IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CARISA WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CVS PHARMACY, INC., and KIMBERLY 

HARRIS, individually 

Defendants, ------------------------------------------------------------------ 

CASE NO.: 

Plaintiff Demands a Trial by Jury

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff CARISA WALKER (hereinafter referred to individually as “Plaintiff” and/or 

“Ms. Walker”), by and through her undersigned counsel, Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, 

hereby complains of Defendants CVS PHARMACY, INC. and KIMBERLY HARRIS 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This employment discrimination case is about a well-recognized and 

internationally branded company who permitted its management team to subject its black, 

Jamaican-American employees to relentless racial and national origin based discrimination, 

harassment, and retaliation. 

2.Plaintiff Walker bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), 29 

U.S.C. § 2612 (“FMLA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), the Florida Civil 

Rights Act of 1992, §760.01, et seq., Florida Statutes (“FCRA”), and the Miami-Dade Code of 

Ordinances 97-17, Article IV, Chapter 11A, et seq. (“MDCO”). 

3.Plaintiff seeks monetary relief to redress the Defendants’ unlawful employment practices 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 1 of 44
in violation of the above Federal, State, and local statutes. This action seeks to redress 

Defendants’ deprivation of Plaintiff’s personal dignity and her civil right to pursue equal 

employment opportunities. 

4.At bottom, Defendants are liable for subjecting Plaintiff to a work environment rife with 

relentless, open acts of discrimination and retaliation. 

PARTIES 

5.Plaintiff Carisa Walker (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Walker”) is an individual residing in 

Pembroke Pines, Florida. 

6.Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“CVS”) is a foreign Rhode Island for profit corporation 

authorized to do business within the Florida. 

7.At all times material, Defendant CVS owned and operated CVS Pharmacy, Store No. 

5182, located at 8901 Miramar Parkway, Miramar, Florida 33025 (“Store No. 5182”). 

Defendant CVS also owned and operated CVS Pharmacy, Store No. 3607, located at 11100 

Pine Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026 (“Store No. 3607”). 

8.At all material times, Defendant CVS was Plaintiff’s sole employer. 

9.The exact number of employees at the above entity/entities is unknown, but upon 

information and belief, the Defendant CVS employed more than the number statutorily 

required. 

10. Defendant Kimberly Harris (hereinafter individually referred to as “Defendant 

Harris”) is an individual female and is believed to reside in the state of Florida. 

11. At all times material, Defendant Harris was and still is employed by Defendant 

CVS as a “CVS District Leader”. 

12. At all times material, Defendant Harris held supervisory authority over Plaintiff 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 2 of 44
with regard to her employment including but not limited to, the power to hire, fire, demote, 

promote, transfer, and discipline Plaintiff. 

13. At all times material to this action, Defendant CVS was both Plaintiff and 

Defendant Harris’s employer. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. This action is 

authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 29 U.S.C. § 2612. 

15. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the unlawful 

employment practices alleged below were committed within the jurisdiction of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Defendants’ business was and is 

still located in this judicial district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to 

this action, including the unlawful employment practices alleged herein, occurred in this 

district. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION 

16. Plaintiff Walker has complied with all statutory prerequisites to file this action. 

17. On or about January 13, 2022, the Plaintiff dual-filed her charge for 

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Florida 

Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and the Miami Dade County Commission on 

Human Rights (“MDCCHR”) as against Defendant CVS alleging the facts as set forth herein.1

18. On or about September 22, 2021, the EEOC issued the Plaintiff a Right to Sue 

Letter. 

19. Plaintiff commenced this action within ninety (90) days of receipt of the EEOC 

1

 While Plaintiff Walker’s Charge identifies Defendant Harris by name and in great detail, she is not listed as a 

“Defendant” as no such Administrative Requirement exists for Plaintiff’s Claim under Section 1981. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 3 of 44
Right to Sue Letter and after more than one-hundred eight (180) days since Plaintiff’s charge 

was initially filed. 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

20. Ms. Walker is a Jamaican American, Black woman residing in Pembroke Pines. 

21. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant CVS in 1995, at which time the location 

wherein she worked was operating under the name “Eckerd Drugs.” 

