Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

JENNYFER C. VIVAS

Plaintiff,

v. 

FARMASI US LLC,

 Defendant, 

_________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Comes now the Plaintiff, Jennyfer C. Vivas, by and through the undersigned counsel, and 

hereby sues Defendant Farmasi US LLC, and alleges: 

Introduction

This is an action for equitable and monetary relief brought by Plaintiff to readdress the 

violations of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (hereinafter "FMLA"), 29 

USC. Section 2612 (a)(1), and the anti-retaliatory provisions found in Section 2615 (a)(1) and (2), 

and (b) (1). Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's rights to take FMLA leave and terminated her 

employment because of FMLA-protected absences to take care of her son's serious medical 

condition.

Jurisdiction Venues and Parties

1. This is an action for damage whose amount exceeds Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) 

exclusive of interest, attorney's fees, and costs.

2. Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas is a resident of Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of 

this Honorable Court. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the FMLA.

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 12

3. Defendant Farmasi US LLC (from now on, Farmasi, or Defendant) is a Florida corporation

with a business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant Farmasi was and is engaged in 

interstate commerce. 

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

Division, pursuant to 28 USC §1391(b), since the employment practices hereafter alleged 

to be unlawful were committed in Dade County, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable 

Court. 

Allegations Common to all Counts

5. Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas is a 48-year-old qualified female member of the protected class 

within the purview of 29 USC Section 2601, The Family & Medical Leave Act, employed 

by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the 

FMLA.

6. Defendant Farmasi is a manufacturer and distributor of cosmetics, skin care products, and 

nutritional supplements. Defendant has facilities located at 2335 NW 107th Avenue, suite 

2C01 Miami, Florida 33172, where Plaintiff worked.

7. Defendant Farmasi is engaged in an industry affecting commerce, employing 50 or 

more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in 

the current or preceding calendar year. Accordingly, Defendant is a covered employer 

within the meaning of the FMLA.

8. Defendant Farmasi employed Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas from approximately October 09, 

2019, to June 27, 2022, or 142 weeks.

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 12
Page 3 of 12

9. Plaintiff was hired as a full-time warehouse employee working 40 hours or more. Plaintiff 

was a production employee, and she had duties picking and packing orders. At the time of 

her termination, Plaintiff's wage rate was $14.50 an hour. 

10. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff performed her duties in an 

exemplary fashion. Plaintiff possessed all the required skills, training, and qualifications 

for the job in question and performed her duties without significant issue or controversy. 

11. Defendant hired Plaintiff to work the evening shift from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM. 

12. On or about January 2020, Defendant changed the entire evening shift, including Plaintiff, 

to work the day shift from 9:00 AM, 6:30 AM, and 7:00 AM to 5:00, 2:30, or 3:30 PM.

13. This schedule change put Plaintiff in trouble since she had to take her three-year-old son 

to daycare before going to work. 

14. Plaintiff explained to manager David Restrepo that she had a three-year autistic son and 

that she had to leave the child at the daycare at 7:00 AM before going to work. Thus, she 

would need to arrive at work at 7:30 AM. Plaintiff also explained to the manager that twice 

a week, she would need to take her son to therapy. Thus she would need to leave at least 

one hour earlier, and finally, due to the illness of the child, she would miss two to four days 

per month to take her son to medical appointments.

15. Plaintiff also explained that sometimes due to his condition, the child refused to stay at the 

daycare, and she had to wait a little bit more until the child remained calm and relaxed. It 

was a requirement of the daycare and the right thing to do.

16. The manager approved Plaintiff's request for a flexible schedule to take care of her son, 

and Plaintiff worked without further inconveniences throughout 2020 and part of 2021,

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 3 of 12
Page 4 of 12

17. However, on or about July 2021, manager David Restrepo left, and a new manager Sercan 

Yilmaz became the new manager.

18. At that time, Plaintiff had approximately 20 months, or more than 90 weeks working with 

Farmasi.

19. After the new manager Sercan Yilmaz took over, the problems for Plaintiff began. Sercan 

Yilmaz objected to Plaintiff's previously approved flexible schedule and questioned 

Plaintiff about the reasons. Plaintiff explained everything in detail to him, and supervisor 

Victor Bacareza requested Plaintiff to bring documents proving that she had to take her son 

to daycare in the morning and therapy twice per week. Plaintiff provided everything timely.

20. At any moment, Defendant notified Plaintiff about her eligibility status and rights and 

responsibilities under the FMLA. Defendant did not inform Plaintiff that her circumstances 

qualified her to take an intermittent FMLA leave or a reduced schedule to take care of her 

son's serious health condition.

21. Instead, Plaintiff began to suffer harassment and a hostile working environment because 

she arrived after 7:00 AM, and twice per week, she left one hour early to take her son to 

therapy. Defendant made many efforts to cause Plaintiff's voluntary resignation.

22. On or about January 2022, Plaintiff's working hours began to decrease. Eventually,

Plaintiff's working hours were reduced from 40 to 25 hours weekly. 

