Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.

KAYLA RICHMOND, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

EXCLUSIVE JETS, LLC dba

flyExclusive, 

Defendant. 

_________________________/

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, KAYLA RICHMOND (“Richmond”), by and through her undersigned 

counsel, hereby files this Complaint and sues the Defendant, EXCLUSIVE JETS, LLC 

dba flyExclusive (“flyExclusive”) and as grounds therefor state as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action is for pregnancy discrimination brought by Kayla Richmond 

against her former employer, flyExclusive, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and the Florida Civil 

Rights Act (“FCRA”). 

2. Richmond timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Florida Commission on Human 

Relations (“FCHR”). The EEOC undertook an investigation into Richmond’s allegations 

and issued a Cause Finding, finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 1 of 14
Page 2 of 7

Richmond had been fired because of her pregnancy. A true and correct copy of the 

Cause Finding is attached as Exhibit A. 

3. The EEOC undertook conciliation, which failed. The EEOC thereafter 

issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Richmond. A true and correct copy of the Notice of 

Right to Sue is attached as Exhibit B. This lawsuit followed within 90-days of receipt of 

the Notice of Right to Sue. 

4. All conditions precedent to this action have been fulfilled.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“Title

VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. As such, the Court has original jurisdiction over the 

subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim arising

under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as this claim is so related to Plaintiff’s Title VII claim that

it forms part of the same case or controversy.

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred within this 

judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. In or about February 2021, Richmond was hired by flyExclusive to 

oversee its ground and flight operations as the Palm Beach International Airport’s onsite station manager. At the time, Richmond had been a professional pilot for eight 

years. 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 2 of 14
Page 3 of 7

9. Although Richmond was not hired to be a pilot, she negotiated continuing 

education (recurrent) training through the company as part of her compensation 

package. Remaining certified as a pilot, despite her role as manager, benefitted the 

company as well as Richmond would be qualified to move aircraft or to cover a lastminute call out.

10. Shortly after being hired, Richmond was advised that she would not be 

sent to recurrent (pilot certification) training because it was not necessary for her to 

perform her manager role as such training was not required for her management 

position, as flying was not part of her essential job functions. 

11. However, in June 2021, she was contacted by Senior Vice President of 

Operations, William Whitford, about the recurrent training. Mr. Whitford asked 

Richmond if she still wanted to attend training, and she readily acknowledged that she 

did. During this discussion, Richmond advised Mr. Whitford that she was pregnant. 

Mr. Whitford was not pleased, and responded, in a negative tone of voice, with an “Oh. 

Do you still want to go to training?” Richmond confirmed that she still wished to 

proceed with the training, and Mr. Whitford reluctantly agreed she could still go. In the

same conversation, Mr. Whitford questioned Richmond about whether she would be 

able to fly after the baby was born. 

12. In July 2021, Richmond attended the first segment of flight training and 

returned home for the weekend. She was scheduled to return to training on Monday, 

July 26, 2021. 

13. On Sunday, July 25, 2021, Richmond was told that her continued training 

was canceled. She was not given a reason, but was told she would be called back 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 7

with an explanation. She reported to work as usual on Monday, July 26, 2021 and 

worked without incident through Thursday, July 29, 2021. 

14. On Thursday afternoon, July 29, 2021, Richmond’s direct supervisor 

Robert Cali, called her and told her that the company decided to fire her. When 

Richmond asked why, Mr. Cali admitted that he did not know, and that the order had 

come down from William Whitford. 

PARTIES

15. Richmond is a female resident of Fort Pierce, Florida. Richmond was 

hired by flyExclusive to work in the Southern District of Florida, primarily stationed at the 

Palm Beach International Airport location, but covering the territory between Boca 

Raton and Vero Beach. 

16. flyExclusive is the brand name for Exclusive Jets, LLC, a company 

headquartered in Kinston, North Carolina. Exclusive Jets, LLC employed Richmond in 

the Southern District of Florida, but upon information and belief has failed to register to 

do business in the State of Florida. Upon information and belief, flyExclusive has over 

800 employees located across the country, including within Florida. flyExclusive is an 

“employer” within the meaning of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

COUNT I: TITLE VII PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

TITLE VII

17. Richmond realleges paragraphs 1 through 16. 

18. By the actions described above, flyExclusive discriminated against 

Richmond on the basis of her pregnancy by, inter alia, terminating her employment. 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 7

19. As a direct and proximate result of flyExclusive’s discrimination, Richmond 

has suffered and continues to suffer, lost wages, lost benefits, and emotional distress 

for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages.

20. flyExclusive’s discrimination against Richmond was intentional, malicious, 

and/or effected with such reckless indifference to Richmond’s protected rights that an 

award of punitive damages is appropriate. 

