fully set forth herein. 

41. Malushi is a white male who served as a Sergeant, and at the time Scirotto became 

chief, was on the eligibility list to be promoted to Lieutenant, 

42. At the time Scirotto took over, the ranking on the eligibility list was as follows: (1) 

Sgt. Newman (who had an open IA investigation pending, rendering him ineligible for promotion); 

9 

Tonja Haddad, P.A, • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301» 954,467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 13 of 53
(2) Sgt. Malushi (Plaintiff); (2) Sgt. Vetancourt (Plaintiff); (3) Sgt. Fortunate (Plaintiff); (4) Sgt. 

Auguste (black male); (4) Sgt. Greenlaw (Hispanic female); (5) Sgt. Doobrow; and (5) Sgt. Gnisci. 

43. In August 2021, Scirotto made his first promotion to Lieutenant, selecting Sgt. 

Greenlaw (Hispanic female), who was ranked below Plaintiff and has been an officer less time than 

Plaintiff. She, like Lt. Maus, had previously been promoted, but also had her promotion rescinded 

due to the change of retirement status. On August 31, 2021, Sgt. Malushi saw Scirotto at an event 

and asked him why he was being passed over, and Scirotto said "I have to consider diversity and 

equity and this gave me an opportunity to get a female in the rank of Lieutenant." See Exhibit B, p. 

9. 

44. The next promotions occurred in October 2021, and Scirotto promoted Sgt. Newman 

(open IA) and Sgt. Auguste (the black male on the list who was also a recent target of an IA 

investigation). 

a. Sgt. Newman: Malushi has been an officer for nearly five (5) years longer than 

Newman and was, unlike Newman, eligible for promotion. Sgt. Newman left two (2) units under a 

cloud, including Internal Affairs (IA); a unit in which candidates are expected to serve before 

promotion. While Newman was in patrol, he was under investigation for a use of force incident with 

some of his subordinates. He was originally not promoted because he was under investigation, 

however he was later promoted by Scirotto while still under internal affairs investigation. The 

subordinates involved in the case were denied transfers to specialty units because they were under 

investigation. Someone being promoted while under an IA investigation is unheard of and against 

policy. However, upon information and belief, this promotion was a favor to a person in the 

department who helped Scirotto get hired, just like the two black male captains who were promoted 

over Lt. Maus. 

10 

Tonja Haddad, PA. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 14 of 53
b. Sgt. Auguste: Malushi has been an officer for eight (8) years longer than Auguste, and 

employed by the City longer. Malushi was also ranked higher than Auguste on the eligibility list. 

Sgt. Auguste (black male) was recently being investigated, along with another officer, for attempting 

to badge their way into a VIP area at a Dolphin's game. 

45. Malushi has been a sworn law enforcement officer for twenty-four (24) years. He 

has been with the FLPD since January 2006. Prior to that, he was a member of the Detroit Police 

Department for eight (8) years. He began his career with the FLPD serving in the Operations 

Bureau as patrol officer and later served as a field training officer. During his tenure, he also served 

as a property crimes detective. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant in May 2013. His 

assignments as a sergeant included patrol and in the Office of Internal Affairs. He holds a bachelor's 

degree in criminal justice management from Union Institute and University, He is the recipient of an 

Officer of the Month award, six (6) departmental commendations and one (1) public commendation. 

Malushi also served nine (9) years as a Sergeant; more than any of those promoted over him, and 

has zero discipline history, unlike those promoted over him. 

46. Malushi was thereafter told that Scirotto said that he wanted "to punch him in the 

face." According to the independent investigation, this was confirmed by multiple witnesses, In his 

interview, Scirotto himself did not deny it but said that he was "frustrated" and that he was "likely 

not the only person that felt that way about Malushi." See Exhibit B, pp. 10-11. 

47. The conduct of the City and its agents proximately, directly, and foreseeably caused 

Malushi damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary 

losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other 

non-pecuniary losses. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Luan Malushi prays that this court will: 

11 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954,467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 15 of 53
a. award judgment against City of Fort Lauderdale for the back pay and benefits to which 

Malushi would have been entitled but for the City's discriminatory act of passing him over for 

promotion; 

b. award judgment against the City of Fort Lauderdale for compensatory damages, including 

all losses suffered as listed above; 

c. award Malushi all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as delineated in § 760.11(5) 

of the Florida Statu tes, and 

d. grant such other and further relief as is just. 

COUNT III- STATE LAW RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIM 

UNDER S 760,10 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES 

PLAINTIFF RICHARD FORTUNATO 

48. Plaintiff Foitunato reincorporates fact Paragraphs 16-28 as if fully set forth herein. 

49. Fortunato is a white male who served as a Sergeant, and at the time Scirotto became 

chief, was on the eligibility list to be promoted to Lieutenant. Before the August promotions were 

released, Fortunato received a phone call from Scirotto, during which Scirotto explained that he was 

taking the police department "in a different direction." 

50. At the time Scirotto took over, the ranking on the eligibility list was as follows: (1) 

Sgt. Newman (who had an open IA investigation pending, rendering him ineligible for promotion); 

(2) Sgt. Malushi (Plaintiff); (2) Sgt. Vetancourt (Plaintiff); (3) Sgt. Fortunato (Plaintiff); (4) Sgt. 

Auguste (black male); (4) Sgt. Greenlaw (Hispanic female); (5) Sgt. Doobrow; and (5) Sgt. Gnisci. 

51. In August 2021, Scirotto made his first promotion to Lieutenant, selecting Sgt. 

Greenlaw (Hispanic female), who was ranked below Plaintiff, has been an officer less time than 

Plaintiff, and been with the FLPD less time than Plaintiff. She, like Lt. Maus, had previously been 

promoted, but also had her promotion rescinded due to the change of retirement status. 

12 

Tonja Haddad, P,A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 [•954.467,1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 16 of 53
52. The next promotions occurred in October 2021, and Scirotto promoted Sgt. Newman 

(open IA) and Sgt. Augiiste (the black male on the list who was also a recent target of an IA 

investigation). 

a. Sgt. Newman: Fortunato has been an officer eight (8) years longer than Newman 

and was, unlike Newman, eligible for promotion. Sgt. Newman left two (2) units under a cloud, 

including Internal Affairs (IA); a unit in which candidates are expected to serve before promotion. 

While Newman was in patrol, he was under investigation for a use of force incident with some of 

his subordinates. He was originally not promoted because he was under investigation, however he 

was later promoted by Scirotto while still under internal affairs investigation. The subordinates 

involved in the case were denied transfers to specialty units because they were under investigation. 

Someone being promoted while under an IA investigation is unheard of and against policy. 

However, upon information and belief, this promotion was a favor to a person in the department 

who helped Scirotto get hired, just like the two black male captains who were promoted over Lt. 

Maus. 

b. Sgt. Auguste: Fortunato has been an officer for twelve (12) years longer than Auguste 

and employed with the FLPD longer. Fortunato was also ranked higher than Auguste on the 

eligibility list. Sgt. Auguste (black male) was recently being investigated, along with another officer, 

for attempting to badge their way into a VIP area at a Dolphin's game. 

53. Fortunato commenced working for the FLPD in 1994. He has been an officer for 

twenty-eight (28) years; longer than anyone promoted. During his tenure, he has worked in every 

single district in the City, both on midnight shift and evening shift. He was a member of the Tactical 

Impact Unit, the Special Problems Unit, the Economic Crimes Unit, and the Bomb Squad. As a 

supervisor, he served in the Operations Bureau as a patrol sergeant. He holds a bachelor's degree in 

13 

TonjaHaddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301» 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 17 of 53
criminal justice management from the Union Institute and University. He has received an Officer of 

the Month award, ten (10) departmental commendations, and sixteen (16) public commendations. 

Fortunato also served nine (9) years as a Sergeant; more than any ofthose promoted over him, 

54. The conduct of the City and its agents proximately, directly, and foreseeably caused 

Fortunato damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Richard Fortunato prays that this court will: 

a. award judgment against City of Fort Lauderdale for the back pay and benefits to which 

Fortunato would have been entitled but for the City's discriminatory act of passing him over for 

promotion; 

b. award judgment against the City of Fort Lauderdale for compensatory damages, including 

all losses suffered as listed above; 

c. award Fortunato all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as delineated in § 

760.11(5) of the Florida Statutes, and 

d. grant such other and further relief as is just. 

