1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

EDGAR BARRERA, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

HORNERXPRESS MIAMI, INC. a 

Florida Profit Corporation, 

 Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, EDGAR BARRERA, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and through his 

undersigned attorney hereby sues Defendant HORNERXPRESS MIAMI, INC., a Florida Profit

Corporation (hereinafter, "Defendant"), and states:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

committed by Defendant and jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), the 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments 

Act (ADAAA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (Florida Civil Rights 

Act or "FCRA"), Florida Statutes § 440.205, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C § 

201, et seq. (hereinafter “FLSA”). 

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 21
2

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendant in this District; because Defendant, at all material times, conducted and continue to 

conduct business in the Southern District of Florida; because the acts that give rise to Plaintiff's 

claims occurred within the Southern District of Florida; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 

(c); and because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction herein.

4. Plaintiff says that all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have heretofore 

been performed or have been waived.

PARTIES

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

Plaintiff is over the age of eighteen.

6. Plaintiff at all times material hereto, was a member of a class protected under the Civil Rights 

Act, FCRA, ADA, and ADAAA in that he is a person with a disability as defined by those 

Acts.

7. Defendant is a Florida corporation organized and existing under by virtue of the laws of Florida 

and is registered to do business within Florida. Defendant has, at all times material hereto, 

conducted substantial and continuous business within the Southern District of Florida, and is 

subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida.

8. All the actions complained of herein took place at the Fort Lauderdale location and within the 

Southern District of Florida. 

9. Defendant has, at all times material, employed 15 or more employees for each working day in 

each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in accordance with the 

FCRA (42 U.S.C. §2000e(b); Fla. Stat. §760.02(7)).

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 21
3

10. Plaintiff was an employee covered by Title VII, the ADA, the ADAAA and the FCRA in that 

he was subjected to dismissal from employment based on his disability and in retaliation for 

his disability and requests for an accommodation. 

11. Defendant is an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(d) and (s)(1), in that it has employees 

engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or that it has employees 

handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or 

produced for commerce by any person.

12. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant has had two (2) or more employees who 

have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on goods and/or materials that have been 

moved in or produced for commerce which as employees subject to the provisions of the FLSA, 

29 U.S.C. § 207. 

13. Specifically, Defendant is a distributor of pool equipment to its customers. Defendant supplies 

and delivers supplies and goods that that have been moved in or produced for commerce to 

contractors and retailers.

14. Defendant, upon knowledge and belief, has gross revenue which exceeds $500,000 for each of 

the past three (3) years and utilizes goods in the flow of commerce across state lines. 

15. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely charge of discrimination 

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

the Florida Commission on Human Relations. 

16. Plaintiff’s Charge was filed on or about September 2, 2021. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 3 of 21
4

17. Plaintiff was terminated from his position on or about July 19, 2021. His Charge was therefore 

timely filed. 

18. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on September 12, 2022. This suit is filed in 

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

Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).

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

within 180 days of the filing of said charges. 

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

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF’S OVERTIME CLAIM

21. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants and is subject to the payroll practices and 

procedures set forth hereinafter, and who worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one of 

more workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this complaint.

22. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from around July of 2019 through on or about July 19, 

2021, as a driver. 

23. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked 50-65 hours a week. Plaintiff earned 

$16.90/hour from July 2019 through on or about January 25, 2021, $17.40/hour from January 

26, 2021, through the end of his employment. However, Plaintiff was not compensated for 

some of the hours worked.

24. Specifically, a review of the pay stubs in which Plaintiff has in his current possession, 

custody, and control reflect that during the relevant time, Defendant would automatically 

deduct thirty minutes for lunch after six and half hours of work per day regardless of whether 

Plaintiff was required to work through his meal breaks. 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 4 of 21
5

25. As a result of this practice, at all times pertinent to this action, Defendant failed to comply with 

29 U.S.C. §§201-2019 in that Plaintiff performed services for Defendant for which no 

provision was made to properly pay Plaintiff for all hours worked.