21. Richmond is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs under Title 

VII. 

COUNT II: TITLE VII PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

22. Richmond realleges paragraphs 1 through 16. 

23. By the actions described above, flyExclusive discriminated against 

Richmond on the basis of her pregnancy by, inter alia, terminating her employment. 

24. As a direct and proximate result of flyExclusive’s discrimination, Richmond 

has suffered and continues to suffer, lost wages, lost benefits, and emotional distress 

for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages.

25. flyExclusive’s discrimination against Richmond was intentional, malicious, 

and/or effected with such reckless indifference to Richmond’s protected rights that an 

award of punitive damages is appropriate. 

26. More than 180 days has passed since Richmond filed her charge of 

discrimination with the FCHR, and thus her state law claim is now ripe. 

26. Richmond is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the 

FCRA. 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 7

WHEREFORE, Richmond prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and 

against flyExclusive, containing the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of 

Defendants complained of herein violate the laws of the United States and the State 

of Florida; 

B. An injunction and order permanently restraining flyExclusive from

engaging in any such further unlawful conduct, including the policies and practices 

complained of herein;

C. An award of damages against flyExclusive, in an amount to be

determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Richmond for all

monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, an award of back pay

and loss of benefits through the date of trial and front pay and future loss of benefits if 

the equitable remedies of employment, reinstatement and promotion are not feasible;

D. An award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

E. Prejudgment interest on all amounts due;

F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

G. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs further demand trial by jury for all issues so triable.

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 7

Respectfully Submitted,

 

/s Robyn S. Hankins

Robyn S. Hankins

Florida Bar No. 0008699

ROBYN S. HANKINS, P.L.

1217 Merlot Dr.

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 721-3890

Facsimile: (561) 721-3889

robyn@hankins-law.com

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 7 of 14
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Miami District Office

Miami Tower

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 1500

Miami, FL 33131

Intake Information Group: (800) 669-4000

Intake Information Group TTY: (800) 669-6820

Miami Status Line: (866) 408-8075

Miami Direct Dial: (305) 808-1740

TTY (305) 808-1742

FAX (305) 808-1758

EEOC Charge No: 433-2021-02459

Kayla Richmond Charging Party

9800 Miller Road

Ft. Pierce, FL 34945

And

Exclusive Jets, LLC Respondent

d/b/a Fly Exclusive

8524 NW 72nd Street

Miami, FL 33166

Letter of Determination

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the following determination as to 

the merits of the above-cited charge, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended. 

Timeliness and all other jurisdictional requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging Party alleged that she was hired by Respondent and worked as a Station Manager in 

their Palm Beach location for approximately five months without any employee misconduct or 

job performance issues. Charging Party alleges that she was terminated and retaliated against

soon after she notified her supervisor that she was pregnant and planned to stay in her position 

and undergo flight training at the company’s expense. Respondent denies the allegations and 

claims Charing Party was terminated for employee misconduct.

Having reviewed and examined the evidence, the Commission concludes that the evidence 

obtained in the investigation establishes Reasonable Cause to believe that Respondent retaliated 

and discriminated against the Charging Party based on her sex (female/pregnancy) in violation of

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended. There is reasonable cause to believe the 

reasons provided by Respondent for Charging Party’s termination were pretextual.

Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission 

attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. 

Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of 

this matter. If you wish to participate in conciliation, please email EEOC Investigator Laverne 

Foreshaw at laverne.foreshaw@eeoc.gov within 10 days from the date of this Letter of 

Determination. Please be advised that the confidentiality provisions of sections 706 and 709 of 

Title VII and the Commission’s regulations apply to information obtained during a conciliation.

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 8 of 14 Complaint Exhibit A
Letter of Determination 

EEOC Charge No. 433-2021-02459

Page 2 of 2

When the Respondent declines to enter into conciliation discussions, or when the Commission’s 

representative for any reason is unable to secure a settlement acceptable to the Commission, the 

Commission shall so inform the parties in writing and advise them of the court enforcement 

alternative available to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons and the Commission. The 

confidentiality provisions of the statute and Commission Regulations apply to information 

discussed or given during conciliation.

You are reminded that federal law prohibits retaliation against persons who have exercised their 

right to inquire or complain about matters they believe may violate the law. Discrimination 

against persons who have cooperated in Commission’s investigations is also prohibited. These 

protections apply regardless of the Commission’s determination on the merits of the charge.