22. Beginning in 1995 and continuing through 2020, Defendant assigned Plaintiff to work at 

Store No. 5182, in Miramar, providing her decades of consistency and development. 

23. Over the course of her nearly three decades long employment, Plaintiff showed 

exemplary leadership with her co-workers, as well as undeniable interpersonal skills and sympathy in 

developing lasting relationships within the store’s community. 

24. In or around the summer of 2019, CVS hired Defendant Harris to serve as the new 

District Leader. At this time, Plaintiff and her colleagues were directed to report to Defendant Harris as 

their supervisor. 

25. From the outset, Plaintiff noticed a clear and intentional agenda set into place by 

Defendant Harris, one designed with the outright purpose of disrupting the symbiotic relationship within 

Store No. 5182 and cause the most chaos. 

26. At all times after her placement as District Leader, Defendant Harris spoke in 

disrespectful, if not openly hostile, derogatory, and authoritarian, manner when engaging with her 

minority subordinates, in particular, those who were of Jamaican dissent. 

27. Defendant Harris would boast about her purpose being purely to target and fire Ms. 

Walker. Ms. Walker was baffled, unable to understand why she was suddenly the target of a near 

stranger. 

28. To further her agenda, Defendant Harris provided her personal cell phone number to the 

store cashiers, expressly encouraging, if not requiring, them to monitor Ms. Walker personally and call 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 4 of 44
Defendant Harris directly if a cashier’s directive was not follower. By means of example and not meant to 

be and exhaustive list, Defendant Harris instructed the cashiers to report what shoes Ms. Walker wore 

each day. 

29. In or around 2019, when provided her annual review, Ms. Walker’s direct Manager, 

Chavel Ow, provided Plaintiff with a strong and favorable evaluation in line with Plaintiff’s own personal 

high standards. 

30. Despite having not personally managed or observed Plaintiff’s performance, Defendant 

Harris required Ms. Ow to adjust her evaluation, falsely lowering Plaintiff’s overall score. By means of 

example and not meant to be an exhaustive list, Ms. Ow was required to reduce Plaintiff’s evaluation 

marks wherein she was marked as “Exceeds Expectations” and “Meets Expectations” uniformly to 

“Needs Improvement” without cause. Ms. Ow later advised Plaintiff that these changes were not merit 

based but rather solely due to Ms. Ow’s own personal fear of repercussion by Defendant Harris. 

31. Furthermore, these changes were implemented at or around the time Plaintiff was out of 

work on sick leave and was unable to obtain an explanation as to the adjustment, let alone guidance on 

areas wherein she was expected to improve. 

32. None the less, Plaintiff persisted, striving to meet the unattainable goals as set by 

Defendant Harris. 

33. Furthermore, Defendant Harris took issue with Plaintiff’s religious observance. 

Plaintiff is a devout Seventh Day Adventist, and as a result, observes a strict Sabbath on 

Saturday. As a result, since the time of her employment inception in 1995, Plaintiff’s scheduled 

was adapted to ensure she was not working beginning early on Friday evenings (prior to sunset) 

and that she remained off for observance of Saturday. 

34. Despite this accommodation having been in place as business practice for over twenty 

years, Defendant Harris made it clear this would no longer be permitted. Defendant Harris advised 

Plaintiff that her religious observance was “not beneficial to the company.” 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 5 of 44
35. In or around March 2020, the global COVID-19 Pandemic crisis took a grip on society. 

As a result of the industry, Plaintiff and her colleagues became front line workers, working diligently to 

assist in any means possible in a time of uncertainty. 

36. Over the proceeding months, as the statistics shifted, guidance changed, and the world 

adapted, Defendant Harris persisted, seeking every opportunity to take issue with Plaintiff and her fellow 

minority colleagues. 

