1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

MICHAEL BEATTIE, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.,

d/b/a BMW OF FORT LAUDERDALE,

a Florida Profit Corporation, 

Defendant. 

______________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MICHAEL BEATTIE (“BEATTIE” or Plaintiff), by and through his

undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, HOLMAN 

AUTOMOTIVE, INC., d/b/a BMW OF FORT LAUDERDALE (hereinafter “HOLMAN” or 

“Defendant”) and says: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought against Defendant for its unlawful employment practices 

pursuant to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), § 706(f) (42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-5(f)), which incorporates by reference the Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified at 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 2000e, et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Chapter 760, Fla. Stat.

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the claims herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1343, and 1367. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because 

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in this District; because Defendant, at all material times, 

conducted and continues to conduct business in the Southern District of Florida; because the 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 19
2 

actions which give rise to Plaintiff’s claims happened within the Southern District of Florida; and 

because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction herein. 

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

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, over the age of 18 years 

and otherwise suis juris. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendant as sales manager and financial consultant. 

6. Plaintiff is an Asian male who experienced disparate treatment, a hostile work 

environment, and retaliation on the basis of his race and/or national origin. Plaintiff is therefore a 

member of a class protected under Title VII and the FCRA because the terms, conditions, and 

privileges of his employment were altered because of his race and/or national origin. 

7. Defendant is a Florida corporation registered to do business within Florida, with a 

car dealership in Fort Lauderdale, Florida where Plaintiff was employed during the relevant time 

period to this Complaint. 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. 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 Title VII and the FCRA (42 U.S.C. §2000e(b); Fla. Stat. §760.02(7)). 

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

discrimination against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) which was dually filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”)

pursuant to the work-sharing agreement between the EEOC and the FCHR. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 2 of 19
3 

10. Plaintiff filed his charge on or about March 10, 2021, which was no more than 

300 days after the last discriminatory event occurred, to wit: February 17, 2021. 

11. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Suit Rights on September 7, 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”).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiff, an Asian male, worked for Defendant for over ten years until his 

termination on February 17, 2021. 

13. In 2015, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its Audi car dealership. 

14. While working at Audi, Plaintiff met Gene Welsh (“Welsh”), Senior Vice 

President and John Jones (“Jones”), Assistant General Manager. 

15. Both Welsh and Jones showed a clear disdain for Asians by making offensive 

comments about Asians in Plaintiff’s presence on numerous occasions. 

16. Upon meeting Welsh and Jones, Plaintiff’s upward trajectory of his career path 

inexplicably changed. 

17. Plaintiff was transferred from Audi, a German Brand, to Honda and then to 

Infiniti, both Asian brands. 

18. Prior to his transfer, Plaintiff had only worked with German cars and did not have 

any experience with Asian cars. 

19. While working at Infiniti, Plaintiff was employed as a sales manager.

20. At the time of Plaintiff’s transfers to these two dealerships, both dealerships were 

struggling. 

21. Due to its struggles, the Infiniti dealership was ultimately closed in May 2020. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 3 of 19
4

22. Once the Infiniti dealership closed, Plaintiff was assigned to BMW as a finance 

consultant. 

23. Plaintiff’s assignment as a finance consultant was a demotion from his position as 

a sales manager.

24. Plaintiff demotion was not a result of business necessity as other non-Asian 

employees were being promoted at the time of his demotion.

25. In March 2020, the company culture of hostility towards Plaintiff as the only 

Asian employee, began to get worse due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

26. Plaintiff was subjected to even more offensive comments and jokes. 

27. Plaintiff’s Caucasian co-workers were allowed to violate numerous policies with 

no or very minimal reprimands while Plaintiff’s complaints about their violations turned into 

accusations against him. 

28. For example, Plaintiff made a complaint against a co-worker for not wearing his 

mask at work while it was mandatory to do so. Instead of investigating Plaintiff’s complaint 

against his co-worker, Plaintiff was falsely accused of inappropriate behavior towards that 

particular co-worker. 

29. Plaintiff complained about the disparate treatment he received as an Asian 

employee by his managers and co-workers. 

30. Specifically, Plaintiff complained to Assistant General Manager, Keith Cordeiro 

(“Cordeiro”) on numerous occasions. 

31. Cordeiro acknowledged the unfair treatment Plaintiff was subjected to in an email 

dated August 21, 2020. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 4 of 19
5 

32. In a meeting between Jane Garofalo (“Garafalo”) from HR, Cordeiro, and 

Plaintiff on February 10, 2021, Plaintiff renewed his complaints of disparate treatment due to his 

race and/or national origin. 