COUNT IV-STATE LAW RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIM 

UNDER S 760,10 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES 

PLAINTIFF FRANCISCO VETANCOURT 

55. Plaintiff Vetancourt reincorporates fact Paragraphs 16-28 as if fully set forth herein. 

56. Vetancourt is a Hispanic male who served as a Sergeant, and at the time 

Scirotto became chief, was on the eligibility list to be promoted to Lieutenant. 

57. At the time Scirotto took over, the ranking on the eligibility list was as follows: (1) 

Sgt. Newman (who had an open IA investigation pending, rendering him ineligible for promotion); 

(2) Sgt. Malushi (Plaintiff); (2) Sgt. Vetancourt (Plaintiff); (3) Sgt. Fortunato (Plaintiff); (4) Sgt. 

Auguste (black male); (4) Sgt. Greenlaw (Hispanic female); (5) Sgt. Doobrow; and (5) Sgt. Gnisci. 

14 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301" 954.467,1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 18 of 53
58. In August 2021, Scirotto made his first promotion to Lieutenant, selecting Sgt. 

Greenlaw (Hispanic female), who was ranked below Plaintiff and has been an officer less time than 

Plaintiff. She, like Lt. Maus, had previously been promoted, but also had her promotion rescinded 

due to the change of retirement status. 

59. The next promotions occurred in October 2021, and Scirotto promoted Sgt. Newman 

(open IA) and Sgt. Auguste (the black male on the list who was also a recent target of an IA 

investigation). 

a. Sgt. Newman: Vetancourt has been an officer for three (3) years longer than 

Newman and was, unlike Newman, eligible for promotion. Sgt. Newman left two (2) units under a 

cloud, including Internal Affairs (IA); a unit in which candidates are expected to serve before 

promotion. While Newman was in patrol, he was under investigation for a use of force incident with 

some of his subordinates. He was originally not promoted because he was under investigation, 

however he was later promoted by Scirotto while still under internal affairs investigation. The 

subordinates involved in the case were denied transfers to specialty units because they were under 

investigation. Someone being promoted while under an IA investigation is unheard of and against 

policy. However, upon information and belief, this promotion was a favor to a person in the 

department who helped Scirotto get hired, just like the two black male captains who were promoted 

over Lt. Maus. 

b. Sgt. Auguste: Vetancourt has been an officer for seven (7) years longer than Auguste, 

and with the FLPD longer. Vetancourt was also ranked higher than Auguste on the eligibility list. 

Sgt. Auguste (black male) was recently being investigated, along with another officer, for 

attempting to badge their way into a VIP area at a Dolphin's game, 

15 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. *315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 * 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 19 of 53
60, Vetancourt has been a member of the FLPD for twenty-three (23) years; the last 

thirteen (13) as a Sergeant. He has been a Sergeant longer than anyone promoted over him. He has 

served the department as a detective in the Street Narcotics Unit, Strategic Investigations Unit, and 

Street Crimes Unit, where he also served as a Sergeant. He has worked as both a patrol officer and 

patrol sergeant. He further held the position of sergeant in the Community Engagement Team and 

the Community and Traffic Services Division. Additionally, he was assigned to the Chiefs Office 

in the Office of Internal Affairs for five (5) years. In 2017 he was transferred to the new Community 

and Traffic Services Division. As the sergeant in that division, he supervised the community 

engagement team, homeless outreach, crime prevention, and later community court. At the time the 

community engagement team, community court, and DUI unit were concepts the department 

wanted to implement. Vetancourt successfully brought all those units from concept to reality, and 

they are all still active units. He was also acting Lieutenant on multiple occasions. In 2020, 

Vetancourt was reassigned to the Office of Internal Affairs to take over for and repair the damage 

caused by Sgt. Newman in a national news case. He has also served as a member of the Crisis 

Negotiation Team and Tactical Bicycle Platoon. He is the recipient of twenty-six (26) departmental 

commendations and nine (9) public commendations, and has never been the subject of any 

discipline, unlike those chosen over him. 

61. The conduct of the City and its agents proximately, directly, and foreseeably caused 

Vetancourt damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Francisco Vetancourt prays that this court will: 

16 

TonjaHaddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301' 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 20 of 53
a. award judgment against City of Fort Lauderdale for the back pay and benefits to which 

Vetancourt would have been entitled but for the City's discriminatory act of passing him over for 

promotion; 

b. award judgment against the City of Fort Lauderdale for compensatory damages, including 

all losses suffered as listed above; 

c. award Vetancourt all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as delineated in § 

760.11(5) of the Florida Statutes, and 

d. grant such other and further relief as is just. 

COUNT V- TITLE VII 42 IJ.S.C. S 200015-2 

DISCRIMINATION BASF.fi ON RACF. ANT) C.FNDFR 

PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY MAUS 

62. Plaintiff Maus reincorporates Paragraphs 16-28 and 30-38 as if fully set forth herein. 

63. Defendant engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII 

when it denied her promotion because of her gender and race. 

64. Plaintiff, the only female on the eligibility list, and one who had already been 

chosen as the most qualified, was subjected to this adverse employment action for which she lost 

pay and suffered other damages. 

65. Defendant treated similarly situated black and male employees more favorably 

than Maus with respect to the promotions. 

66. Defendant's purported reasons for failing to promote Maus are pretext for race 

and gender discrimination. Scirotto and the City admitted the discrimination. See Exhibits B, C, D, 

and E; statements by City Manager. 

67. The effect of the failure to promote has been to deprive Maus of equal 

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of 

her race and gender. 

68. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory termination, Maus incurred 

17 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301- 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 21 of 53
damages including, but not limited to, lost income and seniority. 

69. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory actions, Maus suffered 

emotional harm including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, 

stress, and loss of enjoyment of life. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Kimberly Maus, prays that this Court grant the following 

relief: 

a. Provide make-whole relief to Maus, including seniority and backpay to 

compensate her for the loss she has suffered as a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct 

alleged in this Complaint; 

b. Award Maus any prejudgment interest on the amount of lost wages and benefits 

determined to be due; 

c. Award damages to Maus to fully compensate her for pain and suffering caused by 

Defendant's discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint; 

d. Award costs and attorney's fees as permitted by 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5; and 

e. Award such additional relief as justice may require. 

COUNT VI- TITT.F VIT 42 ILS.C. 8 2n<tftF,-2 

DISCRIMINATION BASF.D ON RACF. AND CT.NDF.R 

PLAINTIFF I.IJAN MAMJSHI 

70. Plaintiff Malushi reincorporates Paragraphs 16-28 and 41-46, including subparts, as 

if fully set forth herein, 

71. Defendant engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII 

when it denied Malushi promotion because of his gender and race. 

72. Malushi, who was more qualified (and eligible) than those chosen over him was 

subjected to this adverse employment action for which he lost pay and suffered other damages. 

73. Defendant treated similarly situated black and female employees more favorably 

than Malushi with respect to the promotions. 

18 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 22 of 53
74. Defendant's purported reasons for failing to promote Malushi are pretext for 

gender and race discrimination. Scirotto and the City admitted the discrimination. See Exhibits B, 

C, D, and E; statements by City Manager. 

75. The effect of the failure to promote has been to deprive Malushi of equal 

employment opportunities and othei'wise adversely affect his status as an employee because of 

his race and gender. 

76. As a result ofDefendant's unlawful discriminatory termination, Malushi incurred 

damages including, but not limited to, lost income and seniority. 

77. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory actions, Malushi suffered 

emotional harm including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, 

stress, and loss of enjoyment of life. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Luan Malushi, prays that this Court grant the following relief: 

a. Provide make-whole relief to Malushi, including seniority and backpay to 

compensate him for the loss he has suffered as a result ofDefendant's discriminatory conduct 

alleged in this Complaint; 

b. Award Malushi any prejudgment interest on the amount of lost wages and benefits 

determined to be due; 

c. Award damages to Malushi to fully compensate him for pain and suffering caused 

by Defendant's discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint; 

d. Award costs and attorney's fees as permitted by 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5; and 

e. Award such additional relief as justice may require. 

COUNT VII- TITLE VII42 U.S.C. § 2QOOE-2 

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE AND GENDER 

PLAINTIFF RICHARD FORTUNATO 

78. Plaintiff Fortunato reincorporates Paragraphs 16-28 and 49-53, including subparts, 

as if fully set forth herein. 

19 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 23 of 53
79. Defendant engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII 

when it denied Fortunato promotion because of his race and gender. 