37. In October 2020, as the pandemic escalated in Florida and demand increased on the store, 

Defendant Harris illogically began cutting technician hours without explanation. This decision by 

Defendant Harris ran antithetical to corporate changes as Ms. Walker was keenly aware of the approval 

by the corporate headquarters to ensure additional hours and support to employees where necessary. 

38. As a result of the changes, Plaintiff was now required to work extensive hours alone, as 

well as many hours off the clock and without pay. On average, Plaintiff worked and additional 2-4 hours 

per day without compensation to ensure the store was able to provide necessary supports within the 

community, despite the unrealistic demands as set by Defendant Harris. 

39. Ms. Walker attempted to communicate her frustrations to Defendant Harris to no avail. 

With each request for additional support, Defendant Harris would summarily shut Ms. Walker down with 

a simple “that’s how it is now,” a passive “take it or leave it” message. 

40. As a result, Plaintiff would frequently open the store alone, serve patients in the drive 

thru as well as at the counter simultaneously, and frequently skip lunch and restroom breaks entirely as no 

coverage existed. Plaintiff was required to administer immunizations, flu shots, etc. all while having no 

support. 

41. All the while, Plaintiff colleagues made similar complaints as it related to their shifts, but 

Defendant Harris disregarded them at every turn, ignoring the impact she was having on the minority staff 

as well as outright putting the safety and health of their customers at risk. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 6 of 44
42. Simultaneously, as the burn out became unbearable, Plaintiff made numerous requests for 

vacation time to Defendant Harris. One at least ten separate occasions, Defendant Harris flatly denied 

these requests without cause. Per her employment history, Plaintiff was entitled up to four weeks paid 

vacation annually and one week of paid sick leave. 

43. Plaintiff would provide her vacation requests weeks if not months in advance, allowing 

Defendant Harris ample time to secure and adjust any necessary scheduling, but the requests were 

continuously denied. 

44. In or around the end 2020, Plaintiff advised Defendant Harris that her mother, who 

tragically was already wheelchair bound as a result of her Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis, had been 

diagnosed with Stage 4 Bone Cancer. Plaintiff was not only seeking understanding as she continued to 

ask for leave to support her mother but was additionally hoping that may she could connect with the 

human in Defendant Harris. 

45. This simply was unsuccessful. In fact, it had the exact opposite affect: Defendant Harris 

escalated. 

46. While corporate seemingly rubber-stamped Ms. Walker’s request for leave under the 

Family and Medical Leave Act, Defendant Harris actively intervened, adjusting her schedule and 

ensuring her pay was denied. 

47. Plaintiff worked tirelessly and precisely, throwing herself into her work and customers 

with whom she had built strong personal relationships. She left each shift exhausted and in tears, knowing 

that each move she made endangered her pharmacy license and the lives of her patients, all facts 

Defendant Harris ignored. 

48. On or around November 20, 2020, in her continued effort to remove all minority staff, 

Defendant Harris unlawfully terminated Ms. Ow. As a result, Plaintiff no longer felt she had an ally, and 

her anxiety grew immensely. She knew she was next. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 7 of 44
49. As a result of the above termination, Defendant Harris was able to hire her preferred 

replacement, Mr. Barry Mar, a former pharmacist with a questionable performance history to say the 

least. Defendant Harris completely disregarded Plaintiff’s tenure and strength of skill, refusing to even 

acknowledge her when discussing the replacement for Ms. Ow. Plaintiff, in addition to years of strong 

performance and reputation within the community, had training and experience both as a Pharmacy 

Manager and Pharmacy Trainer, skills essential to the open role. 

50. It took mere weeks for Mr. Mar to show his inability in the new role. On occasions 

wherein he could not meet the workload expectation, he would become hostile and threatening with staff, 

cursing, shoving computers, kicking the drawers, and angrily pounding his fists on the counter. His 

actions were public, despite the presence of staff and customers. 

51. Plaintiff and her colleagues reported this conduct to Defendant Harris repeatedly without 

any recourse taken. Mr. Mar persisted undeterred and without reprimand by his friends and former 

classmate. 

