1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: _________________________

TYRELL MELTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RADER FOODS, INC.

Defendants,

/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff TYRELL MELTON (“Plaintiff” or “Moore”) sues defendant RADER FOODS

(“Defendant”), and alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action by Plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. 

Stat. § 760 et seq. (“FCRA”), to redress injury done to him by Defendant’s discriminatory, and 

retaliatory treatmenton the basis of disability. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3) and (4) and 1367(a). 

3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because Defendant resides in this district, having its principal 

place of business within this district; also, because Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal 

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 1 of 7
2

jurisdiction with respect to the civil action at bar and because all or a substantial part of the events 

or omissions giving rise to this cause of action took place in this judicial district.

4. Plaintiff also invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide 

claims arising under the laws of the State of Florida that are so related to claims in the action within 

the original jurisdiction of this district Court that they form part of the same case or controversy 

under Article III of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff is bringing claims under 

the FCRA.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida, who wasemployed by Defendant 

was disabled or perceived to be disabled, as such is a member of certain protected classes of

persons.

6. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an “employee” and “aggrieved 

person” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(4); and Fla. Stat. § 760.02(10). 

Plaintiff specifically incorporates the definitions of “employee” and “aggrieved person.” 

7. At all times material, Defendant RADER FOODS was a for profit corporation 

headquartered in Miami-Dade County Florida authorized to conduct business in the State of 

Florida, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

8. At all times material, Defendant was an “employer” as defined by 42 USCS § 

12111(5); 42 USC § 2000e(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(4); and Fla. Stat. § 760.02(7). Plaintiff 

specifically incorporates the definition of “employer.” 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 2 of 7
3

year.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

10. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been fulfilled. Plaintiff dualfiled Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and also with the Florida Commission on Human

Relations within 300 days of the alleged violation. To date, over six (6) months have passed since 

the filing of the complaints. On or about August 11, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission issued to Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights with respect to such 

charge of discrimination. See composite Exhibit “A.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. The Defendant is a company that delivers gourmet foods and related products to 

professional kitchens. 

12. Plaintiff worked as a driver for the Defendant from February 28, 2022, until his 

termination on, or about May 23, 2022. 

13. As a driver Plaintiff’s duties were to deliver products to clients and to occasionally 

work in the warehouse. 

14. Plaintiff was able to successfully complete his job duties and was treated as a valued 

member of the team, however that changed after he injured his hand and reported it to his 

supervisor.

15. On the weekend of May 21 – 22, 2022, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his hand while 

at home. 

16. When he arrived at work on the morning of May 23, 2022, Plaintiff showed his 

supervisor, Edwin Giraldo, his hand which he believed was bruised and asked if he could work 

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 3 of 7
4

inside the warehouse instead of driving that day. 

17. Mr. Giraldo told Plaintiff to get his hand checked at the hospital to make sure it was 

not broken. 

18. When he was diagnosed at the hospital, Plaintiff learned that his hand was indeed 

broken. 

19. Plaintiff called the Defendant to let them know his diagnosis. 

20. Later that same day Plaintiff received a call from Defendant’s logistics manager 

Franklin Adams who notified Plaintiff that he was being terminated and could pick up his check 

the following Friday. 

21. Plaintiff was told that he was being terminated for days that he missed previously, 

but that reason is pretext. 

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE ADA – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

22. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-21

above as if set out in full herein.

23. Plaintiff suffered a hand injury and immediately notified his supervisor.

24. Plaintiff went to the hospital and was subsequently diagnosed with a broken hand.

25. Plaintiff’s condition qualifies as a disability or was regarded as a disability by 

Defendant, within the meaning of the ADA.

26. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s medical condition. 

27. At all times during his employment, Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential 

functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodations. 

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 4 of 7
5

28. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices and 

discrimination in violation of the ADA by treating Plaintiff differently than similarly situated 

employees in the terms and conditions of his employment. 

29. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disabilities, in violation of 

the ADA. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s disability was a motivating factor in the Defendant’s decision 

to discriminate against Plaintiff.

30. Any alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of Plaintiff’s 

employment asserted by Defendant is a mere pretext for the actual reasonsforthe termination from 

employment, Plaintiff’s disability.

31. The Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights protecting a person from discrimination due to disability. The discrimination 

on the basis of disability constitutes unlawful discrimination.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, Plaintiff 

suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TYRELL MELTON respectfully requests that 

this court order the following:

a) Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for its violations of 

the ADA; 

b) Award Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe 

benefits and damages;

c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages under the ADA for embarrassment, 

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered and continues 

to suffer; 

d) Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 5 of 7
6

e) Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and 

f) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and 

just.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FCRA – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 

33. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-21

above as if set out in full herein.

34. Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff as described above is based on Plaintiff’s 

disability or Defendant’s perception of the same. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s disability was a 

motivating factor in the Defendant’s decision to discriminate against Plaintiff.

35. Defendant did not treat similarly situated, non-disabled individuals in the same 

manner.

36. Defendant thereby discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and 

benefits of his employment in violation of the FCRA. 

37. Plaintiff has been subjected to disparate treatment because of his disability or 

handicap in violation of the FCRA, and because of such actions by Defendant he has suffered both 

irreparable injury and compensable damage unless and until this Court grants relief. 

38. Defendant’s actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the 

Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to the FCRA.

39. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described actions of Defendant, 

Plaintiff has suffered, is now suffering, and will continue to suffer, emotional pain and mental 

anguish. Furthermore, as a direct and proximate result of such actions by Defendant, Plaintiff has 

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 6 of 7
7

been, is being, and will be in the future, deprived of income in the form of wages and of prospective 

benefits solely because of Defendant’s conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TYRELL MELTON respectfully requests that 

this court order the following:

a) Issue a declaration that the acts and practices of Defendant complained of in 

this Complaint are in violation of the FCRA;

b) Award injunctive relief ordered by the Court enjoining and permanently 

restraining these violations of the FCRA by Defendant; 

c) Award actual damages suffered, including lost wages, loss of fringe benefits 

and damages;

d) Award compensatory damages for past, present, and future mental anguish, 

pain and suffering, and humiliation caused by Defendant’s intentional 

discrimination, according to proof; 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated: September 28, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Brandon J. Gibson

Brandon J. Gibson 

Florida Bar No.: 0099411

E-mail: bgibson@rtrlaw.com

REIFKIND, THOMPSON, & RUDZINSKI, LLP

3333 W. Commercial Blvd, Ste. 200

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

Telephone : (954) 370-5152

Facsimile : (954) 370-1992

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23148-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 7 of 7