80. Fortunato, who was more qualified (and eligible) than those chosen over him 

was subjected to this adverse employment action for which he lost pay and suffered other 

damages. 

81. Defendant treated similarly situated black and female employees more favorably 

than Fortunato with respect to the promotions. Defendant's purported reasons for failing to 

promote Fortunato are pretext for race and gender discrimination, Scirotto and the City admitted 

the discrimination. See Exhibits B, C, D, and E; statements by City Manager, 

82. The effect of the failure to promote has been to deprive Fortunato of equal 

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of 

his race and gender. 

83. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory termination, Fortunato 

incurred damages including, but not limited to, lost income and seniority. 

84. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory actions, Fortunato suffered 

emotional harm including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, 

stress, and loss of enjoyment of life. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard Fortunato, prays that this Court grant the following 

relief: 

a. Provide make-whole relief to Fortunato, including seniority and backpay to 

compensate him for the loss he has suffered as a result of Defendant's 

discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint; 

b. Award Fortunato any prejudgment interest on the amount of lost wages and 

benefits determined to be due; 

20 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 24 of 53
c. Award damages to Fortunato to fully compensate him for pain and suffering 

caused by Defendant's discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint; 

d. Award costs and attorney's fees as permitted by 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5; and 

e. Award such additional relief as justice may require. 

COUNT VIII- TITLE VII42 U.S.C, S 200QE-2 

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE AND GENDER 

PLAINTIFF FRANCISCO VETANCOURT 

85. Plaintiff Vetancourt reincorporates Paragraphs 16-28 and 49-53, including subparts, 

as if fully set forth herein. 

86. Defendant engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII 

when it denied Vetancourt promotion because of his race and gender. 

87. Vetancourt, who was more qualified (and eligible) than those chosen over him 

was subjected to this adverse employment action for which he lost pay and suffered other 

damages. 

88. Defendant treated similarly situated black and female employees more favorably 

than Vetancourt with respect to the promotions. Defendant's purported reasons for failing to 

promote Vetancourt are pretext for race and gender discrimination. Scirotto and the City admitted 

the discrimination. See Exhibits B, C, D, and E; statements by City Manager. 

89. The effect of the failure to promote has been to deprive Vetancourt of equal 

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of 

his race. 

90. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory termination, Vetancourt 

incurred damages including, but not limited to, lost income and seniority. 

91. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory actions, Vetancourt suffered 

emotional harm including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, 

21 

Tonja Haddad, PA. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954.467.1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 25 of 53
stress, and loss of enjoyment of life. 

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff, Francisco Vetancourt, prays that this Court grant the following 

relief: 

a. Provide make-whole relief to Vetancourt, including seniority and backpay to 

compensate him for the loss he has suffered as a result of Defendant's 

discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint; 

b. Award Vetancourt any prejudgment interest on the amount of lost wages and 

benefits determined to be due; 

c. Award damages to Vetancourt to fully compensate him for pain and suffering 

caused by Defendant's discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint; 

d. Award costs and attorney's fees as permitted by 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5; and 

e. Award such additional relief as justice may require. 

JURY DEMAND 

The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Tonia Haddad Coleman 

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 

LAW OFFICE OF TONJA HADDAD, PA 

315 SE 7th Street 

Suite 301 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

954.467.1223 

954.337.3716 (facsimile) 

T onj a@Tonj aHaddad .com 

Efiling@ TonjaHaddad.com 

22 

Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301* 954467,1223 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 26 of 53
TonjiMteddac^olema^ 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Tonja Haddad Coleman 

Monday, November 15, 2021 1:07 PM 

Alain Boiieau; Chris Lagerbloom; bweissman@fortiauderdale.gov 

Tonja Haddad Coleman 

Formal Complaints FLPD 

grievance l.pdf; grievance 2.pdf 

Importance: High 

Mr. Boiieau: 

In today's newspaper, you were quoted as stating that "the city has not been provided . ,. any formal written complaint from an employee, so we do not know 

any specific allegations." However, as evidenced by the two attached grievances served on the City Manager, the director of HR, and others in the City on 

October 26 and 27, 2021, that statement appears to be false. I have highlighted the germane portions of the October 26 grievance for your edification, as they 

seem to be specific. We will also provide these to the press if necessary. If this is not enough, please note that all of my clients are willing to come down and file 

formal complaints, including with the OPS if the grievance is not enough. 

We hope that the City will be more forthright in the independent Investigation. 

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. 

TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 

Advocate Building 

315 SE 7

th Street, Suite 301 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

954.467.1223 direct dial 

954.337.3716 facsimile 

Tonja@TonjaHaddad.com 

Efiling@TonjaHaddad.com 

www.ToniaHaddad.com 

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) 

named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this 

communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the 

original message. 

l 

EXHIBIT A 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 27 of 53
R L ROSSMAN 

LEGAL 

6840 Griffin Rcl. • Davie, FL 33314 • Phone: 954.440.0908 • www.rossrnaniftyal.com 

Chris Lagerbloom 25 February 2022 

City Manager 

City of Fort Lauderdale 

100 North Andrews Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Dear Mr. Lagerbloom: 

On November 22, 2021 the City entered an agreement with Rossman Legal wherein this author 

was tasked with investigating "various complaints and allegations of workplace discrimination at 

the Fort Lauderdale Police Department related to recent promotions." The City was seeking an 

independent investigation from outside its own organizational structure. The Scope of Services 

called for "objective investigative services regarding the matter." In this role, I was given complete 

freedom to investigate the matter by "gathering and reviewing relevant records, interviewing 

relevant witnesses" and the agreement required "preparing a report" of my findings. This 

document summarizes my investigation and serves as the "report of my findings" as spelled out in 

the "Scope of Services." 

I stand ready to discuss the report and the basis for its findings at your convenience. 

liegg Rossman' 

EXHIBIT B 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 28 of 53
Investigation of Complaints of Discrimination 

I was advised that somewhere between four (4) to six (6) employees may have alleged a 

complaint or complaints invoking possible Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) violations directly related to the matter. I was advised that four (4) employees were 

represented by counsel. I was provided the names of employees that "might" have relevant 

information. I was provided documents for review including two (2) filed "grievances", three (3) 

promotional eligibility lists, and a press release related to promotions. I reviewed relevant 

Collective Bargaining Agreements, City Codes/Ordinances, City Human Resources Department 

Policy, EEOC guidelines and relevant case law. I was provided a private setting to interview City 

employees without input or participation by City staff. 

I broke out the scope of the work into several stages. First, there was a review of "governing 

documents" including those stated above. Second, there was a review of EEOC guidance and 

case law. Third, interviews were conducted with a number of employees relating to the matter. 

Finally, there was an independent analysis conducted by this investigator. The puipose of this 

report is to relate the findings of my investigation. It is the product of the above described 

process. 

Stage 1: Governing Document Review 

Collective Bargaining Agreements 

The first grievance alleged a violation of "Article 6, Section 3." The grievance listed two classes 

of employees - sergeants and lieutenants - as complainants. This is significant because sergeants 

work under a particular collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the City.1 Lieutenants work 

under a separate CBA.2 Upon reviewing Article 6 in each "Agreement," the language was found 

to be exactly the same and the relevant sections are re-stated here: 

ARTICLE 6 - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 

Section 1 The City and the Union agree to full and unequivocal cooperation with each other in 

eliminating all unlawful discrimination and to assure all personnel programs, policies, and 

assignments are free from unlawful discriminatory practices. 

Section 3 There shall be no unlawful discrimination by the City in employment, employment 

opportunities or job actions on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, 

disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status or marital status, or other 

characteristic protected by law unless one or more of the above constitute a bona fide 

occupational qualification within the meaning of the law. No present employee will be unlawfully 

discriminated against or given preference because of any of the above characteristics, unless 

otherwise required by law, 

1 2020-2022 Agreemenl between the City of Fori Lauderdale and the Fori Lauderdale Police Lodge 31 Police Officers mid Sergeants. 

: 2020-2022 Agreement between Ihe Cily of Foil Laudei'dali: and the Fort LaiKlerdale Police Lodge 31 Lieuteniinls and Captains. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 1 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Proccss 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 29 of 53
This grievance alleged a "preference given in the promotional process based on gender or race." 

The second grievance likewise listed two classes of employees - sergeants and lieutenants - as 

complainants. Again, this is significant because both Article 36 and Article 37 are very different 

in the two relevant Agreements. 

