SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No.: __________________

MIGUEL MORALES, and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

D & J CONSTRUCTION INC., ATTAWAY 

ELECTRIC, INC., and RICHARD LEGER,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C § 216(B))

Plaintiff MIGUEL MORALES (the “Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated individuals sue 

defendants D & J CONSTRUCTION INC., ATTAWAY ELECTRIC, INC., and RICHARD 

LEGER (collectively, the “Defendants”) and allege:

I. JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for wrongful, retaliatory discharge of an employee in violation of 

Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes.

2. This is also an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under 

the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

29 U.S.C. § 201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”).

3. Similarly, this action involves the application of the Family and Medical Leave Act 

of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”). 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 1 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

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

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

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

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

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

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

FMLA and state claims in a single action serves the interests of judicial economy, convenience, 

consistency, and fairness to the parties.

II. VENUE

6. The Defendants D & J CONSTRUCTION INC. and ATTAWAY ELECTRIC, 

INC. (the “Corporate Defendant”) are corporations duly authorized and existing under the laws of 

the State of Florida and conducting business in Broward County, Florida.

7. The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of 

this Honorable Court. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

8. Corporate Defendants and RICHARD LEGER (the “Individual Defendant”), are 

Florida companies and a Florida resident, respectively, having their main place of business in

Broward County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for the Defendants, and at all times material 

hereto were and are engaged in interstate commerce. The Individual Defendant, upon information 

and belief, resides in Broward County, Florida.

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

Broward County, Florida.

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

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 2 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

within this judicial district and because the Defendants have their principal place of business within 

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

stored or have been administered in Broward County, Florida.

III. CORPORATE DEFENDANTS ARE JOINT EMPLOYERS, AN 

INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE, OR AGENTS OF EACH OTHER

11. The Corporate Defendants share common ownership, common management, 

centralized control of labor relations, a common office, and interrelated operations. The Corporate 

Defendants are an integrated enterprise under the law. Alternatively, each company is a covered 

enterprise under the law, or each company is an agent of the other.

12. The Corporate Defendants share employees or interchange employees, work in the 

direct interest of one another, and their employees are in the common control of both companies. 

The Corporate Defendants are joint employers. Alternatively, each company is a covered 

enterprise under the law, or each company is an agent of the other. 

13. Each Corporate Defendant is sued individually, as a joint enterprise, as joint 

employers, and as agent of the other.

14. Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendants are owned and managed by 

members of the same family. 

IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

15. At all times material, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a 

construction worker/technician from on or about August of 2015 until July 2019 and then from 

January 2020 until his wrongful termination in March of 2022. 

16. The Plaintiff performed his work competently and to Defendants’ standards. He 

was never reprimanded by Defendants.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 3 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

17. Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a construction worker/technician. 

18. Specifically, Plaintiff began doing construction work for the Defendants at Publix 

in locations in Miami-Dade, Broward and Monroe counties including and Super Market Store # 

1072, located in Hialeah, Florida ("Publix"). 

19. Plaintiff work scheduled varied depending on what location, however, Plaintiff 

routinely worked the evening/night shift, which ended at around 1-2 in the morning. Defendants 

paid Plaintiff an hourly rate of approximately $27 per hour. 

20. On or about February 10, 2022, while working at Publix store #1072 in the meat 

preparation room, Plaintiff came into contact with extremely hazardous and contaminated water, 

which caused a severe infection to Plaintiff's foot. 

21. On or around February 11, 2022, Plaintiff's supervisor, Vincent Pace a/k/a "Vinny," 

had a conversation with Plaintiff about the contaminated water incident and Plaintiff's resulting 

injury to his foot. 

22. Plaintiff reported his work-related accident and injury to Mr. Pace. 

23. During this conversation, Plaintiff told Mr. Pace that he was not feeling well at all. 

In response, Mr. Pace told Plaintiff "Sleep it off" and come back to work when you feel better. 

24. Plaintiff began feeling worse and worse. As his physical condition deteriorated, 

Plaintiff went to an urgent care center and later to the emergency room at a local hospital. 

25. At the hospital, Plaintiff was promptly admitted and underwent emergency surgery 

to save his foot from the infection. 

26. Plaintiff’s foot was severely infected and had become an imminent threat to 

Plaintiff's life and well-being. Plaintiff’s injury to his foot constituted a serious medical condition, 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 4 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

which required hospitalization and surgery.