On Behalf of the Commission,

 

Date Roberto Chavez

Acting District Director

cc: Respondent’s Representative Charging Party’s Representative

William Barrett, Esq. Robyn Hankins

Barrett Law Offices, PLLC Robyn Hankins Law, PLC

5. W. Hargett Street 4600 Military Trail 

Suite 910 Suite 217

Raleigh, NC 27601 Jupiter, FL 33458

8/10/2022

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 9 of 14
Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 10 of 14
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

Miami District Office 

100 SE 2nd St, Suite 1500 

Miami, FL 33131 

(800) 669-4000

Website: www.eeoc.gov

CONCILIATION FAILURE AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

(This Notice replaces EEOC FORMS 161 & 161-A) 

Issued On: 10/14/2022 

To: Mrs. Kayla D. Richmond 

9800 Muller Rd 

FORT PIERCE, FL 34945 

Charge No: 433-2021-02459 

EEOC Representative and email: Laverne Foreshaw 

Investigator

laverne.foreshaw@eeoc.gov 

CONCILIATION FAILURE OF CHARGE

To the person aggrieved: This notice concludes the EEOC’s processing of the above-numbered 

charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that violations of the statute(s) occurred with 

respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a settlement with 

the Respondent that would provide relief for you. In addition, the EEOC has decided that it will 

not bring suit against the Respondent at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this 

case. This does not mean that the EEOC is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with 

the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene later in your lawsuit if 

you decide to sue on your own behalf. 

NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHT TO SUE 

This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If 

you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) on this charge under federal law in federal 

or state court, your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice.

Receipt generally occurs on the date that you (or your representative) view this document. You 

should keep a record of the date you received this notice. Your right to sue based on this charge 

will be lost if you do not file a lawsuit in court within 90 days. (The time limit for filing a lawsuit 

based on a claim under state law may be different.) 

If you file a lawsuit based on this charge, please sign-in to the EEOC Public Portal and upload the 

court complaint to charge 433-2021-02459. 

On behalf of the Commission, 

Digitally Signed By: Evangeline Hawthorne 

10/14/2022 

Evangeline Hawthorne

Acting Director

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 11 of 14 Complaint Exhibit B
Cc:

Jennifer Mears 

FLYEXCLUSIVE 

2860 JETPORT RD 

Kinston, NC 28504 

William Barrett 

Barrett Law Offices, PLLC 

5 W HARGETT ST RM 910 

Raleigh, NC 27601 

Robyn S Hankins 

LAW OFFICE OF ROBYN S. HANKINS 

4600 Military Trail Ste. 217 

Jupiter, FL 33458 

Please retain this notice for your records. 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 12 of 14
Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (01/22)

INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC 

(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law. If you also 

plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits may be shorter and 

other provisions of State law may be different than those described below.) 

IMPORTANT TIME LIMITS – 90 DAYS TO FILE A LAWSUIT

If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge of discrimination, 

you must file a complaint in court within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Receipt 

generally means the date when you (or your representative) opened this email or mail. You should 

keep a record of the date you received this notice. Once this 90-day period has passed, your 

right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an 

attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and the record of 

your receiving it (email or envelope). 

If your lawsuit includes a claim under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), you must file your complaint 

in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the date you did not receive equal pay. 

This time limit for filing an EPA lawsuit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title 

VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under 

Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, your lawsuit 

must be filed within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPA period. 

Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. 

Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your 

attorney. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case 

which shows that you are entitled to relief. Filing this Notice is not enough. For more information 

about filing a lawsuit, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm. 

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION

For information about locating an attorney to represent you, go to: 

https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm. 

In very limited circumstances, a U.S. District Court may appoint an attorney to represent individuals 

who demonstrate that they are financially unable to afford an attorney. 

HOW TO REQUEST YOUR CHARGE FILE AND 90-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR REQUESTS

There are two ways to request a charge file: 1) a FOIA Request or 2) a Section 83 request. You may 

request your charge file under either or both procedures. EEOC can generally respond to Section 83 

requests more promptly than FOIA requests. 

Since a lawsuit must be filed within 90 days of this notice, please submit your request for the charge 

file promptly to allow sufficient time for EEOC to respond and for your review. Submit a signed 

written request stating it is a “FOIA Request” or a “Section 83 Request” for Charge Number 433-

2021-02459 to the District Director at Roberto Chavez, 100 SE 2nd St Suite 1500 

Miami, FL 33131. 

You can also make a FOIA request online at https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login. 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 13 of 14
Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (01/22)

You may request the charge file up to 90 days after receiving this Notice of Right to Sue. After the 

90 days have passed, you may request the charge file only if you have filed a lawsuit in court and 

provide a copy of the court complaint to EEOC. 

For more information on submitting FOIA Requests and Section 83 Requests, go to: 

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/index.cfm. 

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 14 of 14