UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT 

Jury Trial Demanded

JOSE CORDOVA,

 Plaintiff, 

-againstMEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY

(USA), INC.; ALESSANDRO MOLASCHI; 

AMANDA ALMEIDA,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff, who was 64 years-old at all relevant times herein, brings 

this employment discrimination action against his former employer, Mediterranean 

Shipping Company (USA), Inc. (“MSC”), alleging gender and age discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et 

seq. (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”),

and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10 (“FCRA”). Plaintiff also 

asserts state law claims of defamation and tortious interference with a business 

relationship against MSC; MSC Miami Branch Manager, Alessandro Molaschi;

and Amanda Almeida, a MSC probationary employee who was involved with 

Molaschi in an improper relationship, and acting in concert with Molaschi, falsely 

accused plaintiff of touching her head in an inappropriate manner for the purpose 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

of unlawfully terminating an older employee. Plaintiff, the oldest employee in the 

MSC Miami Branch Office, was terminated for discriminatory reasons, although 

he had worked for MSC for 16 years, had always received positive performance

reviews, and had never been accused of workplace misconduct or inappropriate

behavior towards a female employee. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive 

damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and such other and further relief as the Court 

deems just and proper. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343, 

as this action asserts violations of Title VII and the ADEA, and therefore raises 

federal questions regarding the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights.

3. Plaintiff invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and decide his claims under the FCRA and 

Florida law, which form part of the same case and controversy as plaintiff’s federal 

claims under Article III of the United States Constitution. 

4. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because defendants are located in this District, and the 

incident in question occurred in this District. 

JURY TRIAL

5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, plaintiff demands a jury trial.

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 2 of 15
3

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

6. Plaintiff timely filed an administrative charge of discrimination 

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). This charge was 

dual filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations pursuant to its work 

share agreement with the EEOC. 

7. The EEOC issued plaintiff a right to sue letter on September 5,

2022, allowing him to bring suit within 90 days of his receipt of the letter. The 

EEOC did not make a finding as to the merits of the charge. 

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida. 

9. Defendant MSC is a corporation authorized to conduct business in 

Florida. Defendant Molaschi was plaintiff’s supervisor and the MSC Miami 

Branch Manager at all relevant times herein and his conduct is thus imputed to 

MSC. Defendant Almeida was an employee of MSC at all relevant times herein.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. Plaintiff began working for defendant MSC in 2006 in the Miami 

office. 

11. At all relevant times in 2021, plaintiff was a 64 year-old man.

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

12. At all relevant times, plaintiff was performing at a satisfactory 

level, was qualified for his position and had no history of inappropriate behavior at 

MSC. 

13. In 2021, plaintiff worked in the Miami office, which had

approximately 80 employees. At this time, plaintiff was the Collections & Freight 

Cashier Manager.

14. All of the employees in the Miami office were younger than 

plaintiff, including his supervisor and Branch Manager, Alessandro Molaschi. In 

the last few years, the Miami office hired only employees younger than plaintiff. 

15. Plaintiff observed that Molaschi was involved in an inappropriate, 

flirtatious, and perhaps romantic, relationship with a new employee, Amanda 

Almeida, who was younger than plaintiff, and who, as a new employee, was on 

probation. 

16. Upon information and belief, MSC, acting in concert with 

Molaschi, and possibly other managers, wanted to get rid of an older employee like 

plaintiff. In any event, as a manager, Molaschi’s conduct is imputed to MSC,

17. Upon information and belief, Molaschi schemed with Almeida to 

have plaintiff accused of inappropriate touching so that plaintiff could be 

terminated. 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 4 of 15
5

18. On the day of the alleged incident with Almeida, October 13, 

2021, plaintiff was off from work, but Molaschi asked plaintiff to come to the 

office to assist, and plaintiff agreed. This raises the inference that plaintiff was setup so that defendants could terminate plaintiff. 

19. On or about October 13, 2021. Almeida falsely accused plaintiff 

of touching her inappropriately that day shortly before noon:

20. Nothing was said to plaintiff about this on October 13 or 14, 

2021.

21. MSC and Molaschi telephoned plaintiff during the morning of 

October 15, 2021, and provided plaintiff with a Formal Warning Notice, dated 

October 15, 2021. The Warning Notice was clear that defendants had yet to 

investigate the incident, but that plaintiff was to work from home and not come to 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 5 of 15
6

the office until the investigation was concluded. The document promised a 

“thorough” investigation. 

