1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

RENEE HELMKE,

 Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.:

CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, RENEE HELMKE, and sues Defendant and states 

as follows:

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 29 U.S.C. §1331 as this action 

arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131.

VENUE

Venue is proper in this Court as Defendant is a city located in St. Lucie 

County within the Southern District.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been met. Plaintiff 

filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

Commission on May 3, 2022, which was within 300 days of the discriminatory act. 

See Exhibit A. Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue on September 6, 2022 and

is filing suit within 90 days. See Exhibit B.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff has been working for the City of Port St. Lucie as a Special 

Assessment Accountant since July 10, 2017.

2. Plaintiff has suffered from Lupus and related autoimmune issues, since she 

was approximately 25 years old and only had minor flare ups.

3. However, over the last few years, Plaintiff has undergone increasing levels 

of stress that caused more frequent flare ups of her lupus.

4. Due to the increased flare ups, Plaintiff requested and was authorized to 

take Family Medical Leave on an intermittent basis.

5. When COVID began in approximately March 2020, many employees of 

Defendant who did not have Lupus or any autoimmune disease were being 

sent home and permitted to work from home.

6. Due to Plaintiff’s Lupus and related autoimmune disease, in March 2020 

she verbally asked to work remotely. 

7. Beginning in June through August 2020, Plaintiff’s supervisor began 

continually asking her when she was going to return to the office in person 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

as other staff (without autoimmune issues) were coming back to work in 

person.

8. In mid-August 2020, Plaintiff put in a formal request for several 

accommodations, including to work from home.

9. Plaintiff was confident that she could perform all of her job duties at home 

if she was provided with certain accommodations in addition to allowing 

her to work remotely from home.

10.Specifically, Plaintiff requested that be given flex time to attend doctor’s 

appointments, meaning that she would be allowed to take time off during 

the regular workday to attend doctor’s appointments, but then would 

make up the time she missed.

11.Plaintiff also requested additional technology consisting of a 2nd monitor, a 

detached mouse, and a more advanced version of the Adobe program.

12. While Plaintiff was granted the request to work remotely, she was advised 

that the remainder of her requested accommodations would have to be 

determined by her supervisor.

13. Plaintiff’s supervisor denied the additional requested accommodations 

and, in fact, chastised Plaintiff for having made the request. 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

14. Specifically, Plaintiff’s supervisor stated it “took balls” for her to ask for 

more technology to do her job “while she chooses to work from home.”

15. Subsequently, the same supervisor asked Plaintiff how she could be 

productive at home without a second monitor, which is exactly one of the 

accommodations that Plaintiff requested.

16. Regardless, Plaintiff found a way to perform the duties of her job remotely 

from March 2020 to June 2021.

17. While Plaintiff was working from home, she was required to submit a list of 

tasks completed each week, which other employees without disabilities 

that were working from home were not required to complete.

18. From the time Plaintiff began working from home, her supervisor 

continually asked when she would be returning partially in person.

19. In Spring 2021, Plaintiff’s physical condition began to improve, and her 

doctor authorized her to return two times a week for four-hour periods 

each time in order to test the impact of returning to work on Plaintiff’s 

immune system. Plaintiff continued working from home the remaining days 

and hours of the workweek. 

20. As soon as Plaintiff returned to work, her supervisor began harassing her 

about when the number of days she could work would be increased and 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

why she was limited to four hours instead of eight hours on the days that 

she was working in person.

21. Plaintiff reported to the Director that her supervisor was harassing and/or 

discriminating against her based on her disability.

22. The Defendant has a policy that requires any claim of harassment and/or 

discrimination that is reported to a supervisor, be reported to Human 

Resources for investigation, which did not occur. 

23. On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff’s treating physician indicated that she could 

return to work full-time on December 21, 2021, but it was medically 

necessary for her to work remotely.

24. Since Plaintiff had been working remotely full-time from March 2020 

through June 20211, there should have been no issue with her working 

remotely. 

25. Defendant notified Plaintiff that she could not perform the essential 

functions of her job working remotely on a full-time basis.

26. Even though the intent of the doctor’s note was to allow her to work 

remotely from home, the Defendant took the position that Plaintiff’s 

1

In April 2021, Plaintiff began working 2 days a week for 4 hours per day in person and the remaining 3 days a 

week as well as the other 4 hours per day remotely. 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

absence from work was for an indeterminate duration. 

27. Regardless, Plaintiff had been working remotely for an extended period of 

time while performing the essential duties of her job.

28. Plaintiff was notified on December 22, 2021, that her separation from the 

City was effective upon receipt of the email correspondence. 

29. Even prior to COVID, other individuals were permitted to work from home 

and continued to do so while Plaintiff was terminated for requesting an 

accommodation to continue to work from home.

COUNT 1 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Plaintiff incorporates all prior paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

30.Plaintiff’s Lupus constitutes disability within the meaning of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 

31. Plaintiff was a qualified individual since she was able to perform all the 

essential duties of her job. 

32. Due to COVID, there was a concern that Plaintiff, due to her Lupus and 

related autoimmune disease, should limit her contact with other 

individuals. 

33. Accordingly, in mid-August 2020, Plaintiff requested several reasonable 

accommodations one of which was to work remotely.

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

34. Plaintiff was granted to request to work remotely but was denied the 

reasonable requested accommodation for additional technology, which 

consisted of a 2nd monitor, a detached mouse, and a more advanced 

version of the Adobe program.

35. Plaintiff was denied the additional request for technology even though 

providing those accommodations would not have created an undue 

hardship for Defendant.

36. Regardless, Plaintiff performed all of the essential duties of her job while 

working remotely from home from March August 2020 through June 2021. 

37. Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment when she was required to 

perform additional terms and conditions of her remote employment that 

other, non-disabled employees, were not subject to performing.

38.From March 2020, Plaintiff’s supervisor harassed her about returning to 

work in person.

39.In April 2021, Plaintiff’s physical condition had improved so her doctor 

authorized her to return to work in person twice a week for four hours each 

time. 

40.As soon as she returned, Plaintiff was subjected to harassment by her 

supervisor about when Plaintiff could increase the number of days she was 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

working in person and why she was limited to four hours on the days she 

was working in person.

41. Plaintiff reported the harassment, but no investigation took place, and no 

discipline was issued to her supervisor. 

42. Plaintiff’s condition worsened when she returned to work part-time onsite, so she requested an additional accommodation of leave from June 

2021, through December 31, 2021, which was granted.

43. Prior to the expiration of her approved leave, Plaintiff’s doctor authorized 

her to return to work full-time on December 21, 2021 but indicated that it 

was medically necessary that Plaintiff be permitted to work remotely.

44. Since Plaintiff could not physically return to work at the workplace, her 

employment was terminated.

WHEREFORE. Plaintiff demands judgment for lost wages/back pay, 

benefits, including lost retirement, front pay, emotional distress damages, 

including but not limited to damage to Plaintiff’s reputation and all other 

compensatory damages allowable under law, attorney’s fees and costs and 

any other relief that the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 8 of 9
9

Dated: December 1, 2022, Respectfully submitted,

/s/Beth Coke

Beth Coke

Fla. Bar. #70726

Beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com

Coke Employment Law

131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204

Fort Pierce, Fl. 34950

Telephone: (772) 252-4230

Facsimile: (772) 252-4575

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 9 of 9