1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

SEAN GLENN

Plaintiff,

v.

ATLANTIC COAST PRECAST OF 

SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC and

FISCHER PANDA GENERATORS, LLC,

Defendants,

/

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff SEAN GLENN sues Defendants ATLANTIC COAST PRECAST OF 

SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC and FISCHER PANDA GENERATORS, LLC, and alleges:

INTRODUCTION

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

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Florida 

Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Florida Statute Section 760, to redress injury done to him

by the Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory treatment . This is also an action under 

Florida common law to recover unpaid wages and for attorney’s fees thereon pursuant to 

Florida Statutes, § 448.08.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 16
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARTIES

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

County, Florida, who was employed by Defendants ATLANTIC COAST PRECAST OF 

SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC and FISCHER PANDA GENERATORS, LLC. At the time of his 

employment with Defendants resided in Broward County and as a black man is a member of 

certain classes of protected persons.

5. Defendant ATLANTIC COAST PRECAST OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC 

(“Atlantic”), is a Florida limited liability corporation that produces custom precast concrete

products manufactured from specially designed molds made from samples, drawings or

customerspecifications andis authorized to conduct businessin the State of Florida, in Broward

County, Florida, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. Atlantic is, and at all times relevant 

was, a business whose activity affected interstate commerce. 

6. Defendant FISCHER PANDA GENERATORS, LLC (“Fischer”) is a Florida 

limited liability corporation that manufactures generators for use in military, marine and 

vehicle applications and is authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, in Broward

County, Florida, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. Fischer is, and at all times relevant 

was, a business whose activity affected interstate commerce.

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 16
3

7. Atlantic and Fischer (collectively the “Defendants”) are joint employers, as the 

Defendants shared common management and had joint control over the terms and conditions 

of Plaintiff’s employment.

8. Plaintiff was initially employed by Atlantic, but worked for and was paid by 

Fischer.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

since the filing of the complaints. On or about July 7, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment 

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

such charge of discrimination, which was received by the Plaintiff on, or about July 7, 2022. 

See Exhibit “A.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. Plaintiff is a Black man who was employed by Defendants as a sales manager 

for the fence department from June 1, 2021, until his wrongful termination on September 8, 

2021.

11. During his employment, Plaintiff’s duties included being responsible for the 

Defendants’ fence division-sales, delivery, installation, and collections. 

12. Since early in his tenure with Defendants Plaintiff was subjected to multiple 

derogatory comments and actions based on his race. 

13. Specifically, Defendants’ production manager Bob Teresi, would comment 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 3 of 16
4

that he would have to whip any of the “boys” whose timecards were incorrect.1

14. Mr. Teresi required the black laborers to call him bossman, which connotes a 

historic term of racial discrimination and slavery. 

15. Mr. Teresi threated Plaintiff’s life by saying that he would “kill anyone who 

fucked with him, black, brown, red, or yellow.”

16. When Plaintiff asked why he didn’t include white, Mr. Teresi responded 

“perhaps you didn’t hear me boy.” 

17. Mr. Teresi was not the only person who engaged in racist and discriminatory 

behavior. 

18. Plaintiff was introduced by one of his co-workers as the “black guy who was 

entitled.”

19. Plaintiff was called numerous racially charged names such as “Django”, “UpNorth fancy college boy”, and “White Guy” because he was an educated, articulate black man. 

20. Defendants had separate bathrooms for Defendants’ white employees and the 

black and Hispanic laborers.

21. In fact, a co-worker commented that Plaintiff was the first black person to ever 

use the office bathroom in Defendants’ history.

22. Defendants utilized a different pay-scale for their minority contractors, with 

the black contractors receiving the lowest rates.

23. Additionally, Plaintiff was falsely accused of attacking a fellow employee 

based solely on his race. 

24. Plaintiff Complained about the treatment he had received, and the overall 

1 The boys that were referenced were the laborer, who were all black and Hispanic

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 4 of 16
5

racial disparity he observed.

25. On, or about September 8, 2021, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants’ CEO J. 

Ashley Rushton complaining of the discriminatory treatment he had witnessed and been 

subjected to.

26. Later that same day, Mr. Rushton responded to Plaintiff’s email and notified 

him that he was being terminated effective that day.

27. In the email Mr. Rushton specifically referenced Plaintiff’s accusations.

28. Further, pursuant to the terms of Plaintiff’s employment, he was supposed to 

receive a commission “based on fence sales.”

29. However, neither the method of calculating commission nor the amount of 

sales that were attributed to him were ever communicated to Plaintiff.

30. Although Plaintiff did make sales during his employment, has not received any 

commissions to date.

COUNT I:

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

BASED ON RACE

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

30 above as if set out in full herein.

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

33. At all times material hereto, the Defendants failed to comply with the Civil 

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

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

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

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 5 of 16
6

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

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

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.”

34. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to 

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

by his race, as more fully described in paragraphs 10-30 of this Complaint. 

35. The offensive and discriminatory conduct referred to in paragraphs 10-30 of 

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

36. Plaintiff was terminated on, or about, September 8, 2021.

37. Defendants’ decision to discriminate against, and ultimately terminate Plaintiff

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

Defendants’ decision to discriminate against Plaintiff.

38. The Plaintiff was qualified for the position.

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

asserted by Defendantsis a mere pretext for the actualreasonsforthe discriminatory treatment.

40. The Defendants’ actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

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

based on race constitutes unlawful discrimination.

41. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ intentional conduct, 

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

42. The Defendants are sophisticated employers who have actual knowledge of 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 6 of 16
7

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

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

their violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants for their violations 

of Title VII; 

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

benefits and damages;

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

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof;

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

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

and just. 

