UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.:

JOSEPH OMENA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMBRAER EXECUTIVE JET

SERVICES, LLC,

a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

 _______ / 

COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOSEPH OMENA (“Mr. Omena” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned 

counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant, EMBRAER EXECUTIVE JET SERVICES, LLC

(“Defendant” or “EEJS”), a foreign limited liability company, and states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff brings this action for disability discrimination in violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 

760, Florida Statutes (“FCRA”).

2. Plaintiff is seeking damages including back pay, front pay, declaratory relief, 

injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and her attorneys’ fees and costs.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is an adult individual who, at all times relevant, worked for Defendant in 

Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 9
4. Defendant is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of 

Delaware that operates and conducts business in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, and 

is therefore within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Plaintiff is a disabled male. At all times material, Plaintiff was protected during his

employment with Defendant by the FCRA and ADA because:

a. Plaintiff was a disabled or “perceived as disabled” employee who suffered 

discrimination and harassment because of her disability or “perceived disability” by 

Defendant; and

b. Plaintiff was discriminated against and suffered adverse employment action 

and was subjected to an increasingly hostile work environment as a result of his

disability or “perceived disability.”

6. Defendant was at all material times an “employer” as defined by the ADA and by § 

760.02(7), Fla. Stat., as it employed in excess of fifteen (15) employees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

as it arises under 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

8. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, as it arises 

out of the same set of operative facts and circumstances as his ADA claim.

9. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Broward County, Florida, and therefore the 

proper venue for this case is the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

10. On or about September 14, 2021, Plaintiff timely dual-filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the Florida 

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 9
Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), alleging disability discrimination. 

11. On August 15, 2022, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue against 

Defendant, giving Plaintiff the right to bring a civil action on his disability discrimination claim 

within ninety (90) days of her receipt of same.

12. More than one-hundred-and-eighty (180) days have passed since the filing of 

Plaintiff’s FCRA claims, rendering Plaintiff’s FCRA claims ripe for filing.

13. Plaintiff timely files this action within the applicable period of limitations against 

Defendant, and has complied with all administrative prerequisites. 

14. All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied and/or waived.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. Mr. Omena worked for EEJS in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, as an 

Aircraft Mechanic from November 31, 2020, until his termination on January 7, 2021.

16. Though placed with EEJS via a third-party staffing company, Mr. Omena’s 

employment took place on EEJS’s premises.

17. EEJS exercised total control over Mr. Omena and his work.

18. EEJS had the power to fire, hire, or modify Mr. Omena’s employment conditions, 

and did so.

19. EEJS was Mr. Omena’s employer.

20. Shortly after he was hired, Mr. Omena disclosed to his EEJS Manager that he 

suffers a disability, specifically Asperger’s Disorder.

21. Mr. Omena asked EEJS to accommodate his disability reasonably by permitting 

him proper training, assigning linear, routinized tasks, and providing assistance completing job 

tasks as he learned the ropes.

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 3 of 9
22. Mr. Omena’s EEJS Manager told Mr. Omena that EEJS would do so.

23. A co-worker of Mr. Omena’s, meanwhile, irresponsibly and disrespectfully 

broadcast to everybody in the workplace that Mr. Omena suffers Asperger’s Disorder.

24. From that day forward, EEJS’s staff ostracized Mr. Omena, refused to 

accommodate him as promised, and made him feel unwelcome, refusing to assist him.

25. Mr. Omena was told by EEJS co-workers that nobody wanted to work alongside 

him.

26. The same co-worker grabbed Mr. Omena’s arms one day in December of 2020, and 

then threw them down contemptuously.

27. On January 7, 2021, EEJS informed Mr. Omena that it had decided to terminate his 

employment, effective immediately.

28. Defendant did not have a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions.

29. EEJS terminated Mr. Omena’s employment owing to his disability and requests for 

accommodation, and/or its perception of Mr. Omena as disabled.

30. The timing of Plaintiff’s disclosure of his disability and EEJS’s mistreatment of 

Plaintiff and termination of Plaintiff’s employment creates a close temporal proximity between the 

events.

31. Mr. Omena’s health condition is considered a protected disability under the ADA. 

32. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, but EEJS

believed that due to his disability, and/or its perception of Plaintiff’s disability, Plaintiff could not 

continue employment with Defendant.

33. The ADA and the FCRA require an employer to provide its disabled employees with 

reasonable accommodation, if such reasonable accommodation would allow that employee to 

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 4 of 9
perform the essential functions of his or her job, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

34. Defendant failed to accommodatePlaintiff’s disability and related symptoms, despite 

stating initially that it would.

35. Defendant’s actions are the exact type of unfair employment practices that the ADA 

and the FCRA were intended to prevent.

36. Defendant lacked a good faith basis for its actions.

37. The facts surrounding Plaintiff’s termination create a strong inference of disability 

discrimination in violation of the ADA and the FCRA.