52. As with the cashiers, Mr. Mar began to boast of his responsibility, expressing to Plaintiff 

that he was instructed by Defendant Harris to “watch her closely.” He would align his shifts with Ms. 

Walker’s purely to monitor her every move and action but would refuse to provide functional supports. In 

fact, he would covertly and illegally record Plaintiff confidential communication with her customers. He 

further took pictures of Plaintiff mother’s pharmacy profile without cause in direct violation of HIPPA 

and privacy laws. 

53. Mr. Mar would leave the store in shambles when he worked, knowingly Plaintiff was 

assigned to work the following day, causing delays in her work when she arrived. Again, she complained 

the Defendant Harris as to her being targeted to no avail. 

54. Ms. Walked would attempt to discuss the matter directly with Mr. Mar only to be called a 

“fucking bitch” and threatening to call Defendant Harris. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 8 of 44
55. Having hit her breaking point, Plaintiff formally contacted Defendant CVS’s Human 

Resources department, yet no action was taken. Defendant failed to investigate Plaintiff report of 

discrimination and harassment (let alone the open HIPPA violations), instead permitting the conduct to 

persist. 

56. Plaintiff was left with disproportionate shift coverage. While Mr. Mar frequently was 

provided three support technicians by Defendant Harris to aid his ineptitude, Ms. Walker was left 

working alone. 

57. Again, seeing no change and feeling she was on the edge of a nervous breakdown, 

Plaintiff contacted Defendant Harris’ supervisor, Mr. Ahmed Velez. In email, Plaintiff advised of the 

unlawful treatment to her, her colleagues and customers by Mr. Mar and Defendant Harris. 

58. In what was a clear pattern and should not have presented any surprise, Mr. Velez never 

responded. Instead, Defendant Harris responded, increasing her campaign of terror and harassment. 

59. Within five days of Ms. Walker’s complaint to Mr. Velez, Defendant Harris issued 

Plaintiff a “Second to Final Write Up.” Defendant Harris falsely asserted that Plaintiff had reported to 

shift late on nine separate occasions over the course of a three-month period, including within the cited 

dates numerous occasions on which Plaintiff was not even scheduled to work. 

60. Plaintiff was not issued a “First to Final Write Up” demonstrating an improper escalation 

by her manager. 

61. Defendant Harris thereafter required that Plaintiff provide Defendant Harris a copy of 

Plaintiff’s “queue” each day via fax at the end of the shift so that Defendant Harris could monitor her 

work. Ignoring the backlog created by Mr. Mar, Defendant Harris stated that Plaintiff either send the 

queues or be fired like Ms. Ow. She stated, “that’s how it is,” shrugged her shoulders, and walked away 

seemingly proud of her own actions. 

62. In or around December 2020, after finally being permitted to take time off with her 

mother, Plaintiff returned to the store to see the code had been changed without her knowledge. Unaware 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 9 of 44
of the change, Plaintiff was required to contact the asset protection team to disarm the gate remotely. This 

was one occasion where Plaintiff was listed as “late” by Defendant Harris. 

63. Plaintiff thereafter met with Defendant Harris, the district manager, and the loss 

prevention manager. As they hovered over her, Plaintiff began to cry, feeling openly threatened and 

intimidated by their approach. Plaintiff felt as though she would be buried in their lies, ruining her 

twenty-six years of work and reputation. 

64. All the while, Mr. Mar openly walked around the store, falsely advising the technicians in 

the pharmacy that Plaintiff was in the process of being fired. 

65. As a result, Plaintiff felt she had no choice but to seek medical attention. Her anxiety and 

depression had become unbearable without medical support. 

66. After her medical leave, Plaintiff returned to the same patterns of threats and miss 

treatment by Mr. Mar and Defendant Harris. 

67. By means of example, Mr. Mar would refill narcotics prescriptions that Plaintiff had 

previously filed and then told patients and technicians that Plaintiff was the one who had caused the error 

in the narcotics count. Mr. Mar’s actions were not only inappropriate as to Plaintiff but could also 

arguably be classified as a federal offense. 

