UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No.:

CHARLA BEAUVAIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMISIAL MEDSPA LLC and EDY 

AMISIAL,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff CHARLA BEAUVAIS (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated individuals sue 

defendants AMISIAL MEDSPA LLC and EDY AMISIAL (“Defendants”) and allege:

I. JURISDICTION

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the 

laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 (“FLSA”), 

and for violation of Section 448.102, Florida Statutes.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1343(3) and (4) and 28 U.S.C. § 2617. 

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those claims form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s state law claims share all common operative 

facts with their federal law claims, and the parties are identical. Resolving Plaintiff’s federal and 

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 13
state claims in a single action serves the interests of judicial economy, convenience, consistency, 

and fairness to the parties.

II. VENUE

4. The Corporate Defendant, Amisial MedSpa is a corporation duly authorized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Florida and conducting business in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida.

5. Defendant Edy Amisial (the “Dr. Amisial”) is the owner and/or officer of the 

Corporate Defendant, and he had an office and does business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At 

all times material hereto, the Individual Defendant was and is engaged in interstate commerce.

6. The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County.

7. The acts or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in 

Miami-Dade, Florida.

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the acts complained of occurred 

within this judicial district and because the Defendant has its principal place of business within the 

district, resides in the judicial district and because the employment records of the Plaintiff are 

stored or have been administered, in Miami-Dade, Florida.

III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Ms. Beauvais experienced administrator with nearly 8 years of experience working 

in the field.

10. On or about May 5, 2022, Ms. Beauvais began working for Defendants, and was 

told that she was hired as the Office Administrator, and she would make $20.00 per hour.

11. During Ms. Beauvais’ first week of work, on or about May 5th and 9th, 2022, Dr. 

Amisial administered Botox and fillers on patients, and instructed Ms. Beauvais to assist as his 

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 13
medical assistant. During the medical procedures, Ms. Beauvais noticed that Dr. Amisial picked 

up gauzes from the floor, and used it on the patient. Ms. Beauvais also noticed that on both 

occasions, Dr. Amisial left the patient’s room in disarray, with syringes on the floor as opposed to 

properly disposing them, and left gauzes on the floor that were contaminated with the patient’s 

blood. Ms. Beauvais additionally noticed that there was no red biohazard bin in the patient’s room. 

12. Ms. Beauvais was fearful for her safety and did not want to come into contact with 

the waste. 

13. On or about May 10, 2022, when Ms. Beauvais arrived at work the janitor, Valorie 

ULN, made a complaint to her about needles being left around in the office. Ms. Beauvais told 

Valorie that she would speak with the doctor about it because she also had an issue with needles 

being left around. 

14. On this same day, Ms. Beauvais spoke with Dr. Amisial as soon as she saw him. 

Ms. Beauvais complained to Dr. Amisial that the office required more red biohazard disposal bins. 

She complained that Dr. Amisial was not disposing the needles immediately after they are used on 

patients, as he is required to do. 

15. Shortly after Ms. Beauvais complained to Dr. Amisial and objected, Dr. Amisial 

requested Ms. Beauvais assist him with a patient who requested Botox, fillers, and Platelet-Rich 

Plasma(“PRP”) procedures. When Dr. Amisial made his request, notwithstanding Ms. Beauvais’ 

complaints and objections, made earlier and then again at the time of Dr. Amisial’s request, Dr. 

Amisial disregarded Ms. Beauvais’ concerns and demanded she assist him with the medical 

procedure. 

16. During the procedure, Dr. Amisial began to draw the patient's blood and attempted 

to transfer the blood into the correct tube, but ended up spilling the patient’s blood all over the 

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 3 of 13
area. Ms. Beauvais immediately backed up into the corner because she felt that her health was in 

risk. 

17. Thereafter, Dr. Amisial changed his gloves as if nothing happened, placed the tube 

in the PRP machine. The machine spun the blood and Dr. Amisial went through with the procedure 

as if nothing had happened. When the machine finished spinning, he left the tube covered in blood 

on the outside in the machine. Ms. Beauvais inquired if he was going to properly dispose of the 

tube and Dr. Amisial stated “yes.” Shortly after, Ms. Beauvais began to feel very uncomfortable, 

and once again requested Dr. Amisial to sanitize the room. Once again, Dr. Amisial replied “yes”

but never sanitized the room. 

18. Dr. Amisial never changed his conduct. Despite Ms. Beauvais’ complaints and 

objections, Dr. Amisial continued to leave syringes, needles and used gauzes out, and not 

discarded, and patient blood exposed.

19. Then, on May 16, 2022, while Ms. Beauvais was speaking with Janitor Valorie and 

Dr. Michelle Isma Joseph, the second medical provider of Amisial MedSpa (“AMS”). Ms. 

Beauvais complained about the Dr. Amisial unsanitary conduct to Janitor Valorie and Dr. Joseph. 

During the same discussion, Janitor Valorie complained to Ms. Beauvais and Dr. Joseph about Dr. 