The second grievance simply alleged "Grievance: Article 37, Section 7 but not limited to; 

Candidates passed over for promotion shall have the right to appeal beginning at Step 3 of the 

Grievance Procedure." However, Article 37 in each CBA deals with "Shift Assignments" and 

has no relevance to the matter alleged. 

It appears the complainants intended to invoke Article 36 - Promotional Examinations, Section 7 

in the CBA pertaining to Officers and Sergeants. The grievance references some language found 

therein. Article 36, Section 7 in this CBA states: 

Section 7. Promotional scores shall be whole numbers, and the Police Chief shall have the right, 

when recommending appointments, to choose from the top five (5) candidates certified, 

Candidates passed over for promotion shall have the right to appeal beginning at Step 3 of the 

Grievance Procedure. If tie scores result in more than five (5) candidates being certified, the 

Police Chief may choose for promotion from the larger number. 

This language does not exist in "Article 36 - Promotions" in the CBA pertaining to Lieutenants 

and Captains. Therefore, this grievance as written does not apply to any Lieutenant or Captain. 

Assuming arguendo this grievance applies to all complainants listed, it appears to state a 

complaint about a contractual grievance process but makes no overt or implied allegation of 

discrimination of any kind. Therefore, this issue is outside the scope of this investigation and the 

author will offer no finding related to it. 

Citv Codes/Ordinances 

The City of Fort Lauderdale codifies its commitment to protecting individuals from 

discrimination primarily in Chapter 29 of its Code. Chapter 29 is titled "Human Relations." 

Relevant sections are cited here: 

ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL 

The general purpose and intent of this chapter is: 

(1) To express support within the city for the policies embodied in the Broward County Human 

Rights Act of 2011, as amended; Titles II, III, and VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended; Title VIII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended; Section 504 of the 

Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended; the 

Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, as amended; the Americans with Disabilities 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 2 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 30 of 53
Act of 1990, as amended; the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended; and other federal, 

state, and county anti-discrimination laws; and 

(2) To secure for all individuals within the city freedom from discrimination bccausc of race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, political affiliation, familial status, 

disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, gender identity or expression, veteran or service 

member status, lawful source of income, or being the victim of dating violence, domestic 

violence, or stalking, in connection with employment, housing and public accommodations, or 

real estate transactions, where applicable, and thereby to promote the interests, rights, and 

privileges of individuals within the city. 

This chapter shall be liberally construed to further the general purposes stated in this chapter. The 

provisions of this chapter shall be construed consistent with similar federal and state statutes and 

Broward County ordinances. 

Sec. 29-2. - Definitions. 

Aggrieved person means any person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory 

practice. Discriminatory employment practice means an act that is unlawful under Article II of 

this chapter and Article VI, as it relates to acts made unlawful under Article II of this chapter. 

Discriminatory practice means an act or practice designated as unlawful under the terms of this 

chapter. 

ARTICLE II. - DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 

Sec. 29-11.- Discriminatory practices in employment. 

(6) Discriminatory information gathering. Except as permitted by ordinance, by applicable 

federal, state, or county law, or by bona fide occupational qualifications, it is a discriminatory 

practice for an employer or employment agency: 

a. To elicit information about an employee's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

marital status, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or gender identity or 

expression; or 

The city commission shall not adopt any ordinance or regulation that authorizes an employer to 

disclose information that is otherwise prohibited from disclosure pursuant to federal, state, 

county, or local law. 

The City has clearly stated in the above quoted sections that it follows federal and state law and 

county ordinances applicable to discrimination generally and employment discrimination 

specifically. The City defines discriminatory practices in employment in Article II. Of note, 

Section 29-11, subsection (6) declares it "discriminatory" to elicit information about an 

employee's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, political affiliation, 

disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or gender identity or expression, 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 3 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 31 of 53
Citv Human Resources Department Policy 

The City's Non-Discrimination/Harassment Policies 

The following Notices are taken verbatim directly from the Human Resources page on the City ' 

website. The emphasis is original as it appears on the website: 

The City of Fort Lauderdale is AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE 

ACTION EMPLOYER. All applicants receive consideration for employment without regard to 

age, ancestry, color, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, political 

affiliation, race, religion, creed, sex or other non-merit factors (except as limited by law, 

Personnel Rules, Collective Bargaining Agreements, or bona fide occupational qualifications). 

Title VI Notice of Compliance 

It is the policy of the City of Fort Lauderdale, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Section 324 of 

the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973; Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987; and related statutes 

and regulations, that no person shall on the basis of race, color, national origin, be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination or 

retaliation under any federally or non-federally funded program or activity administered by the 

City or its sub-recipients. 

Although these statements do not carry the authority of an ordinance, they do make clear the 

City's total commitment to ensuring no individual suffers discrimination particularly within the 

employment practices of the City. 

Stage 2 EEOC Guidelines 

The EEOC reference manual was reviewed and utilized for guidance. The following sections are 

taken directly from the EEOC and relevant cases.3 

Conducting A Thorough Investigation 

Because discrimination often is subtle, and there rarely is a "smoking gun," determining whether 

race played a role in the decision making requires examination of all of the surrounding facts and 

circumstances. The presence or absence of any one piece of evidence often will not be 

determinative. Sources of information can include witness statements, including consideration of 

their credibility; documents; direct observation; and statistical evidence such as EEO-1 data, 

among others. 

Title VII also does not permit racially motivated decisions driven by business concerns - for 

example, concerns about the effect on employee relations, or the negative reaction of clients or 

customers. Nor may race or color ever be a bona fide occupational qualification under Title VII. 

3 See EEOC Compl. Mini., Vol, I, Sec. 26 

Author: Gregg Rossmait, Esq. 

Page 4 of 12 Report of Investigation In Rc: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 32 of 53
Race/Color Discrimination & Work Situations 

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, 

filing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or 

condition of employment. 

Potential Evidence of Racial Disparate Treatment 

Race-related statements (oral or written) made by decisionmakers or persons influential to the 

decision. Race-related statements include not only slurs and patently biased statements, but also 

"code words" that are purportedly neutral on their face but which, in context, convey a racial 

meaning. The credibility of the witnesses attesting to discriminatory statements, and the 

credibility of the witnesses denying them, are critical to determining whether such statements 

actually were made. If racially discriminatory statements were made, their importance will 

depend on their egregiousness and how closely they relate - in time and content - to the decision 

in question. For example, a statement that there are "too many Asians" in a department, made by 

a hiring official when discussing applicants, would be strong evidence supporting an Asian 

American's failure-to-hire claim. Such a statement also would support a claim of hostile work 

environment by Asian American employees. 

Comparative treatment evidence. This is evidence as to whether the claimant was treated the 

same as, or differently than, similarly situated persons of a different race. Such evidence is not 

always required, but a difference in the treatment of similarly situated persons of different races 

is probative of discrimination because it tends to show that the treatment was not based on a 

nondiscriminatory reason. Conversely, an employer's consistent treatment of similarly situated 

persons of different races tends to support its contention that no discrimination occurred. 

Comparator evidence that supports either party's position must be weighed in light of all the 

circumstances. For example, if the group of similarly situated persons who were treated better 

than the claimant included persons of the claimant's race, that would weaken his or her claim, 

but it would not be conclusive proof of nondiscrimination because the balance of the evidence 

overall might still more convincingly point to discrimination. Identification of persons who are 

similarly situated to the claimant should be based on the nature of the allegations, the alleged 

nondiscriminatory reasons, and other important factors suggested by the context, but should not 

be based on unduly restrictive standards. 

Relevant background facts. Specific employment decisions and issues should not be looked at in 

isolation. Other information that can shed light on whether the employer's adverse employment 

decision was motivated by race includes the employer's treatment of other employees (or 

customers, etc.), race-related attitudes, the work environment generally, and the context of the 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 5 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Proccss 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 33 of 53
challenged employment decision. The point is that background evidence can help determine the 

employer's state of mind and otherwise provide important context, 

Relevant personnel policies. An employer's deviation from an applicable personnel policy, or a 

past practice, can support an inference of a discriminatory motive. Conversely, acting in 

conformance with a consistently applied nondiscriminatory policy or practice would suggest 

there is no such motive. -

Hiring and Promotion 

The law generally leaves it to the employer's business judgment to determine who should be 

hired or promoted. Within that context, however, an applicant's race should not affect his or her 

chances. This means that employers cannot treat persons of different races differently in the 

hiring or promotion process. Nor may employers use selection criteria that have a significant 

discriminatory effect without being able to prove that the criteria are job-related and consistent 

with business necessity. Thus, a sound way for employers both to achieve business goals and to 

comply with the law is to hire and promote based on job-related ability, as measured by uniform 

and consistently applied qualification/selection standards. 

