1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

RUBEN LUGO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SEPHORA USA, INC., a

Foreign Profit Corporation,

 Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, RUBEN LUGO (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned attorney, 

hereby sues Defendant SEPHORA USA, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation ("Defendant" or the 

“Company”), and states:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages and other relief based on unlawful employment practices 

committed by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

§ 706(f) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act 

(“FCRA”), §§ 760.01-760.11.

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. The claims asserted in this Complaint arose in the Southern District of Florida during the 

course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.

4. Venue is proper for the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida because 

Plaintiff was employed in the Southern District of Florida by Defendant, which at all material 

times conducted, and continues to conduct, business in the Southern District of Florida, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 1 of 27
2

because the acts that give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of 

Florida and because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff was at all times relevant to this action, resided within the Southern District of Florida. 

Plaintiff is over the age of eighteen and otherwise sui juris.

6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a Black, homosexual male of Dominican and Puerto 

Rican decent and is a member of a class protected under Title VII and the FCRA, because the 

terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment were altered because of his race, national 

origin, sex, and/or sexual orientation.

7. Further, Plaintiff was retaliated against for his complaints of discriminatory conduct on behalf 

of Defendant which places him within a class protected under Title VII and the FCRA.

8. Defendant is a Foreign Profit Corporation organized and authorized to do business in Florida. 

Defendant is a retail chain consisting of stores nationwide. Specifically, Plaintiff worked at 

Defendant’s Brickell City Centre location, located at 701 - B S Miami Ave Suite #231, Miami, 

FL 33131. All facts which give rise to this Complaint occurred in Miami, Florida.

9. Defendant has, at all times material, employed fifteen (15) or more employees for each working 

day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in 

accordance with Title VII and the FCRA (42 U.S.C. §2000e(b); Fla. Stat. §760.02(7)).

10. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely Charge of Discrimination 

("Charge") against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC”) and the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 2 of 27
3

11. Plaintiff’s Charge was filed on or about January 4, 2022. The actions complained of herein 

occurred within 300 days thereof and/or continued from that date stemming from the same 

actions set forth in the Charge.

12. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on August 10, 2022 ("Notice"). This suit is filed 

on accordance with that Notice and within the applicable 90-day time limitation (a copy of the 

Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).

13. The Florida Commission on Human Relations did not issue a finding on Plaintiff’s charge 

within 180 days of the filing of said charges.

14. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO ALL COUNTS

15. Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about October 26, 2017, as a Seasonal Cashier, 

an entry position. Plaintiff received multiple promotions culminating in the position of Beauty 

Advisor, a position he held until his termination on November 22, 2021.

16. From the inception of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant until late 2019, Plaintiff reported 

to and was under the supervision of the Store Manager, Luis Posada (“Mr. Posada”) 

(Colombian/male). 

17. Based on Plaintiff’s tenure with the Company, positive performance throughout his 

employment promotions, and positive work history under Mr. Posada’s supervision and 

management, Plaintiff was fully qualified for his position as a Beauty Advisor at the time all 

discriminatory events complained herein occurred. 

18. In August 2019, Yesenia Cabellos (“Ms. Cabellos”) (Cuban, White, female) was transferred 

to the Brickell City Centre store as the new Assistant Store Manager. 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 3 of 27
4

19. On or about January 2020, shortly after Ms. Cabellos’s arrival to the store, Mr. Posada 

resigned, and Samira Mohamed (“Ms. Mohamed”) (Cuban, White, female) was transferred to 

the Brickell City Centre store as the new Store Manager.

20. From the outset of Ms. Cabellos and Ms. Mohamed’s takeover of management (collectively, 

the “Managers”), treated Plaintiff differently from his White, Cuban, and Spanish-speaking 

heterosexual counterparts in virtually all respects of the work environment. Plaintiff was given 

less hours, denied a full-time position, and was not considered for leadership positions.

21. Ms. Cabellos and Ms. Mohamed further participated in, and fully allowed “jokes” and other 

inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s race and sexual orientation within the workplace 

environment.

