UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case Number:

THOMAS DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the State of Florida,

Defendant.

/

Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff, Thomas Davis, sues defendant, Miami-Dade County, a political

subdivision of the State of Florida, and shows:

Introduction

1. This is an age- and race- discrimination action brought by

Thomas Davis, the 61-year-old white Director of Policy and Legislation within

Miami-Dade-County’s Office of the Commission Auditor who was terminated

by the black Commission Auditor, who told him he was “meeting [his] vision”

and gave his former duties to a 32-year old black male who reported

previously to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis sues pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Aa

pa The Amlong Firm ! 500 Northeast Fourth Street ! Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ! 954.462.1983

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 13
(“ADEA”), 28 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992,

Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (“FCRA”), for damages, including

compensatory damages, equitable relief, reasonable attorney’s fees and

litigation expenses. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the FCRA claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the FCRA claim is so related to the

federal claims over which the Court has federal-question jurisdiction that

they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution. 

3. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida, because the

claims arose there and Miami-Dade County is located there.

Parties

4. Plaintiff, Thomas Davis, at all times material was employed by

the Miami-Dade County as Director of Policy and Legislation , and, as such,

was an “employee,” “individual,” or “aggrieved person” under the Title VII,

the ADEA and the FCRA. He is protected by Title VII because of his race

(white), the ADEA because of his age (61), and the FCRA because of his age

and race.

5. Defendant, Miami-Dade County (“the County”), is a political

subdivision of the State of Florida. It is, and, at all times material, was an

Page 2 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 13
“employer” as envisioned by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and

§ 760.02(7), FLA. STAT.

Satisfaction of conditions precedent

6. Plaintiff, on or about May 5, 2020, filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”), which by operation of law, was deemed dual filed with the Florida

Commission on Human Relations and sufficient to invoke his rights and

remedies under the FCRA. The Charge alleges, in pertinent part, that: 

I. Personal harm. I am a 59-year-old white male who was fired as

Director of Policy and Legislation within the Office of the Commission

Auditor by the Commission Auditor, Adeyinka Majekodunmi, who is

black; my duties were given to my No. 2, Philip Edwards, who is black

and 32 years old.

II. Respondent's reason for personal harm. Mr. Majekodunmi told

me when he fired me that it was "meeting [his] vision."

III. Discrimination statement. I have suffered discrimination on

account of my race and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

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

Discrimination in Employment Act, and the parallel provisoins [sic] of

the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

7. The EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights upon request

and because more than 180 days had passed since the filing of the charge.

8. More than 180 days elapsed from the filing of the Charge of

Discrimination without the Florida Commission on Human Relations either

conciliating the charge or making a no-cause finding against plaintiff.

9. All other conditions precedent to bringing this action, if any,

have been satisfied, have been waived or would have been futile. 

Page 3 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 3 of 13
General Allegations

10. In 2017, Plaintiff was selected as the Director of Policy and

Legislation for the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners, a

position for which he was qualified. 

11. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in 2017 after his retirement

from the United States Air Force Reserve at the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel,

following two combat deployments to Afghanistan, earning a Bronze Star

Medal.

12. Plaintiff’s hiring process was conducted by County Commissioner

Steve Bovo’s office and Commissioner Bovo was his initial supervisor until a

new Commission Auditor was hired.

13. Following his initial supervision by Commissioner Bovo, Plaintiff

was placed under the administrative control of Miami-Dade County Auditor

Cathy Jackson, a black female. 

14. Adeyinka Majekodunmi, a black male, was subsequently hired as

the new Commission Auditor, and Plaintiff began reporting to Mr.

Majekodunmi. When Adeyinka Majekodunmi was hired as the new 

Commission Auditor, Plaintiff was the only white male in a leadership

position in the Office of Commission Auditor. 

15. As part of his job duties, Plaintiff supervised a back male

employee named Philip Edwards, who was hired by Commissioner Bovo

concurrently with Plaintiff in 2017. 