26. Defendant and its representatives knew that Plaintiff was working overtime, and that federal 

law requires employees to be compensated at time and one-half per hour for overtime pay.

27. Defendant maintained complete control over the hours Plaintiff worked and the pay he was to 

receive. 

28. 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.

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

this action. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO REMAINING COUNTS

30. On or about March 25, 2021, Plaintiff had a work-related accident while driving the company 

truck. 

31. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his spine, neck, right shoulder. Plaintiff 

sought workers' compensation benefits for medical treatment in accordance with the provisions 

of the Workers' Compensation Law. 

32. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff was diagnosed with neck pain with cervical disc pathology 

due to C3-C6 most significant at C5-C6 with there is a disc herniation with cord compression 

as well as back pain with lumbar disc pathology at multiple levels most significant between 

L3-L5 where there is evidence of foraminal stenosis. 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 5 of 21
6

33. On or about March 26, 2021, Plaintiff was told he was cleared to return to work by his workers 

compensation doctor with limitations. Specifically, Plaintiff was able to return to activities so 

long as they adhere to the wight limitation of no more than 10 pounds. 

34. On or about March 26, 2021, Plaintiff returned to work and provided a copy of the medical 

paperwork to his manager, Rosa Cortes (hereinafter, “Ms. Cortes”). Initially, Defendant 

designated an assistant to work with Plaintiff as an accommodation. However, the assigned 

assistants were often rotated, and Plaintiff was forced to perform activities that were against 

his doctor’s instructions.

35. Plaintiff made several complaints to the managers regarding the lack of accommodations, and 

reminder the Defendant of his physical limitations and need for accommodations.

36. Plaintiff made this request of Ms. Cortes on March 30, 2021. Ms. Cortes and disregarded 

Plaintiff’s accommodation requests. As a result, Plaintiff continued working without 

accommodations despite his limitations until July 19, 2021. 

37. On or about July 19, 2021, Plaintiff was terminated without prior notice or warning from his 

employer.

38. Plaintiff, throughout his tenure with Defendant, had a satisfactory work record and was at all 

times qualified for his position in that, Plaintiff had not been disciplined and he performed his 

duties to the satisfaction of his supervisor and had received positive recommendations from 

his supervisor prior to Plaintiff’s termination. 

39. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s reason for termination, that Plaintiff delivered a late 

shipment, is false and is pretextual for unlawful discrimination and or retaliation. 

40. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA, the FFCRA, 

the ADA, and the ADAAA. 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 6 of 21
7

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

requests for accommodation and complaints regarding the Defendant’s failure to accommodate

were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action. 

42. 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.

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

this action.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME

44. Plaintiff, re-alleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein.

45. Since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant has willfully violated the 

provisions of § 7 of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 207] by employing employees engaged in commerce 

for workweeks longer than forty (40) hours without compensating him for all hours worked in 

excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one- and one-half times their regular rate.

46. Specifically, Plaintiff worked approximately 50-65 hours during each work week in which he

was employed, but he was not paid at time and one-half for all the hours worked.

47. Plaintiff was not exempted from the overtime provision of the Act pursuant to the provisions 

of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a), in that he was neither a bona fide executive, administrative, or 

professional employee. Plaintiff was a driver and performed duties such as transporting goods 

for commerce within Florida, loading and unloading goods, and did not have decision-making 

authority.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 7 of 21
8

48. Defendant has knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at time and one half of his 

regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week between the relevant 

time period. 

49. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has

suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

50. As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated

damages.

51. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this action, and pursuant to

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

incurred in this action from Defendant.

WHEREFORE, for workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff 

demands judgment for:

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for overtime 

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with interest; and

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

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF FLSA/MINIMUM WAGES 

52. Plaintiff re-alleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 29 as fully set forth herein.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 8 of 21
9

53. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, as well as 

an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees under the 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 206.

54. At all times during his employment, Plaintiff was an employee required to be paid a minimum 

hourly wage for every hour worked and entitled to receive those minimum hourly wages not 

later than the regularly established pay day.

55. Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff for some of the hours worked during his employment. 