22. Starting on July 15, 2021, Plaintiff complained to Ms. Cabellos about the disparate and 

discriminatory treatment he was being subjected to. Plaintiff complained that Denisse Martinez 

(“Ms. Martinez”) (Cuban, Female) was promoted over Plaintiff to a leadership position. Ms. 

Cabellos dismissed Plaintiff’s complaints and responded that the decision was based on 

seniority. However, Plaintiff had been employed by Defendant for a consistent period of time

that was longer than Ms. Martinez’s tenure.

23. Plaintiff subsequently complained to Human Resources (“HR”), specifically Cindy Pape (“Ms. 

Pape”), about the disparate, unfair treatment Plaintiff was being subjected to. Plaintiff 

complained about Ms. Cabellos' and Ms. Mohamed’s inappropriate comments and that they 

consistently treated him in a disparaging manner, micromanaged him, issued baseless 

disciplinary warnings, gave him less hours than less experienced employees, and did not 

consider him for promotions to leadership position. 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 4 of 27
5

24. Subsequent to the discussion with Ms. Cabellos, Ms. Pape and Plaintiff, on or about July 15, 

2021, a Zoom meeting was held with the Managers, Plaintiff, Connie Azcuy (“Ms. Azcuy”) 

(District Manager), and Cindy Pape (“Ms. Pape”) (HR Business Partner). During this meeting, 

Plaintiff’s complaints were ignored. Plaintiff was reprimanded and counseled to work on his 

communication. 

25. Ms. Cabellos and Ms. Mohamed then retaliated against Plaintiff for his complaints to HR by 

assigning Plaintiff to later shifts that were intentionally outside of Plaintiff’s availability, 

limiting the number of hours he was scheduled, writing Plaintiff up for things which were not 

violations of policy; and which other, female Cuban employees were not written up when doing 

the same thing and overlooking Plaintiff for promotions.

26. Plaintiff continued complaining about the disparate treatment and retaliation to Ms. Pape, Ms. 

Mohamed and Ms. Cabellos between August 2021 and September 2021, all to no avail.

27. Finally on November 3, 2021, Plaintiff was terminated without valid cause. The reason 

provided by Defendant was false.

28. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII and the FCRA.

29. Defendant’s justification(s) for its treatment of Plaintiff, if any, are a mere pretext for unlawful 

discrimination and retaliation.

30. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s race, 

color, sex, sexual orientation, and/or complaints of discrimination were motivating factor(s) in 

the decision for adverse employment action(s).

31. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on his behalf and has agreed 

to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 5 of 27
6

32. Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if he is the prevailing party in 

this action.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE)

33. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set out 

in full herein.

34. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 706(a) and 706(g) 

for damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff 

based on his race.

35. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Black race.

36. Defendant, by and through its managers and other representatives, did not treat Plaintiff the 

same as other non-Black employees as alleged above.

37. Defendant did not treat Plaintiff the same as other non-Black employees in that non-Black 

employees were offered full-time position benefits as new hires, were considered for 

promotion to lead positions, and were given more hours than Plaintiff, although he had worked 

for the company for years and was qualified to do the work. 

38. Despite being well-qualified for his position, Plaintiff was terminated on November 3, 2021.

39. Plaintiff’s termination and prior disciplinary action constitute adverse employment actions 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

40. At all times material hereto, Defendant 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 compensation, terms, conditions, or 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 6 of 27
7

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.”

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

42. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of Title 

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

43. Defendant’s failure to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and its violations of the 

provisions of the Act were willful.

44. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious or 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on 

account of his race in violation of Act with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff different 

from other non-black employees.

45. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's race, 

was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

47. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g).

48. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 7 of 27
8

Act of 1964. Defendant, by and through their managers, supervisors, and/or other agents, 

authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant's employees. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to 

proof at trial. 

49. Defendant’s stated reason(s) for terminating Plaintiff is pretextual. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, § 706(g);

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN)

50. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set out 

in full herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 8 of 27
9

51. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 706(a) and 706(g) 

for damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff

based on his national origin.

52. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under Title VII.

53. By the conduct described above, Defendant has engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff 

because of Plaintiff’s national origin, American and Dominican and Puerto Rican decent, and 

subjected Plaintiff to animosity and discrimination based on the fact he was not Cuban.