Uniform and Consistently Applied Standards 

When making hiring and promotion decisions, employers must apply the same selection criteria 

to persons of different races, and apply them in the same way, giving the same weight to each 

criterion for each person. The reasons given for selection decisions should be credible and 

supported by the evidence. 

Stage 3: Summary of Interviews 

Process 

The City provided a pool of "potential witnesses" made up largely from the promotional 

eligibility lists that were in effect at the relevant time and anyone involved in the promotional 

process. The pool consisted of sixty-four (64) names. 

I determined the best protocol to follow would be to invite witnesses via email. This would 

ensure each witness received the exact same information in the invite, Each invitation contained 

the following information: who I was, why I was hired, the process to be followed and the 

voluntary nature of the invitation. The invitation stated that the meetings would be conducted in 

person at a Conference Room provided by the city but outside City Hall or the Police 

Department. It also stated that interviews could be conducted at any other location, via 

Zoom/WebEx or via telephone if necessary. 

Based on the initial information I was provided I decided to give the Chief the first opportunity 

to meet with me prior to inviting or hearing from any other witnesses. His invitation clearly 

stated that he did not have to meet with me at all. It also stated that if he agreed to meet, I would 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 6 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 34 of 53
defer to his choice of meeting with me first or to meet with me last after all other interviews were 

completed. The Chief did not respond to my initial email invitation but at a later time he reached 

out and stated he would meet with me and we agreed he would be my last interview. 

Initially, invitations were sent to twenty-four (24) potential witnesses. Twenty agreed to be 

interviewed. Sixteen were interviewed in person and four over the phone. If necessary, a second 

round of interviews were to be set however at the conclusion of these interviews I did not believe 

any further interviews were warranted. 

Witnesses were given a choice of how and where the interview would take place. All witnesses 

were advised the interviews would not be recorded and no particular statement would be 

attributed to anyone.4 All were advised they did not need an attorney but could bring one if they 

so chose. This was offered to ensure maximum cooperation. Eleven interviews were conducted 

in a City Conference Room, five in my office and four over the phone. Four interviews were 

coordinated with and attended by one attorney. These four interviews were conducted first for 

scheduling purposes. Interviews were taken from early December through the end of January. 

Each interview began with a scripted introduction. A rubric of questions was asked of each 

witness. Witnesses were encouraged to answer in a narrative form to ensure the sharing of as 

much information as possible. Witnesses were given my contact information and encouraged to 

follow up with me if anything new came to mind after our interviews. Two people followed up 

with me after their interviews. 

Factual Findings 

The interviews with twenty-one (21) witnesses (including the Chief) revealed a consistent 

narrative revolving around the Chiefs vocalization of his outright "intention to promote 

diversity."5 The following facts are deemed credible based on the convergence of facts from a 

broad range of witnesses, interviewed independently from one another. 

The Chief on more than one occasion, to different groups of people, pointed to the wall in the 

Chiefs conference room and stated, "that wall is too white"6 and "I'm gonna change that." The 

wall displays pictures of FLPD Command Staff.7 These statements were made in meetings 

involving General Staff on at least one occasion, Union members on one occasion and when 

considering promotions for Captain. In the first couple weeks8 of the Chiefs tenure, promotions 

were being considered because the promotional eligibility lists were due to expire. The Chief 

said he chose a few members of senior staff of varying rank to assist him in the promotional 

decision-making process because he was new to the agency and they had a wealth of institutional 

4 U would be impossible to shield the Chief from attribution. This was discussed and lite Chief stated his comments could be attributed to him. 

Two other witnesses also agreed to being quoted directly. All witnesses discussed a fear of retribution if they spoke openly to this investigator. 

The credibility of Uie witness statements is further bolstered by Chief Scirotto's use of strikingly similar language in previous interviews for 

open Chiefs positions, in an interview with Metro Nashville on 10/29/2020 he slated, "you have to be intentional about hiring diversity" and 

in talking about promotions he said leadership must "promote diversity as an intention." 

6 The faces in the group consisted of 17/18 people, 4/5 of whom were from recognized protected classes. (Ethnicily/Gender/Sexual Orientation) 

7 At the lime, Fort Lauderdale PD General Staff was defined by the rank of Captain or above. 

8 It is believed the promotional interviews were conducted on or about August 18,2021. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 7 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 35 of 53
knowledge. The Chief invited all eligible officers to submit resumes and he invited all of them to 

meet in person with him and the senior staff he had chosen to assist him. 

After the meeting process was completed, the Chief discussed possible promotions with the 

senior staff he had assembled. The Chief asked the senior staff members who they believed 

should be promoted. When discussing the open Captain's position, there was unanimity that the 

person with the second highest score from the testing process (Lt. Charlie Studders) was "very 

easily" the top choice based on his body of work within the Department.9 He is a white male 

with twenty years tenure. 

The Chiefs response was reported to be: 

- "not Charlie" 

- "it's between these two" (pointing to the names of Stone and Cruz, two males of color) 

- "this is between Cecil and Eddie" (Stone and Cruz) 

- "which one is blacker" 

- "this wall is too white" 

One witness reportedly said, "minority status is not related to the darkness of the pigment of their 

skin" and "you can't choose someone based on their skin color." The Chief replied, "which one 

will be more acceptable to the community" or "is this an accurate reflection of the community?" 

It is unclear if the Chief made the following statements in this same meeting or just after, but it 

was said in relation to the Captain's promotion: 

- "Cecil obviously looks more black than Eddie." 

- "Cecil is blacker than Eddie." 

Cecil Stone was promoted to fill the open Captain's position at that time. 

In relation to this promotion one of the four candidates was a white female (Lt. Kim Maus). She 

was told she was promoted in January of 2021 and this was published in a document titled 

"Memo from the Desk of Interim Chief Karen Dietrich." This document is dated January 22, 

2021. This "promotion", along with three others, was invalidated by the City based on a change 

in status of an allegedly retiring Captain. She remained on the eligibility list when the new Chief 

was appointed. She was initially listed fourth out of the eligible candidates but six people were in 

the "Rule of Five."10 

As stated above, the Chief employed a process to determine how to fill the open positions within 

the Department. There were four eligible candidates on the expiring Captain's list and there was 

one open Captain's position in August of 2021. The Chief consulted with senior staff and 

received input from them. The Chief confirmed that they all advised him that Lt. Charlie 

Studders, listed number two on the list, was the top choice for this position. According to the 

Chief, no one recommended Lt. Maus among all four eligible candidates. 

9 The expiring eligibilily list had lour names remaining on it. The Department uses a "Rule of 5" promotional loot so all four were eligible picks 

within the Chiefs discretion despite rankings from the testing process. The second highest score was a 92. The next highest score was an 84. 

The two bottom scores were 80. 

10 Inexplicably the "Rule of Five" is not limited to five candidates. It could have an unlimited number of eligible candidates as there is no lie 

breaker among scores so theoretically every person that tests lor a promotion could be eligible no matter how many people test. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 8 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 36 of 53
The Chief personally called each candidate that was considered for promotion - not just the one 

being promoted." Lt. Maus12 claims the Chief told her that he "was passing her over and 

promoting Lt. Cecil Stone." She stated that every person previously promoted on January 22, 

2021 and had that promotion rescinded was now being promoted by Chief Scirotto - except for 

her. Based on that, she went in and met with the Chief on August 23, 2021. She claims in that 

meeting the Chief said "what happened to those people was unfathomable" in relation to the 

rescinded promotions. She also stated the Chief told her directly that her "rank provided him the 

opportunity for some diversity, and I (he) took it. Cecil Stone is a competent black male." Lt. 

Maus stated this was a "gut punch" and was "humiliating." 

Lt. Maus stated the next promotion occurred October 3, 2021. She stated the Chief called her 

again to advise he was not promoting her and was promoting Lt. Charlie Studders and Lt. Eddie 

Cruz. She stated that she challenged Chief Scirotto saying "you talk about diversity and on your 

wall there is only one woman." She stated the Chief replied, "I am promoting Lynette to 

Major"13 and "as you can see there are not a lot of brown faces on that wall and I plan to change 

that." 

Sgt. Malushi14 stated that Chief Scirotto called and advised him "you are being passed over (for a 

promotion) for Deanna Greenlaw." He stated in this conversation the Chief then offered him 

praise and told him he was "respected within the organization" and to "keep doing your job. 