68. Plaintiff reported the missing narcotics to Defendant Harris who in turn twisted the report 

and instructed another pharmacist to ignore the discrepancies. 

69. In or around January 2021, Defendant Harris approached Plaintiff without explanation 

and advised she was being moved to another location. After twenty-six years in this community, her ties 

were severed. Plaintiff took solace in the fact she was not terminated but feared the fall out to the 

community and the store. 

70. When asked about the transition, Defendant Harris advised it was a result of the missing 

narcotics caused by Plaintiff. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 10 of 44
71. On her last day in the store, to her surprise, Mr. Mar came to Ms. Walker and apologized 

about his horrible behavior and said it was a direct result of the instructions he was given by Defendant 

Harris. In fact, he advised that he had refrained from certain acts she instructed as he felt they were to 

“wicked.” 

72. As their conversation ended, Mr. Mar stated that he knew the change was because of his 

unwillingness to carry out the actions instructed by Defendant Harris and that the store where she was 

being transferred was managed by someone more likely to do such, if not aid in setting Plaintiff up for 

termination. 

73. Plaintiff could no longer feign shock by his statement. She knew she was being targeted 

by Defendant Harris. 

74. Plaintiff was thereafter transferred to CVS Store No. 3607. After she started, Plaintiff was 

issued a secondary schedule where her hours were dramatically reduced. 

75. Additionally, Plaintiff was frequently watched on camera by her managers. In fact, 

Plaintiff was falsely accused of reconstituting medication, when in fact she had merely applied the new 

CVS policy and approach to filing prescriptions. 

76. On or around March 19, 2021, after years of harassment and unrelenting torment, 

Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated. 

77. Defendants unlawfully terminated Ms. Walker because of her race/color and because she 

opposed and complained about Defendants’ unlawful employment practices. 

78. The above is just some of the examples of unlawful discrimination and retaliation 

Defendant subjected Plaintiff to on a continuous and on-going basis throughout her employment. 

79. Plaintiff was not the sole employee to feel the unlawful treatment. In addition to Plaintiff, 

an estimated four or five additional employees (either black and/or Jamaican) were subjected to similar 

unlawful treatment. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 11 of 44
80. Defendants unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff because of her race/color, national, 

disability and because she opposed and complained about Defendants’ unlawful employment practices 

perpetrated against Plaintiff and her colleagues because of their race/color and national origin. 

81. Thus, Defendants violated Section 1981, the FMLA, Title VII, the ADA, the FCRA, and 

the Miami-Dade County Ordinances by subjecting Plaintiff to unlawful discrimination, harassment, 

retaliation, and termination. 

82. Defendants should be accountable for its willful and knowing discriminatory employment 

practices directed at Plaintiff. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I 

42 U.S.C. § 1981 

Race Discrimination – Disparate Treatment 

(As against all Defendants) 

83. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

84. This is an action for discrimination and harassment because of Plaintiff Walker’s 

race in violation of Section 1981. 42 U.S.C. §1981 states in relevant part as follows: 

(a) Statement of equal rights 

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the 

same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to 

sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws 

and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by 

white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, 

taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. 

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined 

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” 

includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of 

contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and 

conditions of the contractual relationship. 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

85. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

86. The elements of a prima facie case of disparate treatment are flexible and are 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 12 of 44
tailored on a case-by-case basis to differing factual circumstances. 

87. The Defendants subjected Plaintiff Walker to discriminatory treatment on the basis 

of her race. 

88. The Defendants targeted Plaintiff Walker because she was black, Jamaican 

American. Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated counterparts. 

89. As a result of the Defendants’ disparate treatment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a 

“tangible employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant 

change in benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment. 

90. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial harassment in 

the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the workplace on the 

basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or failing to provide a 

reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher management, and 

failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior raised by the Plaintiff. 

91. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ discriminatory conduct in 

violation of Section 1981, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and 

economic damages in the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff 

Walker has also suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of 

dignity, and other intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic 

damages, lost wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost 

benefits, and compensatory damages. 

92. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under Section 1981, warranting the imposition of 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 13 of 44
punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

93. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under Section 1981. 

COUNT II 

42 U.S.C. § 1981 

Race Discrimination – Hostile Work Environment 

(As against all Defendants) 

94. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

95. This is an action for discrimination and harassment because of Plaintiff Walker’s 

race in violation of Section 1981. 42 U.S.C. §1981 states in relevant part as follows: 

(a) Statement of equal rights 

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the 

same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to 

sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws 

and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by 

white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, 

taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. 

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined 

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, 

performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all 

benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. 42 U.S.C. § 

1981. 

96. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

97. The Defendants regularly harassed Plaintiff Walker because of her race. 

98. Further, Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated 

counterparts. 

99. The Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was not welcomed by Plaintiff Walker. 

On several occasions, Plaintiff Walker complained to Defendants, about the discriminatory 

treatment she was forced to endure. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 14 of 44
100. The Defendants’ discriminatory treatment was severe or pervasive enough to 

make any reasonable person of the same legally protected class believe that the conditions of 

employment were altered, and that the working environment was intimidating hostile or abusive. 

101. As a result of the hostile work environment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a “tangible 

employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, failure to promote, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant change in 

benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment.

102. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial harassment in 

the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the workplace on the 

basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or failing to provide 

a reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher management, and 

failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior raised by the Plaintiff. 

103. As a direct and proximate result of the hostile work environment created by the 

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in 

the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered 

and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible 

damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, back pay, 

interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and compensatory 

damages. 

104. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under Section 1981, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

105. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under Section 1981. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 15 of 44
COUNT III 

42 U.S.C. § 1981 

Retaliation 

(As against all Defendants) 

106. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

107. Plaintiff Walker engaged in a protected activity when she opposed and reported 

the Defendants’ unlawful discrimination. 

108. Plaintiff Walker complained of the discriminatory comments and conduct on 

multiple occasions to Defendants. 

109. In response to these complaints of race discrimination, the Defendants retaliated 

against Plaintiff Walker by subjecting her to even harsher and more strenuous work conditions, 

further escalating the discriminatory conduct targeted towards Plaintiff Walker, transferring 

Plaintiff, cutting her hours, and eventually unlawfully terminating Plaintiff Walker. 

110. The Defendants took the above-described materially adverse actions against 

Plaintiff Walker because of her protected activities. 

111. Any reasonable employee in Plaintiff Walker’s position would be dissuaded from 

reporting discrimination if they knew that they would be subjected to the kind of treatment 

Plaintiff Walker was forced to endure. 

112. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ retaliatory conduct in violation 

of Section 1981, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages 

in the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered 

and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other 

intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, 

back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and 

compensatory damages 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 16 of 44
113. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of the Plaintiff Walker’s rights under Section 1981, warranting the imposition 

of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

114. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under Section 1981. 

COUNT IV 

29 CFR § 825.220 

FMLA – Interference 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

115. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

116. The FMLA provides eligible employees of covered employers with up to 12 

workweeks of unpaid, job protected leave in a 12-month period for, specified health and 

caregiving reasons, including a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to 

perform the essential functions of her job, as well as pregnancy and caring for a new child. 29 

U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. 

117. A covered employer must provide FMLA benefits and protections to eligible 

employees and comply with their responsibilities under the FMLA and its regulations at 29 

C.F.R. part 825. 

118. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Walker was eligible employees of a covered 

employer with a qualifying medical condition and/or caregiving reason entitling them to the 

protections of the FMLA 

119. In or around 2020, Plaintiff Walker had been employed by the Defendant CVS 

for at least twelve months and had fulfilled more than 1,250 hours of service with the 

Defendants during that twelve-month period. Accordingly, Plaintiff Walker was an eligible 

employee under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2611. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 17 of 44
120. The Defendant CVS violated the FMLA by interfering with, restraining and/or 

denying Plaintiffs’ rights under the FMLA by, inter alia: 

(a) Failing to comply with the general notice requirements under the FMLA; 