54. Such discrimination was based on Plaintiff’s national origin in that Plaintiff would not have 

been the subject of discrimination but for the fact that Plaintiff was not Cuban.

55. Defendant favored other Hispanic employees, in that Cuban and other Spanish-speaking

employees were offered full-time position benefits as new hires, were given the opportunity to 

be promoted to lead positions, and were not subjected to baseless disciplinary actions.

56. Despite being well-qualified for his position, Plaintiff was terminated on November 3, 2021.

57. Plaintiff’s termination and prior disciplinary action constitute adverse employment actions 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

58. Defendant’s conduct complained of herein was willful and in disregard of Plaintiff’s protected 

rights. Defendant and its supervisory personnel were aware that discrimination on the basis of 

national origin was unlawful but acted in reckless disregard of the law.

59. At all times material hereto, Defendant 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 compensation, terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 9 of 27
10

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."

60. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibited discriminatory conducts towards Plaintiff 

possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment 

with Defendant.

61. As a result of Defendant’s action, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, has 

been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and damages.

62. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of Title 

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

63. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious or 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on 

account of his national origin in violation of Act with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff 

different from other similarly situated Cuban employees.

64. Defendant’s adverse actions against Plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the 

Defendant’s unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because of the fact that he was not 

Cuban, in violation of the Act.

65. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's national 

origin, was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

66. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 10 of 27
11

67. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g).

68. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. Defendant, by and through their managers, supervisors, and/or other agents, 

authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant's employees. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to 

proof at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, § 706(g);

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 11 of 27
12

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX, INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION)

69. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set out 

in full herein.

70. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 706(a) and 706(g) 

for damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff 

on the basis of his sex and sexual orientation.

71. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class because the terms and conditions of his employment 

were altered due to his sex and sexual orientation.

72. While Plaintiff was under the Manager’s supervision, Plaintiff was one of the only males 

working for Defendant at the Brickell City Centre location. Further, Plaintiff was the only 

homosexual male working for Defendant at the Brickell City Centre location.

73. Defendant, by and through its managers and other representatives, did not treat Plaintiff the 

same as other female, heterosexual employees as alleged above.

74. Defendant did not treat Plaintiff the same as other female, heterosexual employees in that 

female, heterosexual employees were offered full-time position benefits as new hires, were 

considered for promotion to lead positions, and were given more hours than Plaintiff, although 

he had worked for the company for years and was qualified to do the work. 

75. Despite being well-qualified for his position, Plaintiff was terminated on November 3, 2021.

76. Plaintiff’s termination and prior disciplinary action constitute adverse employment actions 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

77. At the time of this treatment from employment, Plaintiff did perform and excel at the 

performance of the essential functions assigned to him by Defendant.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 12 of 27
13

78. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of Title 

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

79. Defendant’s failure to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and its violations of the 

provisions of the Act were willful.

80. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious or 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on 

account of his sex and sexual orientation in violation of Act with respect to its decision to treat 

Plaintiff different from other female, heterosexual employees.

81. Defendant’s adverse actions against Plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the 

Defendant’s unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because of the fact that he was a 

homosexual male, in violation of the Act.

82. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's sex 

and/or sexual orientation were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment 

action(s). 

83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

84. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g).

85. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. Defendant, by and through their managers, supervisors, and/or other agents, 

authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant's employees. 

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 13 of 27
14

Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to 

proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, § 706(g);

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE)

86. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set out 

in full herein.

87. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), §§ 760.01-760.11 for 

damages caused by Defendant’s unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff 

on the basis of his race.

88. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Black race.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 14 of 27
15

89. Defendant, by and through its managers and other representatives, did not treat Plaintiff the 

same as other non-Black employees as alleged above.

90. Defendant’s managers acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as a person of 

Black race under the FCRA.

91. Defendant did not treat Plaintiff the same as other non-Black employees in that non-Black 

employees were offered full-time position benefits as new hires, were considered for 

promotion to lead positions, and were given more hours than Plaintiff, although he had worked 

for the company for years and was qualified to do the work. 