23. Plaintiff was harassed, falsely accused of not working on certain dates after her daily 

worksheets disappeared. Plaintiff was given verbal reprimands and unfair warnings. 

Plaintiff never accepted any wrongdoing and provided evidence of her good performance.

24. Finally, on or about June 27, 2022, Defendant fired Plaintiff, alleging tardiness and 

absenteeism.

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 4 of 12
Page 5 of 12

25. Therefore, on or about June 27, 2022, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated, and her rights 

under the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act were violated. 

26. Defendant Farmasi is subjected to the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 

1993 (29 USC § 2601-2654), and Plaintiff was entitled to the FMLA leave. However, 

Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's protected rights under the FMLA. Defendant, in 

complete disregard of Plaintiff's rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, fired Plaintiff, 

preventing her from obtaining the benefits of an FMLA-protected leave and then 

continuing her job in her original position or an equivalent position. 

27. Defendant willfully and wantonly denied or otherwise interfered with Plaintiff's

substantive rights under FMLA, 29 USC. Sect 2615(a)(1), (a) (2), and 2615(b) (2) which 

states in pertinent part: (b) Interference with proceedings or inquiries........(2) It shall be 

unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any 

individual because such individual—has given, or is about to give, any information in 

connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this 

subchapter."

28. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's willful, wanton, and malicious acts 

described above, Plaintiff has sustained damages for the loss of her employment, as well 

as the security and peace of mind it provided her. Plaintiff has incurred additional damages,

including lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other damages connected

with the loss of her job. 

29. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, and any 

other remedy, as allowable by law.

COUNT I:

VIOLATION OF FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993;

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 12

INTERFERENCE WITH FMLA RIGHTS

30. Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas re-adopts every factual allegation about the Family Medical 

Leave Act as stated in paragraphs 1-29 above as if set out in full herein. 

31. This is an action against corporate Defendant Farmasi for damages and injunctive relief for 

violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 USC § 2601-2654).

32. At all times relevant and material, Defendant Farmasi is an Employer under the FMLA, as 

defined in 29 USC § 2611(4). Defendant was always pertinent to this Complaint, engaged 

in interstate commerce, and employed 50 or more employees within a 75 miles radius of 

the facility where Plaintiff worked. 

33. Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas is a qualified female member of the protected class within the 

purview of 29 USC Section 2601, The Family & Medical Leave Act.

34. Defendant Farmasi employed Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas from approximately October 09, 

2019, to June 27, 2022, or more than two years and eight months, or 142 weeks.

35. Plaintiff was hired as a full-time production employee. At the time of her termination,

Plaintiff's wage rate was $14.50 an hour. 

36. Plaintiff had worked for Farmasi for more than 1,250 hours in the 12 months preceding her 

need for medical leave.

37. At all times material, Plaintiff was qualified to perform her job as a production employee 

within the legitimate expectations of her Employer. 

38. Plaintiff was eligible for the FMLA's protection

39. Farmasi was an Employer covered by the FMLA provisions.

40. Plaintiff was entitled to intermittent leave under the FMLA to take care of a qualified 

family member.

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 6 of 12
Page 7 of 12

41. Plaintiff provided sufficient notice of her need to take an intermittent FMLA leave.

42. Defendant Farmasi denied Plaintiff FMLA benefits to which she was entitled.

43. Defendant took materially adverse actions against Plaintiff and terminated her employment 

and benefits because she exercised rights protected under FMLA

44. On or about June 27, 2022, Defendant terminated Plaintiff, falsely alleging absenteeism 

and tardiness. 

45. Defendant deprived Plaintiff of FMLA entitlement by failing to inform her about her right 

under the FMLA.

46. Therefore, on about June 27, 2022, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated, and her rights 

under the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act were violated. 

47. Defendant Farmasi is subjected to the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 

1993 (29 USC § 2601-2654). Accordingly, Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's rights. 

48. 29 US CODE § 2615 states in pertinent part: 

a) Interference with rights 

(1) Exercise of rights 

It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or 

the attempt to exercise any right provided under this subchapter.

(2) Discrimination 

It shall be unlawful for any employer to discharge or in any other manner discriminate 

against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by this subchapter.

49. Plaintiff was entitled to an FMLA leave. However, Defendant, in complete disregard of 

Plaintiff's protected rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, fired Plaintiff, preventing 

her from obtaining the benefits of FMLA to take care of her son suffering from a serious 

health condition and then continuing her job in her original position or any equivalent 

position. 

50. Defendant willfully and wantonly denied or otherwise interfered with Plaintiff's

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12

substantive rights under FMLA, 29 USC. Sect 2615(a)(1), (a) (2), and 2615(b) (2) which 

states in pertinent part: (b) Interference with proceedings or inquiries........(2) It shall be 

unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any 

individual because such individual—has given, or is about to give, any information in 

connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this 

subchapter"

51. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's willful, wanton, and malicious acts 

described in part above, Plaintiff has sustained damages for the loss of her employment, as 

well as the security and peace of mind it provided her. Plaintiff has sustained mental, 

nervous, and emotional injury. Plaintiff has incurred additional damages, including lost 

wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and 

other damages attendant with the loss of her job. These damages have occurred in the past, 

are occurring at present, and will continue in the future.

52. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her in this 

action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees. 

Prayer For Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas respectfully requests that this Honorable Court will grant 

judgment:

A. Finding that Farmasi's actions towards Plaintiff to be violative of Plaintiff's rights 

under the FMLA;

B. Awarding Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas payment of all back wages, lost benefits, and 

other economic damages, including front pay, found by the Court to be due under 

FMLA;

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 8 of 12
Page 9 of 12

C. Awarding Plaintiff an additional equal amount as liquidated damages for Defendant's 

willful violation of the FMLA;

D. Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper;

E. Awarding Plaintiff costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Demand for a Jury Trial

Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as right by jury. 

COUNT II:

VIOLATION OF FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993

RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING FMLA RIGHTS

53. Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas re-adopts every factual allegation about the Family Medical 

Leave Act as stated in paragraphs 1-29 above as if set out in full herein. 

54. This is an action against corporate Defendant Farmasi for damages and injunctive relief for 

violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 USC § 2601-2654).

55. At all times relevant and material, Defendant Farmasi is an Employer under the FMLA, as 

defined in 29 USC § 2611(4). Defendant was at all-time pertinent to this Complaint, 

engaged in interstate commerce, and employed 50 or more employees within a 75 miles 

radius of the facility where Plaintiff worked. 

56. Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivasis a qualified female member of the protected class within the 

purview of 29 USC Section 2601, The Family & Medical Leave Act.

57. Defendant Farmasi employed Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas from approximately October 09, 

2019, to June 27, 2022, or more than two years and eight months, or 142 weeks.

58. Plaintiff was hired as a full-time production employee. At the time of her termination, 

Plaintiff's wage rate was $14.50 an hour. 

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12

59. Plaintiff had worked for Farmasi for more than 1250 hours in the 12 months preceding her 

need for medical leave.

60. At all times material, Plaintiff was qualified to perform her job as a production employee 

within the legitimate expectations of her Employer. 

61. Plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected conduct by requesting an intermittent leave.

62. However, Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff about her rights under the FMLA and denied 

Plaintiff's request for a qualified FMLA leave to take care of a qualified family member.

63. Plaintiff was harassed and suffered a hostile working environment because of her attempts 

to exercise protected rights under the FMLA.

64. On or about June 27, 2022, Defendant terminated Plaintiff, alleging absenteeism and 

tardiness. 

65. Plaintiff suffered a materially adverse action of a type that would dissuade a reasonable 

employee from engaging in statutorily protected activity. Specifically, Defendant 

terminated Plaintiff's employment. 

66. There is a causal link between Plaintiff's protected activity and the adverse action. 

67. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from her position in retaliation for exercising her rights 

under the Act, thereby adversely affecting Plaintiff. 

68. Defendant Farmasi is subjected to the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 

1993 (29 USC § 2601-2654). Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff violating 29 US CODE 

§ 2615 and 29 CFR § 825.220, which states in pertinent part: 

§ 825.220 Protection for employees who request leave or otherwise assert FMLA rights. 

(a) The FMLA prohibits interference with an employee's rights under the law, and with 

legal proceedings or inquiries relating to an employee's rights. More specifically, the law 

contains the following employee protections: 

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 10 of 12
Page 11 of 12

(1) An employer is prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise 

of (or attempts to exercise) any rights provided by the Act. 

(2) An employer is prohibited from discharging or in any other way discriminating 

against any person (whether or not an employee) for opposing or complaining about 

any unlawful practice under the Act. 

69. Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA leave. However, Defendant, in complete disregard of 

Plaintiff's protected rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, acting in bad faith, fired 

Plaintiff, preventing her from obtaining the benefits of FMLA leave of absence to take care 

of a qualified family member, and then continuing her job in her original position or any 

equivalent position. 

70. Defendant willfully and wantonly denied or otherwise interfered and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for her attempts to exercise substantive rights under the Family Medical Leave 

Act. 

71. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's willful, wanton, and malicious acts 

described in part above, Plaintiff has sustained damages for the loss of her employment, as 

well as the security and peace of mind it provided her. Plaintiff has incurred additional 

damages, including lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other damages 

connected with the loss of her job. 

72. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her in this 

action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees. 

Prayer For Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas respectfully requests that this Honorable Court will grant 

judgment:

A. Finding that Farmasi's actions toward Plaintiff are violative of the Plaintiff's rights 

under the FMLA.

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12

B. Awarding Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas payment of all back wages, lost benefits, and 

other economic damages, including front pay, found by the Court to be due under 

FMLA;

C. Awarding Plaintiff an additional equal amount as liquidated damages for Defendant's 

willful violation of the FMLA;

D. Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper;

E. Awarding Plaintiff costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff Jennyfer C. Vivas demands a trial by a jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

DATED: November 15, 2022

 Respectfully 

submitted, 

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-23746-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 12 of 12