Keep doing what you are doing." Shortly after that conversation, on August 31, 2021, Sgt. 

Malushi saw Chief Scirotto at an event at the POA Hall and asked him "why am I being passed 

over?" According to Sgt. Malushi, Chief Scirotto said 'Thad to consider a lot of things. It was a 

gut punch to Deanna to lose the promotion (previously rescinded). I have to consider diversity 

and equity and this gave me an opportunity to get a female in the rank of Lieutenant." — 

Sgt. Malushi stated that on October 4, 2021 the Chief called him once again to advise that he was 

not being promoted into either of the two promotions he was making. According to Sgt. Malushi, 

their conversation went as follows: 

- Chief Scirotto "I have two positions. Unfortunately, I did not select you for either. I 

selected Newman .. 

- Sgt. Malushi interrupted "let me guess, Auguste." 

- Chief replied, "Yes." 

- Malushi "shocked" 

- Chief remained quiet. 

- Malushi "you're promoting a guy with an IA investigation, kicked out of Special 

Events, IA .. 

- Chief "that's just where we're at" 

- Malushi "I'm senior to both in overall time and rank" 

- Chief "that's just where we're at" 

11 Past praclice the Chief called llie person being promoled and an Asst. Chief contacted those not chosen. 

12 She is directly quoled with permission alter consultation with counsel. 

u Referencing Captain Lynette Falzone. 

l ie is directly quoted with permission after consultation with counsel. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 9 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 37 of 53
- Malushi "so the friends and family plan that dominated promotions... we bring you in 

to change the culture, you say you're a change agent and now under you it's the equity 

and diversity plan. I'm shit out of luck." 

- Chief "that's just where we're at. I've made my decision - this is where we're at." 

Sgt. Malushi did not have any further direct conversations with the Chief. He did hear from 

others after his phone call with the Chief. He was told the Chief said "who's this Malushi guy. I 

want to punch him in the face." A version of this statement was confirmed by multiple witnesses. 

Two other witnesses described conversations with Chief Scirotto when he called to advise they 

were not being promoted. These statements are attributed to the Chief in those conversations: 

- "You are being skipped" 

- "I want to take the agency in another direction and to make it more diverse." 

- "I didn't pick you. What happened to her was wrong." (re: a rescinded promotion) 

- "The wall is too white." 

Multiple witnesses directly described conversations with the Chief specifically related to 

promotions. In a meeting with Senior Staff discussing certain promotions, the Chief told a Senior 

Staff member that had offered his opinion on a specific choice "what do you care? You already 

got Steve Johnson the Spanish guy."15 Four people related individual, private conversations that 

are, by their private nature, impossible to independently verify. However, when viewed within 

the totality of similar comments related by a multitude of witnesses and some admissions by 

Chief Scirotto himself, it is this investigator's belief they are credible. 

Chief Scirotto agreed to meet and his interview was intentionally scheduled after all other 

relevant interviews had been finished. He was asked about the "promotional process" employed 

upon his hiring as Chief. He said he had open positions to fill immediately and that the 

promotional lists were expiring. He said he asked for a "90 day extension of the lists and the 

FOP agreed." He said, as an outsider, he was not familiar with the people eligible for 

promotions, that he did not have the benefit of long term, institutional knowledge. Based on that, 

he invited all eligible applicants to submit resumes for consideration and he invited each to meet 

with him. He chose senior command staff of varying rank and varying experience, along with a 

road patrol officer to participate in these meetings. After the interviews he discussed the 

candidates with the senior command staff members.16 Chief Scirotto admitted the senior 

command staff he had invited to assist him in this process "unanimously agreed that Charlie was 

the only choice" for Captain "to fill the one open spot at that time," The Chief stated the decision 

was his and he believed he could use race as a "tie breaker assuming all other things are equal." 

He stated he considered "IA files, the resumes and the chat." He said he "choose Cecil because 

he was a qualified black man with a Master's degree."17 

Chief Scirotto stated in his interview with me that he was going to "consider diversity at every 

opportunity." He stated that one had to be "intentional" in their decision making. 

15 Sgl. Sieve Johnson is apparently of Trinidadian heritage. 

16 The road patrol officer was excused nud did not participate in these conversations. 

17 Lt. Cecil Stone was promoted to Captain. It was confirmed he has a Master's degree. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 10 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 38 of 53
He further stated in his interview that no one in his Command Staff recommended Lt Maus for 

promotion and that he considered those recommendations when choosing who to promote.18 The 

Chief admitted to making several statements about "the wall being too white." He stated the wall 

did not reflect the community. He said the context of the comment is built around "how do I 

convince the community that we are an inclusive and diverse organization if this wall is so 

white?" He also stated that he asked "do we not have any qualified minority candidates?" He 

believed these statements were made in a General Staff meeting or a meeting attended by a larger 

group. One witness recalled the Chief "maybe saying something about the community" in 

relation to the wall. No other witness recalled him making those statements. When asked if there 

were "Hispanic faces" or "LGBTQ" faces on the "white wall" the Chief said "he did not see 

diversity on the wall."19 

The Chief was asked directly about his question "which one is blacker than the other?" When 

asked if he had asked that question the following exchange took place: 

- Chief "in relation to promotions?" 

- Investigator "promotions or any other context." 

- Chief "I never said that. I would never say that." 

The Chief was asked if he ever said he wanted "to punch Malushi in the face." He did not deny it 

but said that he was "frustrated" and that he was "likely not the only person that felt that way 

about Malushi." 

Conclusions 

Every single witness was asked about their tenure with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. 

Every witness was asked about their experience with prior promotional processes under several 

different Chiefs. Each and every witness stated they believed the prior promotional "processes" 

were fair even if the promotional decisions were not always perfect. While each person believed 

that historically some people were promoted based on favoritism - no one related a belief that 

promotions were based on immutable traits. 

In speaking about the promotions that are the subject of this report, almost every witness was 

dissatisfied. Most believed that Chief Scirotto made clear his intention to promote based on race, 

gender or sexual orientation. Some believed it was about time changes were made but stated if 

promotions were based on things such as race it would even hurt or undermine the people 

promoted. Overall, there is a very divisive atmosphere within the Department based on the 

perception the Chief is intentionally using race, gender and sexual orientation as attributes 

necessary for promotions. While the goal to diversify is an important and laudable goal it must 

be accomplished in a legally permissible manner. Specifically, diversity must be accomplished in 

a'manner ensuring all members' rights are protected. 

18 In this very same promotional process, lie admittedly ignored the staff recommendations related to Charlie Sludders. 

19 Among the Command Staff at the lime there were four or five members of recognized classes including the following: people of color 

(Hispanic); gender; and LGBTQ. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 11 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 39 of 53
The Chiefs own words, admitted by him, are ill conceived if not plainly discriminatory. They 

are not part of a well-conceived, adopted plan of affirmative action or diversity implemented by 

ordinance or court order; The Fort Lauderdale Police Department has a strong history of 

diversity within the Department particularly within the past two decades. People in legally 

recognized protected classes have made it to all positions of rank including Captain, Major, 

Assistant Chief and Chief. Based on the collective testimony of the parties interviewed, this was 

accomplished most recently without any overt, intentional preference plan to promote diversity. 

This history is strong evidence that anyone can rise to the highest ranks within the Department 

based solely on merit. 

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 

Page 12 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process 

25 Feb 2022 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 40 of 53
• r' : Audio L.iv(-i TV ' • •• :•. 

liwvmmumv pwwv wiv—i •• vwv» w • • i im IVI B —•••'»<> [vi uvu vw 

in hiring and promotions, report says 

By Paradise Afshar and Claudia Dominguez, CNN 

® Updated 10:25 PM ET, Sat March 5, 2022 

Former Fort Lauderdale Police Chief Larry Scirotto is seen in this file photo from the Fort Lauderdale Police Dept. 

(CNN) — The city of Fort Lauderdale has fired its police chief Larry Scirotto, who has been in office for less than a 

year, following allegations of discriminatory practices for promotions. 

Scirotto was sworn-in as police chief in mid-August, and the city had hired a law firm by November to investigate 

complaints of discrimination before he was fired on Thursday, according to a copy of the law firm's report obtained 

by CNN. 

Scirotto told CNN Saturday the report that triggered his termination from the department was "vague on the facts," 

and was largely based on hearsay. 

The investigation concluded that during his time as police chief, Scirotto implemented an approach to hiring and 

promotion that was unfairly focused on minority candidates. 