92. Despite being well-qualified for his position, Plaintiff was terminated on November 3, 2021.

93. Plaintiff’s termination and prior disciplinary action constitute adverse employment actions 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

94. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of the 

FRCA.

95. Defendant’s failure to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and its violations of the 

provisions of the FRCA were willful.

96. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious or 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on 

account of his race in violation of the FRCA with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff 

different from other non-black employees.

97. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's race, 

was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

98. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 15 of 27
16

99. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of 

Florida Civil Rights Act §§ 760.01-760.11

100. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under the FRCA. Defendant, by 

and through their managers, supervisors, and/or other agents, authorized, condoned, and/or 

ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant's employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to 

punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Florida Civil 

Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11;

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 16 of 27
17

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN)

101. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set 

out in full herein.

102. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), §§ 760.01-760.11 

for damages caused by Defendant’s unlawful employment practices committed against 

Plaintiff on the basis of his national origin.

103. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the FRCA.

104. By the conduct described above, Defendant has engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff 

because of Plaintiff’s national origin, American of Dominican and Puerto Rican decent, and 

subjected Plaintiff to animosity and discrimination based on his national origin.

105. Such discrimination was based on Plaintiff’s national origin in that Plaintiff would not have 

been the subject of discrimination but for the fact that Plaintiff was not Cuban.

106. Defendant favored other Hispanic employees, in that Cuban and other Spanish-speaking 

employees were offered full-time position benefits as new hires, while Plaintiff was not, and 

Plaintiff was never given the opportunity to be promoted to a lead position, although he had 

worked for the company for years and was qualified to do the work. 

107. Defendant’s conduct complained of herein was willful and in disregard of Plaintiff’s 

protected rights. Defendant and its supervisory personnel were aware that discrimination on 

the basis of national origin was unlawful but acted in reckless disregard of the law.

108. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibited discriminatory conducts towards 

Plaintiff possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s 

employment with Defendant.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 17 of 27
18

109. As a result of Defendant’s action, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, 

has been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and 

damages.

110. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of 

the FRCA.

111. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its managers, agents, employees, 

and/or representatives, and Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against Plaintiff, deprived Plaintiff of statutory rights under federal 

and state law.

112. Defendant’s failure to adhere to the mandates of the FRCA was willful and its violations 

of the provisions of the FRCA were willful.

113. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious 

or reckless disregard of Plaintiff's protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on account 

of his national origin in violation of Act with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff different 

from other non-Dominican and/or Puerto Rican employees.

114. Defendant’s adverse actions against Plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the 

Defendant’s unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because of the fact that he was of 

Dominican and Puerto Rican descent, in violation of the FRCA.

115. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's 

national origin, was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

116. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 18 of 27
19

117. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not 

limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of the FCRA, §§ 760.01-760.11.

118. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under the FRCA. Defendant, by 

and through their managers, supervisors, and/or other agents, authorized, condoned, and/or 

ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant's employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to 

punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Florida Civil 

Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11;

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 19 of 27
20

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX, INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION)

119. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set 

out in full herein.

120. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), §§ 760.01-760.11

for damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff 

on the basis of his sex and sexual orientation.

121. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class because the terms and conditions of his 

employment were altered due to his sex and sexual orientation.

122. While Plaintiff was under the supervision of Ms. Cabellos and Ms. Mohamed, Plaintiff was 

one of the only males working for Defendant at the Brickell City Centre location. Further, 

Plaintiff was the only homosexual male working for Defendant at the Brickell City Centre 

location.

123. Defendant, by and through its managers and other representatives, did not treat Plaintiff 

the same as other female, heterosexual employees as alleged above.

124. Defendant did not treat Plaintiff the same as other female, heterosexual employees in that 

female, heterosexual employees were offered full-time position benefits as new hires, were 

considered for promotion to lead positions, were not subject to baseless discipline, and were 

given more hours than Plaintiff although he had worked for the company for years and was 

qualified to do the work. 