Page 4 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 4 of 13
16. During his tenure at Miami-Dade, Plaintiff performed his job

duties as he understood them and was never disciplined or counseled for any

misconduct or performance issues. Although he made several requests for

an annual evaluation in accordance with County policies, none of his

supervisors, including Adeyinka Majekodunmi, ever gave him a formal

performance evaluation or rating.

17. On or about February 21, 2020, Mr. Majekodunmi asked Mr.

Davis to come to his office for a meeting that was deceptively calendared as

a meeting to discuss his overdue evaluation. Instead, he summarily fired

Mr. Davis without warning, explanation or any opportunity to be heard,

telling Mr. Davis that his termination was “meeting [his] vision.” 

18. Upon information and belief, following his summary termination,

Plaintiff’s former duties were given to his subordinate employee, the 32-year

old black male, Mr. Edwards. 

19. The conduct of defendant and its agents discriminated against

Plaintiff Davis with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges

of employment since there were no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons

for Plaintiff’s summary termination and replacement by Mr. Edwards. 

Count I — Race Discrimination in Violation of the Title VII

20. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates in this Count the matters set

forth in ¶¶ 1-7, and 9-19.

Page 5 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 5 of 13
21. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides in

pertinent part, at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) as follows:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer — 

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or

otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because

of such individual's race ...; 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 ... .

22. The treatment to which defendant, through its agents and

employees, subjected Mr. Davis was motivated by his race (white), and,

thus, constituted race discrimination as proscribed by Title VII. 

23. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result of the

actions of defendant, plaintiff has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment

of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.

24. The race discrimination that plaintiff is suffering, in violation of

his statutory rights to be free from such discrimination, constitutes

irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 

25. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation

expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Thomas Davis, prays that this Court will:

Page 6 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 6 of 13
One, issue a judgment that defendant’s practices toward plaintiff violated his rights against race discrimination under Title VII;

Two, award judgment against defendant for the back pay and benefits

to which plaintiff would have been entitled but for defendant’s discriminatory

acts;

Three, enjoin defendant and its agents from continuing to violate

plaintiff’s statutory rights under Title VII and to make plaintiff whole through

reinstatement, back pay and restoration of seniority and benefits, or, if that

is not practical, through an award of front pay;

Four, enter a judgment for plaintiff and against defendant for

damages, including compensatory damages; 

Five, grant plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and

Six, grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the circumstances

and law provide.

Count II — Age Discrimination in Violation of the ADEA

26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates in this Count the matters set

forth in paragraphs ¶¶ 1-7, and 9-19.

27. The ADEA provides, in pertinent part, at § 623(a) that: 

It shall be unlawful for an employer —

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise

discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such

individual’s age . . . 

Page 7 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 7 of 13
28. The treatment to which defendant, through its agents and

employees, subjected Mr. Davis, was visited upon him because of his age,

and, thus, constituted age discrimination as proscribed by the ADEA.

29. The age discrimination that plaintiff is suffering, in violation of

his rights under the ADEA to be free of such discrimination, constitutes

irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

30. Defendant’s actions, as more particularly alleged above,

constituted violations of the ADEA, which were done willfully and with

knowing or reckless disregard of the ADEA’s proscriptions. 

31. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result of the

actions of defendant, plaintiff has lost wages and benefits in the past and will

suffer additional losses in the future.

32. Defendant’s treatment of plaintiff constituted a willful violation of

the ADEA, entitling plaintiff to liquidated damages.

33. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation

expenses under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Thomas Davis, prays that this Court will:

One, issue a judgment that defendant’s practices toward plaintiff violated his rights against age discrimination under the ADEA;

Two, award judgment against defendant for the back pay and benefits

to which plaintiff would have been entitled but for defendant’s discriminatory

acts;

Page 8 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 8 of 13
Three, enjoin defendant and its agents from continuing to violate

plaintiff’s statutory rights under the ADEA and to make plaintiff whole

through reinstatement, back pay and restoration of seniority and benefits,

or, if that is not practical, through an award of front pay;

Four, enter a judgment for plaintiff and against defendant for

damages, including liquidated damages; 

Five, grant plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and

Six, grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the circumstances

and law provide.

