Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Joanne Hardin, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.____________

 )

Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT

 )

 )

v. )

 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Walgreen Co., and )

Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC, )

 )

Defendants. )

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff Joanne Hardin (―Plaintiff‖ or ―Hardin‖) files this action to correct Defendants

Walgreen Co. and Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC’s (―Defendants‖) unlawful

employment practices under the Family and Medical Leave Act (―FMLA‖) and provide relief for

damages Hardin suffered as a result of such unlawful practices. More specifically, as Hardin

sought to be present with and take care of her dying husband in an intensive care unit,

Defendants failed to notify Hardin of her FMLA rights that would have entitled her to take jobprotected qualified leave. Instead, Defendants unlawfully terminated Hardin’s employment and

failed to reinstate her after subsequent retroactive approval of FMLA leave, in violation of the

FMLA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action is

authorized and instituted pursuant to the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et. seq.

2. The unlawful employment practices alleged in this Complaint were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Therefore, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is appropriate in this Court.

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9

PARTIES AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

3. During all times material, Hardin resided in Palm Beach County, Florida. In this case,

the causes of action accrued in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida.

4. During all times material, Defendants were Hardin’s primary employers. During all

times material, Defendants acted through their employees, agents, servants, and/or

representatives, each of whom acknowledged and represented themselves to be acting on behalf

of Defendants, which led Hardin to rely on their representations and actions in her interactions

with Defendants.

5. During all times material, Hardin was an ―eligible employee‖, within the meaning of the

FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2), during the time that she worked for the Defendants. Defendants

employed Hardin for at least twelve (12) months prior to the date she was eligible to take FMLA

leave due to the serious health condition of her husband. Hardin also worked at least 1,250 hours

for Defendants during the previous 12-month period prior to the date she was eligible to take

FMLA leave due to the serious health condition of her husband.

6. During all times material, Defendants provided retail and pharmaceutical services in

Palm Beach County, Florida, and employed Hardin, among others.

7. During all times material, each Defendant was an ―employer‖ within the meaning of the

FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4). During all times material, each Defendant engaged in commerce

or in any industry or activity affecting commerce and employed more than fifty (50) employees

for each working day during each of twenty (20) or more calendar workweeks in the year 2021

or preceding calendar years.

8. Hardin began employment with Defendants on or about April 26, 1986.

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 9
Page 3 of 9

9. On or about December 27, 2020, Hardin informed Defendants that her husband, Phil

Hardin, was taken to the hospital on an emergency basis when he suffered a serious health

condition regarding, inter alia, his heart.

10. On or about January 1, 2021, Phil entered the intensive care unit (―ICU‖) of a hospital in

Palm Beach County, Florida.

11. On the same day, Hardin provided Defendants additional details of Phil’s deteriorating

serious health condition, including that Phil was moved to the ICU and placed on a ventilator.

12. On or about January 8, 2021, in response to Defendants’ inquiry of when she would

return to work, Hardin informed Defendants that Phil’s health had not improved and asked what

her leave options were so that she could take care of Phil in the ICU. Despite knowing of Phil’s

serious health condition, Defendants failed to inform Hardin of her FMLA rights and pressured

her to retire as her only option to miss work and tend to her husband’s serious health condition. 

Hardin refused to retire.

13. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants failed to inform Hardin of her FMLA rights,

including that she was eligible and entitled to FMLA leave, and instead terminated her

employment—this made January 6, 2021 the last day for which Defendants paid her a salary. If

Defendants had informed Hardin of her FMLA rights, she would have immediately claimed and

been approved for the FMLA leave for which she was eligible and entitled, and thus, she would

not have suffered damages, including termination of her employment and lost wages and

benefits.

14. At the end of January 2021, Hardin opened an FMLA claim with Defendants so that she

could remain employed while taking care of her husband’s serious health condition.

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9

15. On or about February 24, 2021, Defendants approved Hardin’s leave during the time her 

husband suffered from a serious health condition as protected FMLA leave. Despite such

protected FMLA leave, Defendants refused to protect and/or reinstate Hardin’s employment. As

a result, Hardin suffered damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, lost benefits, and out

of pocket expenses.