22. Almeida never alleged that plaintiff touched a private part of her 

body, said anything sexual to her, or that he made her feel uncomfortable more 

than once.

23. Not only was a “thorough” investigation never conducted, but 

plaintiff was never asked for his version of what took place.

24. During the morning of December 2, 2021, over a month later, 

MSC, Molaschi, MSC’s Human Resources Department, with the approval of the 

President of MSC, fired plaintiff. 

25. Molaschi emailed plaintiff the termination letter the same 

morning. On December 2, 2021, plaintiff responded to Molaschi’s email denying 

the false allegations; stating that this was the “worst nightmare of his life;” that he 

was willing to take a polygraph test; that, after many years of positive 

performance, and expecting a promotion and a raise, he would never do something 

to jeopardize his career; that he has 6 children, 3 of whom are in college, a 

mortgage, and a car lease; and that he could not obtain unemployment 

compensation because he was not going to misrepresent that MSC had not given

him a warning notice (albeit falsely) on October 15, 2021, which precludes 

benefits.

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 6 of 15
7

26. Defendants MSC and Molaschi terminated plaintiff because they 

wished to get rid of an older employee, and plaintiff was also subjected to gender 

and age discrimination because Almeida, who was a new probationary employee, 

engaged in inappropriate conduct in the office with Molaschi and was not 

terminated. Also, Molaschi, who is younger than plaintiff, engaged in an 

inappropriate relationship with Almeida in the office, but was not fired, and MSC 

and Molaschi fired plaintiff for allegedly engaging in the same type of conduct.

27. MSC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Policy states that MSC’s 

“standards will be implemented consistently by the Company to ensure that

equality is afforded to all applicants and employees. All employees are expected to 

comply with the Company’s Equal Employment Opportunity Policy.” “This 

policy covers all individuals in the workplace. The Company does not tolerate, 

condone, or allow sexual or other unlawful harassment, whether engaged in by 

fellow employees, supervisors, outside clients, or other non-employees who

conduct business with the Company. The Company encourages reporting of all

incidents of sexual or other unlawful harassment, regardless of who the offender

may be, or the offender’s relationship to the Company.” Despite this policy, the 

younger Molaschi was not terminated for his inappropriate contact with Almeida in 

the office, and Almeida was not terminated. 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

28. Also, MSC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Policy states that if 

an employee is accused of sexual harassment, there are penalties short of 

termination: “Appropriate discipline, up to and including immediate discharge, 

will be taken against any employee who violates this policy.” Although plaintiff

worked at the company for 16 years without any negative history, MSC and 

Molaschi levied the most severe penalty against plaintiff. This severe and 

disproportionate discipline raises an inference of discrimination.

29. As a result of the defendants’ actions, plaintiff suffered emotional 

distress, fear, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, damage to his personal and 

professional reputation, and financial loss. Plaintiff eventually obtained a position 

after his termination, but for less pay and benefits. Plaintiff has children in college, 

a mortgage and other expenses, and had to continue working and suffered and 

continues to suffer financial hardship.

FIRST CLAIM

(Gender Discrimination under Title VII)

 (Against Defendant MSC)

30. Plaintiff repeats the foregoing allegations.

31. Defendant MSC discriminated against plaintiff, in violation of 

Title VII, by treating plaintiff differently as to the terms and conditions of his

employment based on his gender and the false stereotype that a male employee’s

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

denial of inappropriate touching is not to be afforded the same weight as his 

accuser’s allegation, even where the employer knows that the male employee is a 

credible and qualified individual, based on his history and long term employment, 

and much less is known about the accuser.

32. Because the individuals who perpetrated the discrimination were

managers and supervisors, their conduct is imputed to defendant MSC. 

33. Defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to suffer various personal 

injuries, including the injuries described herein. 

34. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

SECOND CLAIM

(Age Discrimination under the ADEA)

(Against Defendant MSC)

35. Plaintiff repeats the foregoing allegations.

36. Defendant MSC discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his

age, in violation of the ADEA, by treating plaintiff differently as to the terms and 

conditions of his employment based on the fact that he was 64 years-old at all

relevant times. 