Specifically, after six and half hours of work, Defendant made an automatic 30-minute 

deductions from Plaintiff’s pay regardless of whether he took a lunch break. 

56. Defendant knew or showed a reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA concerning the 

payment of wages for all hours worked in respective pay periods and accordingly remains 

owing the named Plaintiff, liquidated damages, based upon the unpaid minimum wages for the 

failure to pay even the required minimum hourly wage for every hour worked during each 

respective pay period during the three-year period preceding this lawsuit.

57. The Plaintiff incurred expenses and endured considerable hardships and damages as a result of 

being deprived of a minimum hourly wage when due as alleged.

58. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

59. Plaintiff seeks to recover for unpaid wages accumulated from the date of hire.

60. As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated 

damages.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 9 of 21
10

61. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this action, and pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 

incurred in this action from Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant.:

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid minimum 

wage, with interest; and

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

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT III

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 

UNDER THE ADA AND ADAAA

62. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1–20 and 30-43, inclusive, 

as though same were fully re-written, and says:

63. Plaintiff is disabled as he suffers from neck	pain	with	cervical	disc	pathology,	disc	herniation	with	

cord	 compression	 as	 well	 as	 back	 pain	 with	 lumbar	 disc	 pathology, which are impairment that 

substantially limit one or more major life activities; to wit: lifting, pulling and pushing over 

10 pounds.

64. Plaintiff was at all times qualified to perform the essential functions of his job as a driver with 

or without a proposed reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff is therefore a "qualified individual" 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 10 of 21
11

as that term is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), § 

101(8) (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).

65. The ADA and the ADAAA prohibit employers from taking adverse employment action against 

an employee as a result of his actual disability, as a result of an employee's record of having 

such disability, and/or because the employer regards the employee as disabled, and further 

requires employers to reasonably accommodate the actual disabilities and/or records of such 

disabilities of their employees.

66. The adverse treatment to which Plaintiff was subjected by Defendant, including but not limited 

to, Plaintiff's termination, was the direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's disability, which 

substantially limited him in one or more major life activity and/or Plaintiff's record of having 

such disability. 

67. Defendant's alleged bases for its adverse treatment of Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, 

Plaintiff's termination, if any, are pretextual and asserted only to cover up the discriminatory 

nature of its conduct.

68. Even if Defendant could assert legitimate reasons for its adverse treatment of Plaintiff, 

including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's termination, which reasons it did not/does not have, 

Plaintiff's actual disability and/or Plaintiff's record of having such a disability were also 

motivating factors for Defendant's adverse treatment of Plaintiff.

69. Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the ADA and ADAAA

by discriminating against Plaintiff because of his disability by terminating him because of his 

condition under the circumstances described above.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 11 of 21
12

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

to, lost wages and benefits, pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, §706(g).

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

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

1964. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or 

ratified the unlawful conduct of Ms. Cortes and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also 

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

72. Defendant’s alleged reason(s) terminating Plaintiff (if any) are pretextual as described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this court enter judgment against Defendant for: 

A. Actual damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions;

B. Punitive damages due to Defendant’s willful behavior;

C. Compensatory damages;

D. Injunctive relief where feasible; 

E. Attorney’s fees;

F. Costs of this action; and 

G. Any other relief this Court deems proper.

COUNT IV

FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION 

OF THE ADA AND ADAAA

73. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-20 and 30-43 of 

this complaint as if set out in full herein:

74. Plaintiff is disabled as he suffers from neck	pain	with	cervical	disc	pathology,	disc	herniation	with	

cord	 compression	 as	 well	 as	 back	 pain	 with	 lumbar	 disc	 pathology, which are impairment that 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 12 of 21
13

substantially limit one or more major life activities; to wit: lifting, pulling and pushing over 

10 pounds.

75. Plaintiff is, and at all times was, qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or 

without a proposed reasonable accommodation. 

76. Plaintiff is therefore a “qualified individual” as that term is defined in the Americans with

Disabilities Act, as amended (“ADAAA”) § 101(8) (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).

77. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation as that term is defined 

in the ADAAA, § 101(9). 

78. At the time of his diagnosis, Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations in order to be able 

to perform the essential functions of his job without having to push, pull, or carry anything 

that weighed over 10 lbs.

79. Plaintiff made this request to Ms. Cortes on March 26, 2021, March 30, 2021. While 

Defendant initially provided an assistant, the accommodation was not consistent and Plaintiff 

was forced to lift, carry, push over 10 pounds. 

80. These requests were reasonable and would not have caused Defendant undue hardship.

81. As a result of Defendant’s action, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven 

at the time of the trial of this cause.

82. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that pursuant to ADAAA § 107(a) (42 U.S.C. § 

12117(a)), Plaintiff is entitled to damages because of Defendant’s willful conduct in denying 

his request(s). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant as follow:

A. Actual damages as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions;

B. Punitive damages due to Defendant’s willful behavior;

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 13 of 21
14

C. Compensatory damages;

D. Injunctive relief where feasible;

E. Attorney’s fees;

F. Costs of this action; and

G. Any other relief this Court deems proper.

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF THE ADA AND ADAAA

(RETALIATION)

83. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1–20 and 30-43, inclusive, 

as though same were fully re-written, and says:

84. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation on or about March 26, 2021 and March 30, 

2021. These requests were made to his manager, Ms. Cortes, who knew of Plaintiff’s medical 

conditions and limitations. 

85. While Defendant initially provided an accommodation the same was short-lived and Plaintiff 

was required to perform duties that were against the limitations given by his doctor.

86. On or about March 30, 2021, Plaintiff first complained to the managers regarding the lack of 

accommodations.

87. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s request for a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff was 

terminated by Defendant on or about July 19, 2021. 

88. Plaintiff’s termination constitutes an adverse employment action under the ADA and ADAAA. 

89. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with malice, and with disregard for his

protected rights under the ADA and ADAAA. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or 

supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Ms. Cortes and/or 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 14 of 21
15

other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a 

sum according to proof at trial. 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 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 and retaliatory treatment in an amount to be 

determined at trial and in accordance with the ADA and ADAAA.

B. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable 

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

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

appropriate.

COUNT VI

HANDICAP/DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FCRA

91. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-20 and 30-43 of 

this complaint as if set out in full herein:

92. Section 760.10 of the FCRA states in relevant part: 

(1) it is unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(a) to discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, 

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

religion, sex, natural origin, age, handicap, or marital status. 

93. The FCRA accordingly prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against 

an employee as a result of his actual handicap/disability, as a result of an employee’s record of 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 15 of 21
16

having such handicap/disability, and/or because the employer regards the employee as 

handicapped/disabled, and further requires employers to reasonably accommodate the actual

handicaps/disabilities and/or records of such handicaps/disabilities of their employees.

94. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) he was terminated due to his actual disability and (2) 

Defendant wrongfully denied his reasonable requests for light duty as an accommodation to 

his disability. 

95. The adverse and disparate treatment to which Plaintiff was subjected by Defendant, including 

but not limited to, Plaintiff's termination, as set forth above, was the direct and proximate result 

of Plaintiff's actual disability, which substantially limited him in one or more major life 

activities, and/or Plaintiff's record of having such disability. 

96. Defendant’s alleged bases for its adverse treatment of Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, 

Plaintiff's termination, and Defendant's failure to accommodate, all set forth above, if any, are 

pretextual and asserted only to cover up the discriminatory nature of its conduct.

97. Even if Defendant could assert legitimate reasons for its adverse and disparate treatment of 

Plaintiff, which reasons it did not/does not have, Plaintiff's actual handicap(s)/disability and/or 

Plaintiff's record of having such a disability were also motivating factors for Defendant's 

adverse treatment of Plaintiff.