COUNT I

(VIOLATION OF FMLA—INTERFERENCE (FAILURE TO

NOTIFY/TERMINATION))

16. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-13 are re-alleged as if fully set forth

herein.

17. On or about December 27, 2020, Hardin informed Defendants that her husband

was taken to the hospital on an emergency basis when he suffered a serious health condition

regarding, inter alia, his heart.

18. On or about January 1, 2021, Hardin informed Defendants of additional details of

Phil’s deteriorating serious health condition, including that Phil was moved to the ICU and

placed on a ventilator.

19. On or about January 8, 2021, Hardin again informed Defendants that Phil’s health

was critical, deteriorating, and that she needed to take care of Phil.

20. Hardin was an ―eligible employee‖ within the meaning of the FMLA at the time 

that Defendants learned of her husband’s serious health condition.

21. Hardin was entitled to FMLA leave when she informed Defendants of her

husband’s serious health condition.

22. Defendants were obligated to notify Hardin of her FMLA rights, but they failed to 

inform her of her FMLA rights, including her right to take leave and return to her employment.

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9

23. Instead, Defendants unlawfully terminated Hardin’s employment, making January

6, 2021 the last day for which Defendants paid her a salary.

24. If Defendants had informed Hardin of her FMLA rights, she would have

immediately claimed and been approved for the FMLA leave for which she was eligible and

entitled, and thus, she would not have suffered damages, including termination of her

employment, lost wages, lost benefits, and out of pocket expenses.

25. Consequently, Defendants unlawfully interfered with, restrained, or denied the

exercise of or attempted exercise of Hardin’s FMLA rights. Defendants’ actions violated her

FMLA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 2615.

26. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joanne Hardin demands and respectfully requests 

judgment, declaratory and equitable relief on Defendants’ unlawful actions, and all damages 

against Defendants, including reinstatement, compensatory damages, lost benefits, lost salary, 

liquidated damages, front pay, backpay, actual monetary losses, pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617, and such other relief 

as this Court deems proper.

COUNT II

(VIOLATION OF FMLA—INTERFERENCE (TERMINATION WHILE ON FMLAQUALIFYING LEAVE))

27. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-15 are re-alleged as if fully set forth

herein.

28. On or about December 27, 2020, Hardin informed Defendants that she was taking

leave to take care of her husband who had been taken to the hospital on an emergency basis

when he suffered a serious health condition regarding, inter alia, his heart. Such leave was

FMLA-qualifying leave and Defendants later approved this leave as protected FMLA leave.

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 5 of 9
Page 6 of 9

29. On or about January 1, 2021, Hardin informed Defendants of additional details of

Phil’s deteriorating serious health condition, including that Phil was moved to the ICU and

placed on a ventilator. Hardin remained on leave, which was protected FMLA-qualifying leave.

30. On or about January 8, 2021, Hardin again informed Defendants that Phil’s health

was critical, deteriorating, and that she needed to take care of Phil. Hardin remained on leave,

which was protected FMLA-qualifying leave.

31. Hardin was an ―eligible employee‖ within the meaning of the FMLA at the time 

that Defendants learned of her husband’s serious health condition.

32. Hardin was entitled to FMLA leave when she informed Defendants of her

husband’s serious health condition.

33. Defendants were obligated to notify Hardin of her FMLA rights, but they failed to 

inform her of her FMLA rights, including her right to take FMLA-qualifying leave and to return 

to her employment.

34. Towards the end of January 2021, Hardin opened an FMLA claim with

Defendants so that she could remain employed while taking care of her husband’s serious health

condition.

35. On or about February 24, 2021, Defendants approved Hardin’s leave during the 

time her husband suffered from a serious health condition as protected FMLA leave.

36. Even though Hardin was eligible and entitled to FMLA leave during the time her 

husband suffered from a serious health condition, Defendants unlawfully: (a) terminated her

employment during the time she was taking care of her husband on protected FMLA-qualifying

leave; and (b) failed to protect and reinstate her employment despite her protected FMLA leave. 

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9

Each of Defendants’ actions violated Hardin’s FMLA rights. As a result, Hardin suffered

damages, including lost wages, lost benefits, and out of pocket expenses.