Amisial unsanitary conduct. In response, Dr. Joseph stated she would speak to Dr. Amisial 

regarding the improper disposal of biohazard medical waste. 

20. After her discussion with Janitor Valorie and Dr. Joseph, Ms. Beauvais went to the 

room where the blood had spilled on May 9, 2022 to verify if the room was still contaminated with 

the exposed blood. Sure enough, there was still blood underneath the cabinet and the blood drawn 

from the patient was still left in the PRP machine seven (7) days after the incident. 

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 4 of 13
21. Ms. Beauvais, concerned with patients’ wellbeing, avoided placing any other 

patients in the contaminated room for any of the consultations scheduled the rest of the day. 

Nevertheless, days went by and Dr. Amisial would place patients in that room exposing to the 

biohazard medical waste.

22. Dr. Amisial did not perform another Botox procedure until May 19, 2022. Ms. 

Beauvais was not present in the patient’s room and stayed away from the room with the patient as 

she had requested. After the patient left, Ms. Beauvais went to clean up the room to get it ready 

for the next patient, and found that syringes and needles were left exposed again. Ms. Beauvais 

left the room and spoke with Dr. Amisial once more regarding the improper disposal of biohazard 

medical waste. 

23. On May 25, 2022, once again, Dr. Amisial performed a Botox procedure and did 

not properly dispose of the biohazard medical waste. Dr. Joseph proceeded to take pictures of the 

exposed needles and syringes. 

24. A few days later, on or about May 27, 2022, when Ms. Beauvais went to place her 

food in the mini-fridge located in the breakroom, she observed specimens that weren't picked up 

the day before in the fridge along with other medications. 

25. Thereafter, on the following business day, May 31, 2022, after Dr. Amisial’s Botox 

and Fillers medical procedure on a patient, Ms. Beauvais went to prepare the room for the next 

patient and noticed that once again Dr. Amisial left syringes and needles exposed in the patient’s 

room. At this moment Ms. Beauvais decided to start documenting the improper disposal of 

biohazard medical waste and taking pictures since it remained an ongoing issue without correction.

26. On June 1, 2022, after Ms. Beauvais once again requested that Dr. Amisial dispose 

the syringes, needles and used gauzes, Dr. Amisial called Ms. Beauvais into his office and scolded 

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 5 of 13
and threatened her. Specifically, Dr. Amisial said to Ms. Beauvais that “he is the big boss” and

that she “was not going to last long there”. 

27. After the June 1, 2022, Ms. Beauvais was fearful that she would lose her job.

28. Ms. Beauvais continued to perform her duties as usual. The afternoon of that same 

day, June 1, 2022, Dr. Amisial attended another patient for Botox and fillers. After the treatment, 

while preparing the room for another patient. Ms. Beauvais noticed that Dr. Amisial once again 

did not properly dispose of the biohazard medical waste. Ms. Beauvais complained and took 

pictures, but nothing changed.

29. During a staff meeting on June 13th, 2022, Dr. Amisial made several hostile and 

humiliating remarks towards Ms. Beauvais and stated that the staff had to work overtime no matter 

what. Ms. Beauvais responded by stating that she could not work overtime and inquiring about the 

pay for overtime since he had not paid per one- and one-half times her regular rate of pay (i.e., 

overtime) when she previously worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

30. Dr. Amisial became noticeably upset and, with anger, again made hostile and 

humiliating remarks about Plaintiff, and then preceding to terminate Ms. Beauvais by stating that 

she did not have a place at the Corporate Defendant’s business and that she was terminated from 

her employment with AMS.

31. Throughout her employment, Ms. Beauvais worked approximately 10.75 hours per 

week, without being properly paid one and a half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked 

in a workweek.

32. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred, been performed or 

been excused.

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 6 of 13
33. The Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel in order that his/her rights and 

interests may be protected. The Plaintiff has become obligated to pay the undersigned a reasonable 

attorneys’ fee.

COUNT I: RETALIATION – FPWA 448.102

34. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above in 

paragraphs 1- 33 as if fully set forth herein.

35. Florida Statutes provide:

448.102 Prohibitions. —An employer may not take any retaliatory 

personnel action against an employee because the employee has:

...

(3) Objected to, or refused or participated in, any activity, policy, 

or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule or 

regulation.

36. The Plaintiff objected to or refused to participate in the Defendant’s activity of 

improperly disposing of medical waste, when she complained to Dr. Amisial and Dr. Joseph on 

multiple occasions. Instead of correcting the wrongs objected to or refused by the Plaintiff, the 

Defendant fired Plaintiff.

37. Improper disposal of medical waste is a violation of Section 381.0098, Florida 

Statutes – Biomedical Waste and Chapter 64E-16, of the Florida Administrative Code (“FAC”) and 

OSHA Interpretation Letter dated June 2, 2009, authored by Richard E. Fairfax, Director of 

Directorate of Enforcement Programs.

38. The Defendant fired the Plaintiff because she objected to or refused to participate 

in the Defendant’s improper disposal of medical waste, which is a violation of the law.