125. Despite being well-qualified for his position, Plaintiff was terminated on November 3, 

2021.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 20 of 27
21

126. Plaintiff’s termination and prior disciplinary action constitute adverse employment actions 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

127. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the FRCA as a 

person based on the color of his gender and sexual orientation.

128. At the time of this treatment from employment, Plaintiff did perform and excel at the 

performance of the essential functions assigned to him by Defendant.

129. Plaintiff was qualified for the position apart from his sex and sexual orientation.

130. Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of 

the FRCA.

131. Defendant’s failure to adhere to the mandates of the FRCA was willful and its violations 

of the provisions of the FRCA were willful.

132. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious 

or reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on 

account of his sex and sexual orientation in violation of the FRCA with respect to its decision 

to treat Plaintiff different from other female, heterosexual employees.

133. Defendant’s adverse actions against Plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the 

Defendant’s unjustified discrimination against Plaintiff because of the fact that he was a 

homosexual male, in violation of the FRCA.

134. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's sex 

and/or sexual orientation were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment 

action(s). 

135. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 21 of 27
22

136. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not 

limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), §§ 760.01-760.11.

137. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under the FRCA. Defendant, by 

and through their managers, supervisors, and/or other agents, authorized, condoned, and/or 

ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant's employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to 

punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Florida Civil 

Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11;

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 22 of 27
23

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(RETALIATION)

138. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set 

out in full herein.

139. Since the Managers were transferred to the Brickell City Centre location, Plaintiff made

several complaints of disparate treatment to Ms. Cabellos, Ms. Mohamed, and Ms. Pope.

140. Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s Human Resources department, as set forth above, 

about, the preference Ms. Cabellos and Ms. Mohamed had towards Cuban White female

employees in the department, and unfounded disciplinary actions. 

141. Plaintiff’s complaints of disparate treatment as stated above, were protected activity under 

the Act.

142. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s complaints of actions Plaintiff objectively perceived to be 

discriminatory in nature, Plaintiff was summarily disciplined, treated in a progressively worse 

manner, and ultimately terminated by Defendant.

143. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its managers, agents, employees, 

and/or representatives, and Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

federal law.

144. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under the Title VII. Defendant, by and 

through its managers, officers, supervisors, and/or agents, authorized, condoned, and/or 

ratified the unlawful conduct of its employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive 

damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 23 of 27
24

145. Defendant’s stated reason(s) for the adverse employment action(s) against Plaintiff, 

including but not limited to the disparate treatment in opportunities, hours, benefits, and 

promotions, and Plaintiff’s termination, (if any) are pretextual. 

146. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s 

complaints of discrimination, were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse 

employment action(s).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, § 706(g);

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 24 of 27
25

COUNT VIII

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(RETALIATION)

147. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-32 as if set 

out in full herein.

148. Since the Managers were transferred to the Brickell City Centre location, Plaintiff made

several complaints of disparate treatment to Ms. Cabellos, Ms. Mohamed, and Ms. Pope.

149. Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s Human Resources department, as set forth above, 

about, the preference Ms. Cabellos and Ms. Mohamed had towards Cuban White female 

employees in the department, and unfounded disciplinary actions. 

150. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s complaints of actions Plaintiff objectively perceived to be 

discriminatory in nature, Plaintiff was summarily disciplined, treated in a progressively worse 

manner, and ultimately terminated by Defendant.

151. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its managers, agents, employees, 

and/or representatives, and Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

Florida law.

152. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under the FRCA. Defendant, by and through 

its managers, officers, supervisors, and/or agents, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the 

unlawful conduct of its employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages 

from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 25 of 27
26

153. Defendant’s stated reason(s) for the adverse employment action(s) against Plaintiff, 

including but not limited to the disparate treatment in opportunities, hours, benefits, and 

promotions, and Plaintiff’s termination, (if any) are pretextual. 

154. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s 

complaints of discrimination, were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse 

employment action(s).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Florida Civil 

Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11;

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 26 of 27
27

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, RUBEN LUGO, hereby demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts of this 

Complaint so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: November 8, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200 

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

/s/ Juan J. Perez

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

/s/ Jocelyn R. Rocha

Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

Case 1:22-cv-23670-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 27 of 27