27. During and after his stay at the hospital, Plaintiff continuously informed Mr. Pace 

and Ms. Zoraida Delgado (the Defendants' Office Manager) about the injury to his foot and of his 

stay at the hospital. 

28. Plaintiff also inquired with Defendants about the status of his health insurance and 

specifically requested "medical leave" to treat his injury.

29. In response, and after Plaintiff sent Defendants documents related to his injury and 

treatment, Defendants told Plaintiff "You have to come back to work, or we will not pay for your 

health insurance." 

30. On or about March 30, 2022, on or about 8:00 a.m., Mr. Pace called Plaintiff to an 

office and told him "Since you are not working, you have to be fired and your insurance must be 

cancelled. You do not work with us anymore." 

31. At the time of Plaintiff's termination, both Corporate Defendants worked together 

and shared employees, an office, and several construction projects. 

32. Also, during his last 3 years of employment, Plaintiff worked for Defendants 

approximately 2 weekly hours of overtime without being properly compensated at 1.5 times his 

regular hourly rate.

33. Plaintiff estimates that, subject to discovery, he is owed at least 300 hours of unpaid 

overtime.

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

been excused.

35. The Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel in order that his rights and 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 5 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

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

attorneys’ fee.

COUNT I: UNPAID OVERTIME AGAINST THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS

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

– 35 above as if set out in full herein. 

37. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

38. Corporate Defendants are Plaintiff’s joint employers, or an integrated enterprise, or 

an agent of each other. Corporate Defendants are Plaintiff’s “employer” under the Act.

39. This action is brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to recover from 

the Corporate Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as 

liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. Section 207(a)(1) of the Act 

states: “No employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 hours 

unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours abovespecified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

40. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, were

engaged in interstate commerce. 

41. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendants operated as 

organizations which sold and/or marketed their services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provided their services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendants obtained and solicited funds from 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 6 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

non-Florida sources, accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used telephonic transmissions 

going over state lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and 

otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to their employees. 

42. The annual gross revenue of each of the Corporate Defendants was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, 

by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

43. Alternatively, the combined gross revenue of both Corporate Defendants was, at all 

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

situated, by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

44. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all times

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

as defined in §§ 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act and/or the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were and/or 

are engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate Defendants. 

45. The Corporate Defendants’ business activities involve those to which the Act 

applies. The Corporate Defendants are construction companies and, through their business 

activities, affect interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendants likewise 

affects interstate commerce.

46. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a construction 

worker/technician for the Corporate Defendants’ business.

47. While employed by the Corporate Defendants, the Plaintiff routinely worked 

approximately an average of two hours of overtime per week without being compensated for those 

hours at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 7 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

48. The Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker/technician performing the 

same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated construction workers/technicians

whom the Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime 

compensation.

49. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately from 

August of 2015 until July 2019 and then from January 2020 until March of 2022. In total, the 

Plaintiff worked approximately 150 compensable weeks under the Act, or 150 compensable weeks 

if counted 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

50. The Corporate Defendants paid the Plaintiff on average approximately $27 per 

hour. 

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

hire and/or from 3 (three) years back from the date of the filing of this Complaint.

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

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

wages is as follows:

a. Actual Damages: $12,150.00

i. Calculation: $27 (hourly pay) x 1.5 (overtime rate) x 2 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 150 (compensable weeks) = $12,150.00

b. Liquidated Damages: $12,150.00

c. Total Damages: $24,300.00 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

53. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendants failed to comply with Title 

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

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 8 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

similarly situated performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the 

Act, but no provision was made by the Corporate Defendants to properly pay them at the rate of 

time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in 

the Act. The additional persons who may become plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid 

employees and/or former employees of the Corporate Defendants who are and who were subject 

to the unlawful payroll practices and procedures of the Corporate Defendants and were not paid 

time-and-one-half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty. 

54. The Corporate Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions 

of the Act concerning the payment of overtime wages and remain owing the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s and those 

similarly situated employees’ employment with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above, and 

the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

55. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants never posted any notice, as 

required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights to overtime and minimum 

wage payments. 

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

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

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

Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

57. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 9 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

Court: 

a. Enter judgment for the Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Corporate 

Defendants on the basis of the Corporate Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

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

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

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

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

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

COUNT II: UNPAID OVERTIME AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT

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

35 above as if set out in full herein. 

59. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

60. This action is brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to recover from 

the Individual Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as 

liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. Section 207(a)(1) of the Act 

states: “No employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 hours 

unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours abovespecified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

61. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, were 

engaged in interstate commerce. 

62. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendants operated as 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 10 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

organizations which sold and/or marketed their services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provided their services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendants obtained and solicited funds from 

non-Florida sources, accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used telephonic transmissions 

going over state lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and 

otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to their employees. 

63. The annual gross revenue of each of the Corporate Defendants was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, 

by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

64. Alternatively, the combined gross revenue of both Corporate Defendants was, at all 

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

situated, by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

65. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all times 

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

as defined in §§ 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act and/or the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were and/or 

are engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate Defendants. 

66. The Corporate Defendants’ business activities involve those to which the Act 

applies. The Corporate Defendants are construction companies and, through their business 

activities, affect interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendants likewise 

affects interstate commerce.

67. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a construction 

worker/technician for the Corporate Defendants’ business.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 11 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

68. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff routinely worked approximately 

an average of two hours of overtime per week without being compensated for those hours at the 

rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. 

69. The Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker/technician performing the 

same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated construction workers/technicians

whom the Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime 

compensation.

70. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately August of 

2015 until July 2019 and then from January 2020 until his wrongful termination in March of 2022. 

In total, the Plaintiff worked approximately 150 compensable weeks under the Act, or 150 

compensable weeks if counted 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

71. The Corporate Defendants paid the Plaintiff on average approximately $27 per 

hour. 

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

hire and/or from 3 (three) years back from the date of the filing of this Complaint.

73. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant was, and is now, the owner and/or 

main officer of the Corporate Defendants. The Individual Defendant was an employer of the 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act in that the 

Individual Defendant acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the Corporate Defendants in 

relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including the Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated. The Individual Defendant had operational control of the Corporate Defendants, was 

involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendants, provided the Plaintiff with his 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 12 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

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

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

Corporate Defendants’ financial affairs and could cause the Corporate Defendants to compensate 

(or not to compensate) their employees in accordance with the Act.

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

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

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

employment with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above. 

76. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable 

Court: 

a. Enter judgment for the Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Individual 

Defendant on the basis of the Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

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

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

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

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

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

COUNT III: RETALIATION (INTIMIDATION & COERSION) – Fla. Stat. § 440.205

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

35 above as if set out in full herein. 

78. At all times relevant, the Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 13 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

construction worker/ technician.

79. On or about February 10, 2022, the Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury. The 

injury happened while the Plaintiff was working for the Corporate Defendants.

80. The injury alleged above required medical treatment.

81. After the work-related accident as described above, the Plaintiff reported his 

injuries to the Corporate Defendants and requested medical treatment.

82. Fla. Stat. § 440.205 states: “No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, 

intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation 

or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law”.

83. The Plaintiff made a valid claim for compensation or attempted to claim 

compensation under the Worker’s Compensation Law.

84. When the Corporate Defendants threatened Plaintiff with taking away his health 

insurance if he did not come back to work while injured, the Corporate Defendants intimidated or 

coerced the Plaintiff.

85. The sole apparent reason for the intimidation, harassment, or coercion of the 

Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff sought or attempted to seek compensation under the Workers’ 

Compensation Law, as the Plaintiff was entitled to do.

86. A motivating factor which caused the Plaintiff’s intimidation, harassment, or 

coercion as described above was the request and/or attempted request for worker’s compensation 

benefits pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 440 et. seq. Alternatively, the Plaintiff would not have been 

coerced, harassed, or intimidated but for his claiming worker’s compensation benefits as described 

above.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 14 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

87. The Corporate Defendants’ harassment, intimidation, or coercion of the Plaintiff 

was in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 440.205 and, as a direct result, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

88. By reason of the Corporate Defendants’ wrongful coercion, intimidation, or 

harassment of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has been damaged in that the Plaintiff has suffered lost 

wages and suffered severe emotional distress.

89. The Corporate Defendants’ conduct in wrongfully coercing, intimidating, or 

harassing the Plaintiff was willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Corporate 

Defendants for all back wages from the date it first harassed, coerced, or intimidated the Plaintiff 

to the present; front wages; compensatory mental damages; and for any and all other relief that 

this Court may deem just and proper. 

COUNT IV: RETALIATION (TERMINATION) – Fla. Stat. § 440.205

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

35 above as if set out in full herein. 

91. At all times relevant, the Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a

construction worker/ technician.

92. On or about February 10, 2022, the Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury. The 

injury happened while the Plaintiff was working for the Corporate Defendants.