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 7 of 13
39. The firing of the Plaintiff is a wrongful act in violation of the Florida Whistleblower's Act, Section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes.

40. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Reinstate the Plaintiff to the same position held before the Defendant’s retaliatory 

action against the Plaintiff, or to an equivalent position; 

b. Reinstate the Plaintiff’s full fringe benefits and seniority rights;

c. Award compensation for lost wages, benefits, mental damages, and other 

remuneration; 

d. Order payment by the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorneys’ 

fees of this action pursuant to Section 448.104, Florida Statutes; 

e. Issue an order prohibiting the Defendant from discharging individuals who refuse to 

engage in or object to practices which violate Florida law; and

f. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II: UNPAID OVERTIME (CORPORATE DEFENDANT) – FLSA

41. The Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 -

33 above as if set out in full herein. 

42. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the FLSA.

43. This action is brought by the Plaintiff to recover from the Corporate Defendant 

unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and specifically under 

the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA states: “No employer shall 

employ any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 hours unless such employee 

receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above-specified at a rate not less 

than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 8 of 13
44. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendant is and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, was 

engaged in interstate commerce. 

45. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendant operated as an 

organization which sold and/or marketed its services and/or goods to customers from throughout 

the United States and also provided its services for goods sold and transported from across state 

lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendant obtained and solicited funds from non-Florida 

sources, accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used telephonic transmissions going over state

lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly 

engaged in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its employees. 

46. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendant

was at all times material hereto in excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated, by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the FLSA’s 

requirements. 

47. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendant is and was, during all times 

hereafter mentioned, an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce as defined in §§ 3(r) and 3(s) of the FLSA and/or the Plaintiff was engaged in interstate 

commerce for the Corporate Defendant. The Corporate Defendant’s business activities involve 

those to which the Act applies. The Corporate Defendant is a Medical Spa and, through its business 

activity, affects interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendant likewise 

affects interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as an office 

administrator for the Corporate Defendant’s business.

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 9 of 13
48. While employed by the Corporate Defendant, the Plaintiff worked approximately 

an average of 50.75 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than oneand one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed.

49. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from approximately May 5, 2022

to June 13, 2022. In total, the Plaintiff worked approximately 5.5 compensable weeks under the 

FLSA.

50. The Corporate Defendant paid the Plaintiff on average approximately $20.00 per

hour.

51. However, the Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate the Plaintiff for 

hours that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

52. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of 

hire.

53. Prior to the completion of discovery and to the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge, at 

the time of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of her unpaid overtime 

wages is as follows:

a. Actual Damages: $1,773.75

i. Calculation: $20.00 (hourly pay) x 1.5 (overtime rate) x 10.75 (approximate 

number of overtime hours) x 5.5 (compensable weeks) =$1,773.75;

b. Liquidated Damages: $1,773.75.

c. Total Damages: $ 3,547.50 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

54. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendant failed to comply with Title 

29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that the Plaintiff performed 

services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA, but no provision was 

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 10 of 13
made by the Corporate Defendant to properly pay them at the rate of time-and-one-half for all 

hours worked in excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in the FLSA.

55. The Corporate Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions 

of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages and remains owing the Plaintiff these 

overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s employment with the Corporate 

Defendant as set forth above, and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover double damages. The Corporate 

Defendant never posted any notice, as required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their 

federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

56. The Corporate Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains owing 

the Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendant as set forth above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Enter judgment for the Plaintiff against the Corporate Defendant on the basis of the 

Corporate Defendant’s willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

b. Award the Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages 

and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; and

c. Award the Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

d. Award the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

e. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

COUNT III: UNPAID OVERTIME (INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT) – FLSA

57. The Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-

33 above as if set out in full herein. 

58. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the FLSA.

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 11 of 13
59. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant was, and is now, the owner of 

the Corporate Defendant. The Individual Defendant was an employer of the Plaintiff within the 

meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA in that the Individual Defendant acted directly or indirectly 

in the interests of the Corporate Defendant in relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendant, 

including the Plaintiff. The Individual Defendant had operational control of the Corporate 

Defendant, was involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendant, provided the 

Plaintiff with her work schedule, and is jointly liable for the Plaintiff’s damages.

60. The Individual Defendant is and was at all times relevant a person in control of the 

Corporate Defendant’s financial affairs and could cause the Corporate Defendant to compensate 

(or not to compensate) its employees in accordance with the FLSA.

61. The Individual Defendant willfully and intentionally caused the Plaintiff not to 

receive overtime compensation as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and 

remains owing the Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s 

employment with the Corporate Defendant as set forth above. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Enter judgment for the Plaintiff against the Individual Defendant on the basis of the 

Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 

and other Federal Regulations; and

b. Award the Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages 

and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; and

c. Award the Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

d. Award the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

e. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of 

right.

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 12 of 13
Dated: November 11, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Juliana Cortes

Juliana Cortes, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 0123038

 Email: juliana@saenzanderson.com

Tanesha Blye, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 738158

 Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com

R. Martin Saenz, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 0640166

Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23708-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 13 of 13