The report said Scirotto once pointed to a conference room wall displaying photos of the department's command 

staff and stated, "that wall is too white," and "I'm gonna change that." 

Scirotto told CNN he promoted 15 people from August to November, and of that group, six were ethnic or gender 

minorities selected for promotions based on their merit. 

"None of them were promoted because they were in a protected class," he said. "They were promoted because 

they were the best candidates." 

EXHIBIT C 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 41 of 53
Audio Live TV .•'* ; 

ii ^IUII'IOUI IH uivciibuy ib u it; i mi 11ii <juu IIJ IU uie uii, i win bleep vvuii IUI nyiIL,- nersaicr—i vvui11 diiuvv LI lei11 IU ictiiiibit— 

my reputation. I won't allow them to tarnish the work that I've done in the 24 years I've been in this profession." 

In one example in the report, Scirotto is alleged to have overlooked a White man with 20 years tenure with the 

department, and instead narrowed the choice between two men of color, and asked, "which one is blacker." 

When asked about his approach to promotions, Scirotto told investigators he was going to "consider diversity at 

every opportunity," and he had to be "intentional" in his decision-making process. 

Scirotto denied asking which candidate was "blacker" when deciding on the promotion, but admitted to making 

comments about the wall being "too white," because he felt it was not reflective of the community, according to 

the report. 

"He said the context of the comment is built around 'how do I convince the community that we are an inclusive 

and diverse organization if this wall is so white?"' the report said. 

In total, 21 witnesses, including the chief, gave a consistent narrative to investigators about Scirotto's hiring and 

promotion practices, the report reads. The investigation also concluded "almost every witness was dissatisfied," 

with Scirotto's approach to promotions, and "most believed that Chief Scirotto made clear his intention to promote 

based on race, gender or sexual orientation." 

"Some believed it was about time changes were made, but stated if promotions were based on things such as 

race it would even hurt or undermine the people promoted," the report said. 

The city ultimately decided to cut ties with Scirotto, who did not have a contract with the city and will not be 

receiving a severance, city spokesperson Stephen Gollan told CNN. 

"Following a thorough and extensive investigation of employee complaints at the Fort Lauderdale Police 

Department, City Manager Chris Lagerbloom, has determined that it is in the City's best interest to separate 

employment with Larry Scirotto," the city said in a statement dated March 3, 

The city's police department is now under the leadership of Acting Chief Luis Alvarez, the city said, and the 

selection process for a new chief is underway. 

Speaking to CNN affiliate WFOR, Scirotto said the investigation was "built on hearsay," and lacked testimony, 

transcript and audio. 

Scirotto also provided WFOR with what he said was context for his comments about the wall being "too white." 

"The bottom row had several white males and one white female. And we're talking in conversation as it relates to 

our community and the expectation of a diverse and inclusive organization. And how do I purport we have that 

when the entire bottom row are white men?" Scirotto told WFOR. 

Search CNN... Q, 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 42 of 53
From: Alain Boileau 

To: 

Cc: Law Office of Carmen Rodriguez: Mavda Pineda 

Re: [-EXTERNAL-] Re: EEO Independent Investigation Report 

Friday, April 1, 2022 8:29:21 AM 

Subject: 

Date: 

Tonja: 

My understanding is that we submitted our responses to the EEOC this week. Let me confer 

with my folks and I' 1 get back with you. 

Alain £. Boileau 

City Attorney 

City of Fort Lauderdale 

Please excuse any typographical or grammatical errors as this has been sent from my iPhone 

in order to promptly respond to your communication 

On Apr 1, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Tonja Haddad Coleman <tonja@tonjahaddad.com> 

Good morning. I hope this finds you well. I am again following up regarding the 

City's position statement with respect to my four clients' EEOC charges. 1 know 

the City has asked for a couple of extensions of time due to its waiting for the 

Rossmann report, but that has been out now for several weeks. As you can 

imagine, we would like to keep this moving forward. Thank you, and we look 

forward to your response. 

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. 

Tonja Haddad, PA 

Advocate Building 

315 SE 7th Street 

Suite 301 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

954.467.1223 

www.tonjahaddad.com 

On Mar 4, 2022, at 9:38 AM, Alain Boileau 

<ABoileau@fortlauderdale.gov> wrote: 

wrote: 

Tonja: 

EXHIBIT D 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 43 of 53
Tonj^jaddac^olemaii 

From: Alain Boileau <ABoileau@fortlauderdale.gov> 

Monday, April 4, 2022 4:23 PM 

Tonja Haddad Coleman 

Law Office of Carmen Rodriguez; Mayda Pineda; Chris Lagerbloom; Tarlesha Smith 

RE: [-EXTERNAL-] Re: EEO Independent Investigation Report 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Tonja: 

You need to calm down and remain professional. The 30 days is NOT for us to negotiate with you, but for us 

to go back and review the promotional process. To the extent we would try and negotiate a resolution as a 

result thereof, you have effectively chosen to close that door. Furthermore, we have filed a position 

statement with the EEOC which, candidly, is makes admissions beneficial to anyone complaining of the 

promotional process conducted by the former chief. 

I am baffled by your outbursts. 

Alain E. Boileau 

City Attorney 

100 North Andrews Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

(954) 828-5038 | aboileau(g>fortlauderdale,gov 

Under Florida law, most e-mail messages to or from City of Fort Lauderdale employees or officials are public records, available to any person upon request, 

absent an exemption. Therefore, any e-mail message to or from the City, inclusive of e-maii addresses contained therein, may be subject to public disclosure, 

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE 

l 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 44 of 53
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Alain Boileau 

Tonin Hciddad Qilenvuv. Law Office of Cannon Rndiiouev 

ddiikk.sjdtei'SijietiL.oQii; Iflilesiiaiia.iil.il; cinis Laoeihioom: M/iyds PiQiiik 

RE: Maus, Fortunato, Malushi, Vetancourt aciv. Fort Lauderdale Police Department 

Wednesday, April 27, 2022 10:27:10 AM 

Tonya 

For your information, your four clients are being advised this morning 

that they are being promoted and will receive back pay. 

Alain E„ Boileau 

City Attorney 

100 North Andrews Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

(954) 828-5038 | fj]joileaLL@ior;tLiud.eixi.aIe,gov 

• ' ' K-. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE 

CITY ATTORN EY'S OFFICE 

Under Florida law, most e-mail messages to or from City of Fort Lauderdale employees or officials 

are public records, available to any person upon request, absent an exemption. Therefore, any email message to or from the City, inclusive of e-mail addresses contained therein, may be subject to 

public disclosure. 

From: Tonja Haddad Coleman <tonja@tonjahaddad.com> 

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2022 2:18 PM 

To: Law Office of Carmen Rodriguez <crpa(©cr)aborlawfirm.com> 

Cc: debrick.slater@eeoc.gov; Alain Boileau <ABoileau@fortlauderdale.gov>; Tarlesha Smith 

<TaSmith@rorl:iauderdaie.gov>; Chris Lagerbloom <CLagerbloom@fortlauderdale.gov>; Mayda 

Pineda <MPineda@fortlauderdale.gov> 

Subject: [-EXTERNAL-] Re: Maus, Fortunato, Malushi, Vetancourt adv. Fort Lauderdale Police 

Department 

Carmen -

I did some checking on a couple of the statements in your email, it is my understanding that all the 

lists are expired, and that there is not a proper way to promote any of my clients as everything 

currently stands even if, as we allege, they were wrongfully skipped. As such, we are unsure what a 

review of the promotional process will do. On its face, the rule of five appears to be fair and nondiscriminatory, but I think what we can all agree upon is that the manner in which it was 

implemented by the former chief made it discriminatory (Unlike the new chief, who appears to just 

EXHIBIT E 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 45 of 53
Ton^aHaddad^^ojemaji 

Sent: 

To: 

Ce: 

Subject: 

From: Alain Boileau <ABoileau@fortlauderdale.gov> 

Wednesday, April 27, 2022 12:52 PM 

Tonja Haddad Coleman; Law Office of Carmen Rodriguez 

debrick.slater@eeoc.gov; Tarlesha Smith; Chris Lagerbloom; Mayda Pineda 

RE: Maus, Fortunato, Malushi, Vetancourt adv. Fort Lauderdale Police Department 

My notice to you was as the employer. Any issues you deem remaining can be addressed with Carmen, 

although from the City's standpoint, I believe we have covered everything. I also failed to advise in my last 

email that your clients will also have seniority dating back to the original date of promotion, and therefore, 

will have seniority over those promoted since that time. 