93. The injury alleged above required medical treatment.

94. After the work-related accident as described above, the Plaintiff reported his 

injuries to the Corporate Defendants and requested medical treatment.

95. In response, the Corporate Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 15 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

96. Fla. Stat. § 440.205 states: “No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, 

intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or 

attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law”.

97. The Plaintiff’s work prior to his discharge was satisfactory or more than satisfactory 

and the sole apparent reason for the termination of the Plaintiff’s employment was that the Plaintiff 

sought or attempted to seek compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law, as the Plaintiff 

was entitled to do.

98. A motivating factor which caused the Plaintiff’s discharge as described above was 

the request and/or attempted request for worker’s compensation benefits pursuant to Fla. Stat. 

§§ 440 et. seq. Alternatively, the Plaintiff would not have been fired but for his claiming worker’s 

compensation benefits as described above.

99. The Corporate Defendants’ termination of the Plaintiff was in direct violation of 

Fla. Stat. § 440.205 and, as a direct result, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

100. By reason of Corporate Defendants’ wrongful discharge of the Plaintiff, the 

Plaintiff has been damaged in that the Plaintiff has suffered lost wages and emotional distress.

101. The Corporate Defendants’ conduct in wrongfully discharging the Plaintiff was 

willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Corporate 

Defendants for all back wages from the date of discharge to the present; front wages; compensatory 

mental damages; and for any and all other relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT V: INTERFERENCE (FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION) – FMLA

102. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 35 as if fully stated herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 16 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

103. At all times material to this Complaint, the Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” as 

defined by the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A).

104. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants for at least 12 months before the 

date any FMLA leave was to begin.

105. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants for at least 1,250 hours during 

the 12-month period before the date any FMLA leave was to begin.

106. The Plaintiff was entitled to the FMLA leave because he had an FMLA-qualifying 

reason. Specifically, Plaintiff had a serious health condition that prevented Plaintiff from 

performing the functions of his job.

107. At all times material, the Corporate Defendants were “employers,” “joint 

employers,” or jointly an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4).

108. The Corporate Defendants were both engaged in commerce or in an industry or 

activity affecting commerce and jointly employed more than 50 employees for each working day 

during each of 20 or more calendar weeks in each calendar year relevant hereto.

109. At all times material, the Plaintiff gave proper notice to the Corporate Defendants

by informing the Corporate Defendants of his qualifying reason. 

110. The Plaintiff provided enough information for the Corporate Defendants to know 

that his potential leave may be covered by the FMLA. 

111. The Corporate Defendants were aware of the Plaintiff’s qualifying reason.

112. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff communicated with the Corporate 

Defendants regarding his medical condition. 

113. Despite their knowledge of the Plaintiff’s medical condition, the Corporate 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 17 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff of his eligibility status and rights under the FMLA and 

failed to notify the Plaintiff whether his leave was or could be designated as FMLA leave. 

114. Instead of informing the Plaintiff of his rights, the Corporate Defendants terminated 

the Plaintiff for no cause. 

115. When the Corporate Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff of his eligibility status 

and rights under the FMLA and failed to notify the Plaintiff whether his leave was or could be 

designated as FMLA leave, the Corporate Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff’s rights to take 

leave under the FMLA and denied him the benefits to which he was entitled. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Enter judgment in the Plaintiff’s favor and against the Corporate Defendants for their 

violations of the FMLA; 

b. Award the Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including back pay, front pay, loss of 

benefits, future pecuniary loss, lost future earnings capacity;

c. Award the Plaintiff liquidated damages based on the Corporate Defendants’ conduct; 

d. Award the Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his/her damages award; 

e. Award the Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; 

f. Award the Plaintiff any further relief pursuant to the FMLA; and,

g. Grant the Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VI: INTERFERENCE (TERMINATION) – FMLA

116. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 35 as if fully stated herein.

117. At all times material to this Complaint, the Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” as 

defined by the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A).

118. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants for at least 12 months before the 

date any FMLA leave was to begin.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 18 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

119. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants for at least 1,250 hours during 

the 12-month period before the date any FMLA leave was to begin.

120. The Plaintiff was entitled to the FMLA leave because he had an FMLA-qualifying 

reason. Specifically, the Plaintiff had a serious health condition that prevented Plaintiff from 

performing the functions of his job.

121. At all times material, the Corporate Defendants were an “employer,” “joint 

employers,” or jointly an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4).

122. The Corporate Defendants were both engaged in commerce or in an industry or 

activity affecting commerce and jointly employed more than 50 employees for each working day 

during each of 20 or more calendar weeks in each calendar year relevant hereto.

