-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

MIRTHA MAZA-TEJEDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SEABOARD SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant. /

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MIRTHA MAZA-TEJEDA (“MAZA-TEJEDA”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, brings this Complaint against Defendant, SEABOARD SOLUTIONS, INC.

(“SEABOARD”), and in support of his claims states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et. seq., ("FMLA").

2. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida, because 

all of the events giving rise to these claims arose in this County.

PARTIES

3. MAZA-TEJEDA is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, over eighteen (18) 

years of age, and is otherwise sui juris. MAZA-TEJEDA was an "eligible employee" within the 

meaning of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C § 2611(2).

4. SEABOARD is authorized to do business and is doing business in the State of 

Florida. SEABOARD was an "employer" within the meaning of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4).

Case 1:22-cv-23998-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 5
Mirtha Maza-Tejeda vs.

Seaboard Solutions, Inc.

Complaint

-2-

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5. This is an action to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff while employed by 

Defendant when Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for exercising these same rights.

6. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from April 2019 until she wasforced to tender 

her resignation effective on July 31, 2021.

7. Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendant, and she worked at least 1,250 

hours in the twelve months preceding her request for leave under the FMLA.

8. On or about February 4, 2021, Plaintiff became ill with Covid-19 requiring her to 

receive medical attention and to quarantine per the recommendation of the U.S. Center for Disease 

Control.

9. In addition to Plaintiff herself, Plaintiff’s husband and two adult children all tested 

positive for Covid-19 during the same week and required medical care/attention.

10. Plaintiff immediately notified Defendant’s human resources department and her 

direct supervisor, Heidi Artidiello of her positive Covid-19 test result and her need for leave.

11. Plaintiff frequently experienced Covid-19 related symptoms and required leave, for 

which she was eligible under the FMLA.

12. Although Plaintiff kept Defendant apprised of her serious health condition, 

Defendant required Plaintiff to use all her paid time off and ceased paying Plaintiff during her 

recovery from Covid-19 prior to providing her the information to request FMLA.

13. Plaintiff immediately applied for FMLA benefits through Defendant’s benefits 

provider, but was denied FMLA benefits, including her regular salary.

Case 1:22-cv-23998-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 5
Mirtha Maza-Tejeda vs.

Seaboard Solutions, Inc.

Complaint

-3-

14. Plaintiff spent nearly two months testing positive for Covid-19, before testing 

negative and gradually regaining her health back.

15. Plaintiff despite dealing with the lingering effects of Covid-19 was able to return 

gradually to working full time over the several months after her diagnosis.

16. Upon Plaintiff’s return, Defendant reprimanded Plaintiff for requesting FMLA and 

for not coming into work while still testing positive for Covid-19.

17. Defendant also placed blame on Plaintiff for the backlog of work, stating Plaintiff 

should have come in to work instead of staying home while recovering from Covid-19.

18. Defendant engaged in a pattern of harassment upon Plaintiff’s return to work that 

caused her to feel uncomfortable and guilt stricken over having contracted Covid-19. 

19. Thereafter, Defendant took adverse employment action against Plaintiff, including 

subjecting Plaintiff to discipline for activity that was covered under the FMLA, and harassing 

Plaintiff to the point to which Plaintiff was forced to resign her employment for exercising her

rights under the FMLA.

20. Defendant’s actions described above were so severe that Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer permanent and irreparable psychological damage which requires continual 

treatment and therapy.

21. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent, or they have been waived.

22. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a fee.

COUNT I

FMLA INTERFERENCE

23. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 22.

Case 1:22-cv-23998-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 3 of 5
Mirtha Maza-Tejeda vs.

Seaboard Solutions, Inc.

Complaint

-4-

24. Plaintiff required time off from work to care for herself, because she suffered from 

a serious health condition within the meaning of the FMLA. requiring leave protected under the 

FMLA.

25. Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's FMLA rights by failing to notify Plaintiff of 

her rights under the FMLA, and reprimanding Plaintiff for tardiness/absenteeism that was covered 

under the FMLA.

26. Plaintiff exercised Plaintiffs FMLA rights, and Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's 

rights under the FMLA, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 2614(a)(1)(A) and 2615(a)(2).

27. Defendant's actions were willful and done with malice.

28. Plaintiff was injured due to Defendant's violations of the FMLA, for which Plaintiff 

is entitled to legal and injunctive relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: (a) That this Court enter a judgment that Defendant 

interfered with Plaintiff:; rights in violation of the FMLA; (b) An injunction restraining continued 

violation of the FMLA; (c) Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration; (d) 

Front pay; (e) Liquidated Damages; (f) Prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained;

(g) All costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; and (h) For such further relief 

as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT II

FMLA RETALIATION

29. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 22.

30. Plaintiff required time off from work to care for herself, because she suffered from 

a serious health condition within the meaning of the FMLA, requiring leave protected under the 

FMLA.

Case 1:22-cv-23998-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 4 of 5
Mirtha Maza-Tejeda vs.

Seaboard Solutions, Inc.

Complaint

-5-

31. Plaintiff attempted to exercise Plaintiff's FMLA rights.

32. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for attempting to exercise her FMLA rights.

33. Defendant's actions were willful and done with malice.

34. Plaintiff was injured due to Defendant's violations of the FMLA, for which Plaintiff 

is entitled to legal and injunctive relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: (a) That this Court enter a judgment that Defendant 

retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA; (b) An injunction restraining continued 

violation of the FMLA; (c) Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration; (d)

Front pay; (e) Liquidated Damages; (f) Prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained;

(g) All costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; and (h) For such further relief 

as the Court deems just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

DATED THIS 8th OF DECEMBER, 2022

/s/ Jose-Trelles Herrera 

JOSE-TRELLES HERRERA, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 113685

HERRERA LAW FIRM, P.A.

P.O. Box 442968

Miami, Florida 33144

Tel: (305) 445-1100 / Fax: (305) 221-8805

E-mail: JTHerrera@Herreralawfirm.com

 VTarajano@Herreralawfirm.com

Case 1:22-cv-23998-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 5 of 5