37. Consequently, Defendants unlawfully interfered with, restrained, or denied the

exercise of or attempted exercise of Hardin’s FMLA rights, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615.

38. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joanne Hardin demands and respectfully requests 

judgment, declaratory and equitable relief on Defendants’ unlawful actions, and all damages 

against Defendants, including reinstatement, compensatory damages, lost benefits, lost salary, 

liquidated damages, front pay, backpay, actual monetary losses, pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617, and such other relief 

as this Court deems proper.

COUNT III

(VIOLATION OF FMLA—RETALIATION (TERMINATION/REFUSAL TO

REINSTATE EMPLOYMENT))

39. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-15 are re-alleged as if fully set forth

herein.

40. Hardin exercised or attempted to exercise her FMLA rights when she engaged in

the following activity.

41. Since on or about December 27, 2020, Hardin had informed Defendants that she

was taking leave because her husband was taken to the hospital on an emergency basis when he

suffered a serious health condition regarding, inter alia, his heart. Such leave was FMLAqualifying leave as Hardin was eligible for, and entitled to, protected FMLA leave when she

informed Defendants of her husband’s serious health condition. Defendants later approved this

leave as protected FMLA leave.

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9

42. On or about January 1, 2021, Hardin informed Defendants of additional details of

Phil’s deteriorating serious health condition, including that Phil was moved to the ICU and

placed on a ventilator. Hardin remained on leave, which was protected FMLA-qualifying leave,

and informed Defendants of her need for future FMLA-qualifying leave.

43. On or about January 8, 2021, Hardin again informed Defendants that Phil’s health

was critical, deteriorating, and that she needed to take care of Phil. Hardin had repeatedly

informed Defendants of her husband’s serious health condition and that she needed to remain on

leave to take care of him–notification of her need for future FMLA-qualifying leave. Hardin

continued to remain on leave and such leave was protected FMLA-qualifying leave.

44. Despite informing Defendants several times that she was taking leave to take care

of her husband’s serious health condition, Defendants refused to inform Hardin of her FMLA

rights, including that she was eligible and entitled to take FMLA leave and return to her 

employment. 

45. Hardin opened a claim for FMLA leave towards the end of January 2021 and later

applied for FMLA leave, so that she could take care of her husband’s serious health condition

while remaining employed.

46. Hardin’s foregoing actions constitute her exercise or attempt to exercise her

FMLA rights—protected activity in opposition to Defendants’ unlawful refusal to inform her of

her FMLA rights and protect her employment.

47. As a direct result of her protected activity, on or about February 24, 2021,

Defendants notified Hardin that she had been terminated during the time she was on approved

and protected FMLA-qualifying leave. As such, Defendants refused to protect and/or reinstate 

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9

Hardin’s employment in unlawful retaliation to Hardin’s protected activity. As a direct result,

Hardin suffered damages, including lost wages, lost benefits, and out of pocket expenses. 

48. Consequently, Defendants discriminated against Hardin in violation of her FMLA 

rights under 29 U.S.C. § 2615.

49. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joanne Hardin demands and respectfully requests 

judgment, declaratory and equitable relief on Defendants’ unlawful actions, and all damages 

against Defendants, including reinstatement, compensatory damages, lost benefits, lost salary, 

liquidated damages, front pay, backpay, actual monetary losses, pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617, and such other relief 

as this Court deems proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

50. Hardin demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Date: Wednesday, October 05, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

Nnamdi Jackson

Nnamdi S. Jackson

Fla. Bar No. 99804

The Law Office of Nnamdi S. Jackson, P.A.

2645 Executive Park Drive, suite 340

Weston, FL 33331

(954) 670-1267

Primary: njackson@nsjlawoffice.com

Secondary: nnamdi@hlmlegal.com

Eric Hernandez

Eric Hernandez

Fla. Bar No. 340730

Hernandez Lee Martinez, LLC

P.O. Box 531029 (mailing address only)

Miami, FL 33153

(305) 842-2100

eric@hlmlegal.com

Case 9:22-cv-81542-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 9 of 9