33. Garofalo and Cordeiro responded to his complaint by laughing at him. 

34. Plaintiff was then terminated on February 17, 2021. 

35. Even if Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, 

Plaintiff’s race and/or national origin was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s 

disparate treatment of Plaintiff including but not limited to Defendant’s decision to terminate

Plaintiff 1

. 

36. 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. 

37. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if he is the prevailing 

party in this action. 

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE) 

38. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

39. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII for damages caused by Defendant’s 

disparate treatment of Plaintiff on the basis of race. 

40. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Asian. 

41. Plaintiff experienced discriminatory treatment due to his race. 

42. Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than Plaintiff’s non-Asian co-workers. 

Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to frequent derogatory comments, jokes, disrespectful and 

hostile treatment, a demotion, false accusations, and termination due to his race. 

 

1 Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to argue a mixed-motive theory applies to all counts contained herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 5 of 19
6

43. Due to the disparate treatment inflicted on Plaintiff on the basis of his race,

Plaintiff was terminated.

44. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual. 

45. Even if Defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, Plaintiff’s race 

was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s adverse employment decisions.

46. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as an Asian

protected under Title VII. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, 

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of is owners, supervisors and/or other employees.

47. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g) as a direct result of Defendant’s 

discriminatory actions. 

48. 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. Therefore, Plaintiff 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that:

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 Title VII;

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 6 of 19
7 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay; 

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

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

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

appropriate. 

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN)

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

50. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII for damages caused by Defendant’s 

disparate treatment of Plaintiff on the basis of national origin. 

51. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Asian. 

52. Plaintiff experienced discriminatory treatment due to his national origin.

53. Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than Plaintiff’s non-Asian co-workers. 

Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to frequent derogatory comments, jokes, disrespectful and 

hostile treatment, a demotion, false accusations, and termination due to his national origin. 

54. Due to the disparate treatment inflicted on Plaintiff on the basis of his national 

origin, Plaintiff was terminated. 

55. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual. 

56. Even if Defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, Plaintiff’s 

national origin was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s adverse employment 

decisions. 

57. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as an Asian 

protected under Title VII. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 7 of 19
8

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its owners, supervisors and/or other 

employees.

58. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g) as a direct result of Defendant’s 

discriminatory actions. 

59. 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. Therefore, Plaintiff 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that:

e. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 Title VII;

f. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay;

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

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

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

appropriate.

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 8 of 19
9 

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 

(HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

60. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

61. Plaintiff brings this action under the Title VII for damages caused by Defendant’s 

unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff by allowing and ratifying the 

disparate treatment Defendant’s supervisors inflicted on Plaintiff on the basis of race and/or 

national origin. 

62. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Asian. 

63. Plaintiff was subjected to constant and continual offensive and unwelcomed 

discriminatory conduct from his supervisors and other non-Asian co-workers, due to his race 

and/or national origin. 

64. Managers constantly treated Plaintiff less favorably than Plaintiff’s non-Asian coworkers. Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to frequent derogatory comments, jokes, 

disrespectful and hostile treatment, a demotion, and false accusations due to his race and/or 

national origin which ultimately led to his termination.

65. Defendant’s repeated and consistent disparate treatment of Plaintiff, was severe 

and/or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider 

intimidating, hostile or abusive. Defendant’s managers’ and/or other non-Asian employees’

conduct was severe and pervasive from both a subjective and objective perspective. 

66. Defendant, including its managers and/or non-Asian employees, acted with 

intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as an Asian protected under Title VII. Defendant, by 

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

conduct of its managers and non-Asian employees. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 9 of 19
10 

67. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of Title VII as a direct result of Defendant's discriminatory actions.

68. 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. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum 

according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that: 

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g); 

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay; 

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

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

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

appropriate. 

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 

(RETALIATION)

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 10 of 19
11

70. Plaintiff brings this action for retaliation in violation of Title VII. 

71. Plaintiff experienced discriminatory treatment because Plaintiff is Asian. 

72. Plaintiff complained about the discriminatory treatment due to his race and/or 

national origin. 

73. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant terminated Plaintiff.

74. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual. 

75. Plaintiff’s termination constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII. 

76. Defendant’s actions were done with malice, and with disregard for Plaintiff’s

rights under Title VII. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, 

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its owner, supervisor, and/or other employees. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to 

proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that:

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g);

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay;

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 11 of 19
12 

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

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

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

appropriate. 

COUNT V: VIOLATION OF FCRA 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE) 

77. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

78. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Fla. 

Stats. § 760.01 et seq., for damages caused by Defendant’s disparate treatment of Plaintiff. 

79. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Asian. 

80. Plaintiff experienced discriminatory treatment due to his race.

81. Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than Plaintiff’s non-Asian co-workers. 

Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to frequent derogatory comments, jokes, disrespectful and 

hostile treatment, a demotion, false accusations, and termination due to his race. 

82. Due to the disparate treatment inflicted on Plaintiff on the basis of his race, 

Plaintiff was terminated. 

83. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual. 

84. Even if Defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, Plaintiff’s race 

was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s adverse employment decisions. 

85. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as an Asian

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

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its owner and/or other employees. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 12 of 19
13 

86. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of FCRA. 

87. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were 

done with malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under FCRA. Therefore, Plaintiff is 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that: 

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 FCRA; 

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay; 

c. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with reasonable 

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

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

appropriate. 

COUNT VI: VIOLATION OF FCRA 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN)

88. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 13 of 19
14

89. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Fla. 

Stats. § 760.01 et seq., for damages caused by Defendant’s disparate treatment of Plaintiff. 

90. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Asian. 

91. Plaintiff experienced discriminatory treatment due to his national origin.

92. Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than Plaintiff’s non-Asian co-workers. 

Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to frequent derogatory comments, jokes, disrespectful and 

hostile treatment, a demotion, false accusations, and termination due to his national origin. 

93. Due to the disparate treatment inflicted on Plaintiff on the basis of his national 

origin, Plaintiff was terminated. 

94. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual. 

95. Even if Defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, Plaintiff’s 

national origin was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s adverse employment 

decisions. 

96. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as an Asian 

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

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its owner and/or other employees.

97. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of FCRA. 

98. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were 

done with malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under FCRA. Therefore, Plaintiff is 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that:

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 14 of 19
15 

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 FCRA; 

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay; 

c. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with reasonable 

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

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

appropriate. 

COUNT VII: VIOLATION OF FCRA 

(HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

99. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

100. Plaintiff brings this action under FCRA for damages caused by Defendant’s 

unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff by allowing and ratifying the 

disparate treatment Defendant’s supervisors inflicted on Plaintiff on the basis of race and/or 

national origin. 

101. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Asian. 

102. Plaintiff was subjected to constant and continual offensive and unwelcomed 

discriminatory conduct from his managers and other non-Asian co-workers, due to his race 

and/or national origin. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 15 of 19
16

103. Managers and other non-Asian co-workers constantly treated Plaintiff less 

favorably than Plaintiff’s non-Asian co-workers. Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to frequent 

derogatory comments, jokes, disrespectful and hostile treatment, a demotion, and false 

accusations due to his race and/or national origin which ultimately led to his termination.

104. Defendant’s repeated and consistent disparate treatment of Plaintiff, was severe 

and/or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider 

intimidating, hostile or abusive. Defendant’s managers’ and/or non-Asian employees’ conduct 

was severe and pervasive from both a subjective and objective perspective.

105. Defendant, including its managers and/or non-Asian employees, acted with 

intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as an Asian protected under FCRA. Defendant, by and 

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

conduct of its manager and/or non-Asian employees.

106. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of FCRA as a direct result of Defendant's discriminatory actions.

107. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were 

done with malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under FCRA. Therefore, Plaintiff is 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that:

e. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant’s 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 16 of 19
17 

discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in 

accordance with FCRA; 

f. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay; 

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

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

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

appropriate. 

COUNT VIII: VIOLATION OF FCRA 

(RETALIATION)

108. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 37 as fully set forth herein. 

109. Plaintiff brings this action for retaliation in violation of FCRA.

110. Plaintiff experienced discriminatory treatment because Plaintiff is Asian. 

111. Plaintiff complained about the discriminatory treatment due to his race and/or 

national origin. 

112. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant terminated Plaintiff.

113. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual. 

114. Plaintiff’s termination constitutes an adverse employment action under FCRA. 

115. Defendant’s actions were done with malice, and with disregard for Plaintiff’s 

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

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of its owner, supervisors, and/or other employees. 

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 17 of 19
18 

Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to 

proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE requests that: 

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate his for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including 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 FCRA; 

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay; 

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

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

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

appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff MICHAEL BEATTIE hereby demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts 

of this Complaint so triable as a matter of right.

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 18 of 19
19 

Dated: November 30, 2022. 

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 112

 Plantation, Florida 33324

 (954) 914-7890 (Office)

 (855) 423-5298 (Facsimile)

 

 By: /s/ Charles M. Eiss 

 CHARLES M. EISS, Esq.

 Fla. Bar #612073

 chuck@icelawfirm.com

SHANNA WALL, Esq. 

Fla. Bar #0051672

shanna@icelawfirm.com

JORGE GONZALEZ, Esq.

 Fla. Bar #1038146 

 jorge@icelawfirm.com

Case 0:22-cv-62239-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 19 of 19