COUNT II:

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

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE

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

1-30 and above as if set out in full herein.

45. At all times material hereto, the Defendants failed to comply with the Florida

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

“It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 7 of 16
8

refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual 

with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, 

because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, 

or marital status”

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

47. Defendants’ decision to discriminate against Plaintiff was because of his race. 

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

against Plaintiff.

48. At all relevant times, including the time of discrimination, Defendants was 

aware that Plaintiff was black.

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

perform the essential functions assigned to him by the Defendants.

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

51. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to 

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

by his race, as more fully described in paragraphs 10-30 of this Complaint. 

52. The Defendants are sophisticated employers who have actual knowledge of 

the requirements of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760.

53. The failure of Defendants to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and 

their violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

54. Defendants through their practices and policies as employers, willfully, and 

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

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

Plaintiff different from other employees.

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 8 of 16
9

55. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated by the Defendants and Plaintiff’s 

treatment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendants’ unjustified discrimination 

against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race.

56. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ intentional conduct, 

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

and suffering.

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

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

58. The Defendants’ actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

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

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

Chapter 760.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants for their violations 

of the FCRA; 

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

benefits and damages;

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

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof;

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

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 9 of 16
10

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

and just.

COUNT III:

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

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

30 and above as if set out in full herein.

66. At all times material hereto, the Defendants failed to comply with the Civil 

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

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

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

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

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

67. Defendants are sophisticated employers who have actual knowledge of the 

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

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

who oppose or participate in statutorily protected activity.

68. The failure of Defendants to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and 

their violations of the provisions of the Act were willful.

69. Defendants through their practices and policies as employers, willfully, and 

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

Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s complaints.

70. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff complained to Defendants’ CEO of 

the racial discriminatory treatment that he suffered and that he observed.

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

71. Plaintiff was terminated on the same day he sent an email complaining of the 

discrimination. 

72. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ intentional conduct, 

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

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

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

protected activity.

74. The Defendants’ actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights to engage in protected activity.

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

unlawful retaliation.

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

and has suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation.

77. Defendants’ acts, through their agents, were done with malice and reckless 

disregard for Plaintiff’s federally protected civil rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants for their violations 

of Title VII; 

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

benefits and damages;

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

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 11 of 16
12

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof;

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

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

and just. 

COUNT IV:

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

RETALIATION

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

30 and above as if set out in full herein.

77. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff complained to Defendants’ CEO of 

the racial discriminatory treatment that he suffered and that he observed

78. Plaintiff was terminated on the same day he sent an email complaining of the 

discrimination. 

79. The Defendants’ above listed actions againstPlaintiffweremotivated by an

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

80. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliation against Plaintiff, she has 

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

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

distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants for their violations 

of the FCRA; 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 12 of 16
13

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

benefits and damages;

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

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e) Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to proof;

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

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

and just.

COUNT V: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981

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

1-30 of this Complaint as if set out in full herein.

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

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

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

84. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, the 

Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights by depriving him of his right to the enjoyment of 

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

85. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff has not enjoyed 

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

employees of the Defendants.

86. The Defendants’ treatment, practices and policies directed toward Plaintiff, as 

more fully described in paragraphs 10-30 of this Complaint, denied Plaintiff the full and equal 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 13 of 16
14

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

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

87. The Defendants’ treatment, practices and policies directed toward Plaintiff, as 

more fully described in paragraphs 10-30, denied Plaintiff the right to make and enforce 

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

88. Through their actions and treatment of Plaintiff, the Defendants intended to 

discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s race. 

89. During Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff has been 

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

more fully described in paragraphs 10-30 of this Complaint. 

90. The Defendants, at all times, had knowledge of the discriminatory acts and 

conduct in this Complaint.

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order 

the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against the Defendants for their

violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981, as amended; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered; 

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

embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has 

suffered; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 14 of 16
15

e) Enjoin the Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and anyone acting in 

concert with them, from discriminating, harassing and retaliating against 

Plaintiff and any employee; 

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

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

just.

COUNT VI: UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA COMMON LAW 

AND SECTION 448.08, FLORIDA STATUTES 

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

30 of this Complaint as if set out in full herein.

94. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately June 1, 2021, until 

his termination on, or about, September 8, 2021. 

95. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a sales manager, and fully performed 

his duties as directed. All work performed by Plaintiff was within the State of Florida. 

93. Per the terms of Plaintiff’s employment, he was supposed to receive “[a] 

commission . . . paid based on fence sales.” See Plaintiff’s offer letter attached hereto as 

Exhibit B. 

94. Despite making fence sales during his employment Defendants have not paid 

Plaintiff any earned commission.

95. Defendant owes Plaintiff wages earned under Florida common law and 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuing this action under Florida Statutes, Section 448.08, 

should Plaintiff prevail on this claim. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SEAN GLENN respectfully requests that this court order the 

following:

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 15 of 16
16

a) Award Back pay in the form of lost wages, including lost benefits, plus 

interest;

b) Award Costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees;

c) Award Post-judgment interest; and

d) Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Dated: October 5, 2022.

s/ Brandon J. Gibson

Brandon J. Gibson

Florida Bar No: 0099411 

E-mail: bgibson@rtrlaw.com

REIFKIND, THOMPSON, & RUDZINSKI, LLP

3333 W. Commercial Blvd, Ste. 200

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309

Telephone: (954) 370-5152

Facsimile: (954) 370-1992

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 0:22-cv-61869-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 16 of 16