37. Because the individuals who perpetrated the discrimination were

managers and supervisors, their conduct is imputed to defendant MSC. 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

38. Defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to suffer various personal 

injuries, including the injuries described herein. 

39. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

THIRD CLAIM

(Gender Discrimination under the FCRA)

(Against Defendant MSC)

40. Plaintiff repeats the foregoing allegations.

41. Defendants discriminated against plaintiff, in violation of the 

FCRA, on the basis of his gender, and the false stereotype that a male employee’s

denial of inappropriate touching is not to be afforded the same weight as his 

accuser’s allegation, even where the employer knows that the male employee is a 

credible and qualified individual, based on his history and long term employment, 

and much less is known about the accuser.

42. Because the individuals who perpetrated the discrimination were

managers and supervisors, acting within the scope of their employment, their 

conduct is imputed to defendant MSC. 

43. Defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to suffer various personal 

injuries, including the injuries described herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

44. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

FOURTH CLAIM

(Age Discrimination under the FCRA)

(Against Defendant MSC)

45. Plaintiff repeats the foregoing allegations.

46. Defendant MSC discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his

age, in violation of the FCRA, by treating plaintiff differently as to the terms and 

conditions of his employment based on the fact that he was 64 years-old at all 

relevant times.

47. Because the individuals who perpetrated the discrimination were

managers and supervisors, acting within the scope of their employment, their 

conduct is imputed to defendant MSC. 

48. Defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to suffer various personal 

injuries, including the injuries described herein. 

49. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

FIFTH CLAIM

(Defamation Per Se)

(Against all Defendants)

50. Plaintiff repeats the foregoing allegations.

51. Defendants published a false statement about the plaintiff to a 

third party and plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the publication. Paulson v. 

Cosmetic Dermatology, Inc., No. 17-20094-Civ-Scola, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

88031, at *6 (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2017).

52. The statement at issue was of a nature that it tended to subject 

plaintiff to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace. Id. at *7-8. Further, 

the statement was of a nature that it tended to injure plaintiff in his office, 

occupation, business, or employment and which, in natural and proximate 

consequence, will necessarily cause injury. The statement also imputed to plaintiff 

conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his 

lawful business, trade, profession or office. Id. at *8.

53. MSC is vicariously liable for its employees’ conduct in defaming

plaintiff. 

54. Defendants’ conduct caused plaintiff to suffer various personal 

injuries, including the injuries described herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

55. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

SIXTH CLAIM

(Tortious Interference with Plaintiff’s

Business Relationship)

(Against all Defendants)

56. Plaintiff repeats the foregoing allegations.

57. To state a claim for tortious interference with a business 

relationship, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a business relationship 

under which the plaintiff has rights; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the 

relationship; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship; 

(4) by a third party; and (5) damage to the plaintiff caused by the interference.

Paulson v. Cosmetic Dermatology, Inc., No. 17-20094-Civ-Scola, 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 88031, at *12 (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2017).

58. The privilege to interfere is a valid defense to a claim for tortious

interference only where the interference was not done for some improper purpose. 

The right to interfere in a relationship, as granted to interested parties, is qualified

by the obligation to proceed in good faith. This good faith requirement disqualifies

parties from asserting the privilege when they, as here, have acted with malicious

or conspiratorial motives. Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 161 F. 

Supp. 2d 1331, 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

59. Under Florida law, an at-will relationship can satisfy the first 

element of a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship. Rudnick 

v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 358 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1205 (S.D. Fla. 2005).

60. Defendants interfered with plaintiff’s employment with MSC for 

malicious, discriminatory, and bad faith reasons; therefore, no privilege is available

to them.

61. MSC is vicariously liable for its employees’ conduct in having 

plaintiff unjustly terminated. 

62. Defendants’ conduct caused plaintiff to suffer various personal 

injuries, including the injuries described herein. 

63. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests the following relief jointly and 

severally against the defendants:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a 

jury;

b. Back pay;

c. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;

d. Attorney’s fees and costs;

e. Prejudgment and other lawful interest;

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

f. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and 

proper.

DATED: September 7, 2022

/s/ Richard Cardinale

_____________________________

RICHARD CARDINALE (FBN 143332)

Attorney at Law

26 Court Street, Suite # 1507

Brooklyn, New York 11242

(718) 624-9391

richcardinale@gmail.com

Case 1:22-cv-22851-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 15 of 15