Count III — Age Discrimination in Violation of the FCRA

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates in this Count the matters set

forth in paragraphs ¶¶ 1-6, and 8-19.

35. The treatment to which defendant, through its agents and

employees, subjected Mr. Davis was based upon his age, and, thus,

constituted age discrimination as proscribed by the FCRA. 

36. Section 760.10(1), FLA. STAT., provides in pertinent part:

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise

to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation,

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such

individual's . . . age . . . . .

(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 . . . 

age . . . .

Page 9 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 9 of 13
37. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result of the

actions of defendant, plaintiff has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment

of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.

38. The discrimination that plaintiff is suffering, in violation of his

statutory rights to be free from such discrimination, constitutes irreparable

harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 

39. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation

expenses under § 760.11(5), FLA. STAT.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Thomas Davis, prays that this Court will:

One, issue a declaratory judgment that defendant’s practices toward

plaintiff violated his rights against age discrimination under the FCRA;

Two, award judgment against defendant for the back pay and benefits

to which plaintiff would have been entitled but for defendant’s discriminatory

acts;

Three, enjoin defendant and its agents from continuing to violate

plaintiff’s statutory rights under the FCRA and to make plaintiff whole

through reinstatement, back pay and restoration of seniority and benefits,

or, if that is not practical, through an award of front pay;

Four, enter a judgment for plaintiff and against defendant for

damages, including compensatory damages; 

Page 10 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 10 of 13
Five, grant plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant

to § 760.11(5), FLA. STAT.; and

Six, grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the circumstances

and law provide.

Count IV — Race Discrimination in Violation of the FCRA

40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates in this Count the matters set

forth in paragraphs ¶¶ 1-6, and 8-19. 

41. The treatment to which defendant, through its agents and

employees, subjected Mr. Davis was based upon his race, and, thus,

constituted race discrimination as proscribed by the FCRA. 

42. Section 760.10(1), FLA. STAT., provides in pertinent part:

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise

to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation,

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such

individual's race . . . . .

(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 . .

. .

43. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result of the

actions of defendant, plaintiff has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment

of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.

Page 11 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 11 of 13
44. The discrimination that plaintiff is suffering, in violation of his

statutory rights to be free from such discrimination, constitutes irreparable

harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 

45. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation

expenses under § 760.11(5), FLA. STAT.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Thomas Davis, prays that this Court will:

One, issue a declaratory judgment that defendant’s practices toward

plaintiff violated his rights against race discrimination under the FCRA;

Two, award judgment against defendant for the back pay and benefits

to which plaintiff would have been entitled but for defendant’s discriminatory

acts;

Three, enjoin defendant and its agents from continuing to violate

plaintiff’s statutory rights under the FCRA and to make plaintiff whole

through reinstatement, back pay and restoration of seniority and benefits,

or, if that is not practical, through an award of front pay;

Four, enter a judgment for plaintiff and against defendant for

damages, including compensatory damages; 

Five, grant plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant

to § 760.11(5), FLA. STAT.; and

Six, grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the circumstances

and law provide.

Page 12 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 12 of 13
Demand for Jury Trial

Plaintiff, Thomas Davis, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE AMLONG FIRM

500 N.E. Fourth St., Suite 1010

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(954) 462-1983

EService@TheAmlongFirm.com

/s/ Jennifer Daley

WILLIAM R. AMLONG

Florida Bar Number 470228

WRAmlong@TheAmlongFirm.com

KAREN COOLMAN AMLONG 

Florida Bar Number 275565

KAmlong@TheAmlongFirm.com

JENNIFER DALEY 

Florida Bar Number 856436

JDaley@tTheAmlongFirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Thomas Davis 

\\amlong3\cpshare\CPWin\HISTORY\220829_0001\17B9.39

Page 13 of 13

Case 1:22-cv-23715-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 13 of 13