123. At all times material, the Plaintiff gave proper notice to the Corporate Defendants

by informing the Corporate Defendants of his qualifying reason. 

124. The Plaintiff provided enough information for the Corporate Defendants to know 

that his potential leave may be covered by the FMLA. 

125. The Corporate Defendants were aware of the Plaintiff’s qualifying reason.

126. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff communicated with the Corporate 

Defendants regarding his medical condition. 

127. Despite their knowledge of the Plaintiff’s medical condition, the Corporate 

Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff of his eligibility status and rights under the FMLA and 

failed to notify the Plaintiff whether his leave was or could be designated as FMLA leave. 

128. Instead of informing the Plaintiff of his rights, the Corporate Defendants terminated 

the Plaintiff for no cause. 

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 19 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

129. When the Corporate Defendants terminated the Plaintiff’s employment, the 

Corporate Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff’s rights to take leave under the FMLA and 

denied him the benefits to which he was entitled. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Enter judgment in the Plaintiff’s favor and against the Corporate Defendants for their 

violations of the FMLA; 

b. Award the Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including back pay, front pay, loss of 

benefits, future pecuniary loss, lost future earnings capacity;

c. Award the Plaintiff liquidated damages based on Corporate Defendants’ conduct; 

d. Award the Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e. Award the Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; 

f. Award the Plaintiff any further relief pursuant to the FMLA; and,

g. Grant the Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VII: RETALIATION (FMLA)

130. The Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 35 as if fully stated herein. 

131. At all times material to this Complaint, the Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” as 

defined by the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A).

132. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants for at least 12 months before the 

date any FMLA leave was to begin.

133. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants for at least 1,250 hours during 

the 12-month period before the date any FMLA leave was to begin.

134. The Plaintiff was entitled to the FMLA leave because he had an FMLA-qualifying 

reason. Specifically, the Plaintiff had a serious health condition that prevented Plaintiff from 

performing the functions of his job.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 20 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

135. At all times material, the Corporate Defendants were an “employer,” “joint 

employers,” or jointly an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4).

136. The Corporate Defendants were both engaged in commerce or in an industry or 

activity affecting commerce and jointly employed more than 50 employees for each working day 

during each of 20 or more calendar weeks in each calendar year relevant hereto.

137. At all times material, the Plaintiff gave proper notice to the Corporate Defendants 

by informing the Corporate Defendants of his qualifying reason. 

138. The Plaintiff provided enough information for the Corporate Defendants to know 

that his potential leave may be covered by the FMLA. 

139. The Corporate Defendants were aware of the Plaintiff’s qualifying reason.

140. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff communicated with the Corporate 

Defendants regarding his medical condition. 

141. Despite their knowledge of the Plaintiff’s medical condition, the Corporate 

Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff of his eligibility status and rights under the FMLA and 

failed to notify the Plaintiff whether his leave was or could be designated as FMLA leave. 

142. Instead of informing the Plaintiff of his rights, the Corporate Defendants terminated 

the Plaintiff for no cause. 

143. The Corporate Defendants terminated the Plaintiff following her request for 

medical leave.

144. The Corporate Defendants have intentionally engaged in unlawful employment 

practices in violation of the FMLA, by retaliating against the Plaintiff for requesting medical leave.

145. The Plaintiff’s medical leave request was a direct and proximate cause of his

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 21 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

termination from employment with the Corporate Defendants.

146. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional violations by the Corporate 

Defendants of the Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA, by retaliating against him by terminating his

employment for having requested medical leave, the Plaintiff has been damaged in that the Plaintiff 

lost, inter alia, wages, other compensation, and benefits, including health insurance.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Enter judgment in the Plaintiff’s favor and against the Corporate Defendants for their 

violations of the FMLA; 

b. Award the Plaintiff actual damages suffered, including back pay, front pay, loss of 

benefits, future pecuniary loss, lost future earnings capacity;

c. Award the Plaintiff liquidated damages based on the Corporate Defendants’ conduct; 

d. Award the Plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award; 

e. Award the Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; 

f. Award the Plaintiff any further relief pursuant to the FMLA; and,

g. Grant the Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

right.

Dated: December 14, 2022.

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 22 of 23
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

Respectfully submitted,

By:__/s/Julisse Jimenez

Julisse Jimenez, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 65387

 Email: julisse@saenzanderson.com

R. Martin Saenz, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 0640166

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-62338-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 23 of 23