98. As a result of the discriminatory conduct to which Plaintiff was subjected, Plaintiff has 

experienced, and will continue to experience, significant financial and economic loss in the 

form of lost wages. Plaintiff has also experienced, and will continue to experience, emotional 

anguish, pain and suffering and loss of dignity damages. Plaintiff accordingly demands lost 

economic damages, lost wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact 

of lost benefits, and compensatory damages. 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 16 of 21
17

99. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with malice, and with disregard for his

protected rights under FCRA. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, 

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 requests judgment against Defendant as follows: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FCRA, and has done so willfully, 

intentionally, and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter a judgment requiring that Defendant pay Plaintiff appropriate back pay, benefits’ 

adjustment, and prejudgment interest at amounts to be proved at trial for the unlawful 

employment practices described herein;

C. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for 

mental anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

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

full benefits Plaintiff would have had had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by 

Defendant, or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorney fees; and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 17 of 21
18

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

(RETALIATION)

100. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-20 and 30-

43 of this complaint as if set out in full herein:

101. Plaintiff brings this claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Florida Statutes § 760.01 et 

seq. for Defendant’s retaliatory conduct. 

102. On or about March 26, 2021, and March 30, 2021, Plaintiff notified Defendant of his 

limitations as a result of his work-related injury. These requests were made to his manager, 

Ms. Cortes, who knew of his Plaintiff’s medical conditions. 

103. This request was a protected activity under the FCRA. 

104. Furthermore, on or about March 30, 2021, Plaintiff complained to his manager, Ms. Cortes, 

regarding the lack of accommodation.

105. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s requests and complaints, Plaintiff was terminated by 

Defendant on or about July 19, 2021. 

106. Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s disability and his requests as Plaintiff made these requests

to his manager, Ms. Cortes.

107. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

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

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

state law. 

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

malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under FCRA. Defendant, by and through its 

officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Ms. 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 18 of 21
19

Cortes and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from 

Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

109. Defendant’s alleged reason(s) terminating Plaintiff (if any) are pretextual as described 

above. 

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

requests for a reasonable accommodation, were a motivating factor in the decision for the 

adverse employment action(s). 

111. Plaintiff further seeks his attorney's fees and costs as permitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendant as follows:

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

compensate her for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, 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. 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;

D. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable attorney’s 

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

E. Any other relief this Court deems proper.

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 19 of 21
20

COUNT VIII

VIOLATION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAWS

112. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1-20 and 30-43 as though full set forth herein. 

113. Plaintiff brings this action under Florida Law prohibiting retaliation for filing or attempting 

to file a valid workers’ compensation claim under Florida Statutes § 440.205.

114. At all relevant times, Defendant has been and is an “employer” as that term is defined by 

Chapter 440, Florida Statutes § 440.202.

115. On or about March 25, 2021, Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury and sought workers' 

compensation benefits for medical treatment in accordance with the provisions of the Workers' 

Compensation Law. 

116. On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff was terminated from his position without a valid reason. Prior 

to his injury, Plaintiff had received positive reviews and recommendations from his supervisor 

and was not made aware of any performance deficiencies. 

117. It is clear that Defendant terminated Plaintiff because of his valid claim for compensation 

under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff's compensation claim was a motivating factor 

in Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff, in violation of Florida Statutes § 440.205, as 

evidenced by the lack of disciplinary action or prior warning of work-performance related 

issues. 

118. Plaintiff's work record with Defendant prior to his termination was satisfactory.

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

malice, and with disregard for his rights under Florida Statutes § 440.205. Defendant, by and 

through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful 

conduct of Ms. Cortes and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 20 of 21
21

120. Any purported reason for Plaintiff's discharge given by Defendant is pretextual. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for:

A. Plaintiff's lost wages and/or benefits as a result of his termination;

B. Compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages as allowed by law and upon a 

record showing proof thereof; 

C. Interest on all monies owed;

D. Assessment against Defendant for those reasonable attorney's fees and costs 

incurred as a result of bringing this action as permitted by Florida statutes;

E. A trial by jury; and

F. Any other relief this Court deems proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff EDGAR BARRERA demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts of this 

Complaint so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: December 9, 2022

By: /s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200 

Case 1:22-cv-24005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 21 of 21