Alain E. Boileau 

City Attorney 

100 North Andrews Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

(954) 828-5038 | abQileau@fortlauderdale.gov 

Under Florida law, most e-mail messages to or from City of Fort Lauderdale employees or officials are public records, available to any person upon request, 

absent an exemption. Therefore, any e-mail message to or from the City, Inclusive of e-mail addresses contained therein, may be subject to public disclosure. 

From: Tonja Haddad Coleman <tonja@tonjahaddad.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 10:32 AM 

To: Alain Boileau <ABoileau@fortlauderdale.gov>; Law Office of Carmen Rodriguez <crpa@crIaborlawfirm.com> 

Cc: debrick.slater@eeoc.gov; Tarlesha Smith <TaSmith@fortlauderdale.gov>; Chris Lagerbloom <CLagerbloom@fortlauderdale.gov>; Mayda Pineda 

<MPineda@fortlauderdale.gov> 

Subject: [-EXTERNAL-] RE: Maus, Fortunato, Malushi, Vetancourt adv. Fort Lauderdale Police Department 

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE 

l 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 46 of 53
From: 

To: 

Subject: 

Date; 

Eugene Gibbons 

Tenia Hadclar.1 Coleman 

Fwk FOP Promotional Issues 

Thursday, April 28, 2022 8:09:59 AM 

FYI 

Forwarded message 

From: Eugene Gibbons <pibbnnsfa)hglaw-p?).com> 

Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:36 AM 

Subject: FOP Promotional Issues 

To: Chris Lagcrbloom <("1 ,agerhloomferorllaiidcrdai<;.!T()v> 

Cc: Alain Boileau <ABoileaufo, Torllauderdalc.gov>. Tarlesha Smith 

<TaSraiUMifortlaviderdalc.g(w>., Scott Hoffer <scoUholTcrfr/>ropM .om>. Scott Moseley 

<seottmi?/.Top3 1 -org>. Manager <'managcrfa).['op31 ,org>. Rob Strout <rohfV/Tbp3 1 .org> 

Dear Cily Manager, 

Good morning. The FOP has been informed via a departmental information bulletin from 

Chief Lynn that the City has now decidcd to promote three officers to the rank of sergeant. As 

you are aware, the FOP has raised specific issues/problems related to the new sergeant 

promotional eligibility list due to the fact that the City without any prior notice unilaterally 

altered the assessment exercise component of the exam. 

The FOP has been trying to avoid the Filing of a grievance (for violation of the Promotional 

Article/long standing past practice as to the assessment process) and an unfair labor practice 

charge (for failing to properly notice the FOP of the City's intent to materially and 

significantly change the exercise that counts for half of (he final promotional score). 

However, to dale we have not received any acknowledgement whatsoever to my email sent on 

Monday April 25, 2022 wherein we requested an extension to file our grievance and m-person 

meeting. Our intent is to work with the City not against it to avoid unnecessary labor strife but 

the City seems to be forcing our hand. 

Furthermore, the FOP has been informed via the same information bulletin that the Cily 

intends to create four new budgeted positions (3 Lieutenants and 1 Captain) and promote 

outside of the process contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Lieutenants and 

Captain individuals named for promotion are not on any legitimate promotional eligibility list. 

It is the FOP's understanding that the individuals are being promoted as a result of their EROC 

complaints filed against the City by the individual employees and their private attorney. 

Moreover, it is not the EBOC or a court of law who has ordered this promotional resolution 

EXHIBIT F 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 47 of 53
but the agreement of the parties. The City's actions in this regard arc highly inappropriate, 

have potential for serious disruption and arc in clear violation of fundamental principles of the 

collective bargaining process and in violation of the parties Collective Bargaining Agreements 

as it relates to the promotional process. The City can not just unilaterally promote FOP 

bargaining unit members and exclude the FOP for the process. The City has chosen to 

intentionally exclude the FOP, a very unwise move. As such a deal has significant 

implications and impacts our bargaining unit members. 

I hope the City will pause what it is about to unilaterally do and sit down, discuss and work 

through these very serious issues with the FOP before it is too late. 

Respectfully, 

Gene 

BG Law 

Eugene G. Gibbons 

Buschel Gibbons, P.A. 

501 Hast Las Olas Boulevard 

Suite #304 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

(954) 530-5301 

www. L(~i Law-pa.com 

BG Law 

Eugene G. Gibbons 

Buschel Gibbons, P.A. 

501 East Las Olas Boulevard 

Suite #304 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

(954) 530-5301 

www. B(.iLaw-pa.com 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 48 of 53
**** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK9/23/2022 4:30:00 PM.  

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TM JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 

AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

_ i Case No: •. §. 

/flalushi nu 

Plaintiff t- ' A . AA / Judge Division: liSj. 

FWClSCO MC^anCOUrh^icharrl FprMfWo 

vs 

tf- fori La^d-rckit 

Defendant' 

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

I hereby certify that pursuant to Administrative Order, No. 2020-73Civ 

"ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURTS WITH 

DISMISSED CIVIL OR FAMILY CASES", 

The Clerk has conducted a search for all previous existing civil cases related to 

these two parties. 

Listed below are all the aforementioned related cases: 

Brenda D. Forman 

Circuit and County Courts 

Deputy Clerk 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 49 of 53
Filing # 158172755 E-Filed 09/27/2022 09:16:04 AM 

CACE-22-014269 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 

SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN 

AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

KIMBERLY MAUS, LUAN MALUSHI, 

RICHARD FORTUNATO, and CASE NO.: CACE 22-014269 

FRANCISCO VETANCOURT, 

Plaintiffs, JUDGE: PERLMAN 

vs. 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 

Defendant. 

/ 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

TO: CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE 

C/O MAYOR OF CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE 

100 NORTH ANDREWS AVENUE 

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 

IMPORTANT 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is 

served on you to file a written response to the attached complaint/petition with the clerk of this 

circuit court. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including t he case 

number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the court to hear your 

side of the case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your 

wages, money, and property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the court. 

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not 

know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office(listed in the 

phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written 

response to the court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the 

plaintiff/petitioner named below. 

** * FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 09/27/2022 09:16:02 AM.**** 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 50 of 53
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to 

participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain 

assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator in the Administrative Office of the Court, 

201 Southeast 6th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, telephone 954.831.7721, within 

two (2) working days of your receipt of this Complaint; if you are hearing or voice impaired, 

call 1-800-955-8771. 

TONJA HADDAD, PA 

315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

954.467.1223 

954.337.3716 (facsimile) 

Tonja@TonjaHaddad.com Attorney 

for Plaintiff 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this summons and a 

copy of the complaint in this lawsuit on the above-named defendant. 

SEP 30 2022 

(SEAL) 

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 

By: 

Deputy Clerk 

BRENDAD. FQRMAN 

2 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 51 of 53
Filing# 158479323 E-Filed 10/03/2022 03:01:15 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: CACE-22-014269 Div. 04 

KIMBERLY MAUS, LUAN MALUSHI, 

RICHARD FORTUNATO, and 

FRANCISCO VETANCOURT, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 

Defendant. 

/ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND 

DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESS 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned counsel, Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, 

P. A., hereby gives notice of its appearance as counsel of record for and on behalf of Defendant CITY 

OF FORT LAUDERDALE, in this action. The undersigned requests that copies of all pleadings, 

notices, correspondence, and communications of any type, be furnished to her in accordance 

therewith. 

In addition, Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A., hereby designates the following primary 

email address to be used for mandatory electronic service pursuantto Rule 2.516 of the Florida Rules 

of Judicial Administration: crpa@crlaborlawfirm.com. 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 52 of 53
Case No. CACE-22-014269 Div. 04 

Dated: October 3,2022 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Carmen Rodriguez 

Carmen Rodriguez, Esq. (FBN 710385) 

Email: crpafgicrlabnrlawfinn.com 

Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 

15715 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 411 

Palmetto Bay, FIorida33157-1884 

Telephone: (305)254-6101 

Facsimile: (305) 254-6048 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via an 

automatic email generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq., 

Law Office of Tonja Haddad, P.A., 315 SE 7 Street, Suite 301, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, 

Email address: Tonia@toniahaddad.com: efiling@toniahaddad.com. on this 3

rd day of October, 

2022. 

s/Cermen Rodriguez 

Carmen Rodriguez 

2 

Case 0:22-cv-61889-RKA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 53 of 53