38. EEJS was aware of Mr. Omena’s ADA- and FCRA-protected medical condition and 

his need for accommodation.

39. Defendant, however, being well aware of Plaintiff’s disability, discriminated against 

Plaintiff for requiring reasonable accommodation for same.

40. Mr. Omena is an individual with a disability who, with minimal reasonable 

accommodation, was fully capable of performing the essential functions of the Aircraft Mechanic

position.

41. Reasonable accommodation would have permitted Mr. Omena to perform his job 

duties, and would have imposed no undue hardship on Defendant.

42. In the alternative, Defendant perceived/regarded Plaintiff as disabled based on the 

disclosure of his medical condition, and therefore unable to perform the essential functions of his

position, despite the fact that Plaintiff could in fact perform same with or without reasonable 

accommodation.

43. Defendant’s reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment is direct evidence of its 

intent to insulate its workplace from a disabled employee, or an employee whom Defendant 

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 5 of 9
perceived/regarded as disabled, in violation of the ADA.

44. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff constitutes an adverse action as defined by the 

ADA.

45. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was ready, willing and able to perform his job 

duties with or without reasonable accommodation. 

46. Despite the availability of a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, which 

would not have caused Defendant an undue burden, and despite the fact that Plaintiff was not, and 

would not be, prevented by his medical condition from completing the assigned job duties, 

Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on his disability and need for medical 

treatment/accommodation.

47. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant’s actions, and non-actions, affected the 

“terms, conditions, or privileges” of Plaintiff’s potential employment as envisioned by the ADA.

48. Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiff’s impairment did not substantially limit a major 

life activity, but was treated by Defendant as if it did.

49. Pleading in the alternative, Plaintiff’s medical condition constituted an impairment 

that limited a major life activity only because of Defendant’s attitude toward the impairment.

50. Defendant does not have a non-discriminatory rationale for allowing and participating 

in the discrimination suffered by Plaintiff.

51. Any reason provided by Defendant for its termination of Plaintiff is a pretext and 

cover-up for illegal discrimination.

52. Plaintiff was a disabled individual, or otherwise perceived as disabled by Defendant. 

Therefore, he is a member of a protected class as envisioned by the ADA and the FCRA.

53. Plaintiff suffered sufficiently severe and pervasive treatment, and ultimately was 

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 6 of 9
terminated, because of his disability and/or “perceived disability.”

54. “Reasonable accommodation” under the ADA may include “job restructuring, parttime or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification 

of equipment or devices . . .and other similar accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B).

55. An employer is required to provide its disabled employees with a reasonable 

accommodation, if that reasonable accommodation would allow that employee to perform the 

essential functions of his job, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Smith v. Avatar 

Properties, Inc., 714 So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

56. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory termination of his

employment, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress, including but not limited to 

sleeplessness, crippling anxiety, loss of consortium, and family discord.

57. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct, including loss of

employment, wages, benefits, and other remuneration to which he is entitled.

58. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A., to represent 

him in the litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I- DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN 

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 

59. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 

and 13 through 58 of the Complaint, above, as if fully set forth in this Count. 

60. The acts of Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, violated Plaintiff’s 

rights against disability discrimination under the ADA.

61. The discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on his disability, or 

Defendant’s perception that Plaintiff was disabled.

62. Defendant unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment based on his medical 

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 7 of 9
condition and disability, and/or perceived disability.

63. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct toward 

him.

64. The conduct of Defendant was so willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the 

statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle him to an award of punitive damages against Defendant, 

to deter it, and others, from such conduct in the future. 

65. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in his favor and against Defendant for his

actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, emotional 

distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as his costs and attorneys’ fees, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court. 

COUNT II- DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN 

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

66. Plaintiff realleges and adopts the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 6 

and 8 through 58 of the Complaint, above, as if fully set forth in this Count. 

67. The acts of Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, violated Plaintiff’s 

rights against disability discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida 

Statutes.

68. The discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on his disability, or 

Defendant’s perception that Plaintiff was disabled.

69. Defendant unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment based on his medical 

condition and disability, and/or perceived disability.

70. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct toward 

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 8 of 9
him.

71. The conduct of Defendant was so willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the 

statutory rights of Plaintiff, as to entitle him to an award of punitive damages against Defendant, 

in order to deter it, and others, from such conduct in the future.

72. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses 

pursuant to Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment in his favor and against Defendant for his

actual and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, front pay, back pay, emotional 

distress damages, and punitive damages, as well as his costs and attorneys’ fees, declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and such other relief as is deemed proper by this Court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated this 11th day of November, 2022.

 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Noah E. Storch

Noah E. Storch, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0085476

RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

10368 W. State Rd. 84 Suite 103

Davie, FL 33324

Telephone: (866) 344-9243

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771

E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-62095-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 9 of 9