(b) Failing to comply with the eligibility notice requirements under the FMLA; 

(c) Failing to comply with the rights and responsibilities notice requirements 

under the FMLA; 

(d) Failing to comply with the designation notice requirements under the FMLA; 

(e) Failing to provide notice of a fitness-for-duty certification with the 

designation notice as required by the FMLA; 

(f) Discharging and/or constructively discharging, suspending and/or 

disciplining Plaintiff notwithstanding that Plaintiff was fit to perform her 

duties and return to work at the end of her FMLA leave; 

(g) Retaliating against Plaintiff for asking for attempting to exercise her rights 

under the FMLA; 

(h) Failing to provide Plaintiff with the proper FMLA forms and/or medical 

certifications; 

(i) Failing to supervise and/or train its employees and supervisors on 

compliance with the provisions of the FMLA; 

(j) Failing to have in place proper FMLA policies, procedures and compliance; 

and/or 

(k) Otherwise violating the FMLA. 

121. The Defendant CVS’s violations of the FMLA were grossly negligent and/or 

willful. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 18 of 44
122. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant CVS’s willful violations of the 

FMLA, Defendant CVS’s is liable for Plaintiffs’ compensation and benefits lost by reason of 

the above violations, for other actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the 

Defendant CVS’s violations, and for appropriate equitable or other relief tailored to the harm 

suffered by Plaintiffs. See 29 CFR 825.300 (e). 

123. As a result of Defendant CVS’s intentional retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff Walker 

has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in the form of lost 

wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost 

economic damages, lost wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact 

of lost benefits, and compensatory damages. 

124. Plaintiff Walker further requests that her attorney’s fees and costs be awarded as 

permitted by law. 

COUNT V 

29 CFR § 825.220 

FMLA – Retaliation 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

125. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

126. The FMLA protects employees from retaliation. The FMLA prohibits employers 

from retaliating against an employee for “having exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA 

rights” and using “the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” 29 

C.F.R. § 825.220(c). 

127. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Walker was eligible employees of a covered 

employer with a qualifying medical condition and/or caregiving reason entitling them to the 

protections of the FMLA 

128. In or around 2020, Plaintiff Walker had been employed by the Defendant CVS 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 19 of 44
for at least twelve months and had fulfilled more than 1,250 hours of service with the 

Defendants during that twelve-month period. Accordingly, Plaintiff Walker was an eligible 

employee under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2611. 

129. In or around 2020, Plaintiff Walker was entitled to FMLA leave, and Defendants 

were on notice of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to FMLA leave. 

130. Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff’s entitlement and use 

of FMLA leave, and the Defendant CVS’s retaliatory conduct, are sufficiently close in temporal 

proximity to establish a causal connection. 

131. Defendant CVS violated the FMLA by retaliating and discriminating against 

Plaintiffs for exercising their rights under the FMLA by, inter alia: 

(a) Retaliating against Plaintiff for attempting to exercise her rights under the 

FMLA; 

(b) Failing to supervise and/or train its employees and supervisors on 

compliance with the provisions of the FMLA; 

(c) Failing to have in place proper FMLA policies, procedures and compliance; 

(d) Transferring, demoting, and/or adjusting Plaintiff’s job duties in response to 

Plaintiff attempting to exercise her rights under the FMLA 

(e) Discharging and/or constructively discharging, suspending and/or 

disciplining Plaintiff notwithstanding that Plaintiff was fit to perform her 

duties and return to work at the end of her FMLA leave; and/or 

(f) Otherwise violating the FMLA. 

132. Therefore, Defendant CVS retaliated against Plaintiff Walker for asserting her 

rights under the FMLA. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 20 of 44
133. The Defendant CVS’s violations of the FMLA were grossly negligent and/or 

willful. 

134. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant CVS’s willful violations of the 

FMLA, Defendant CVS’s is liable for Plaintiffs’ compensation and benefits lost by reason of 

the above violations, for other actual monetary losses sustained as a direct result of the 

Defendant CVS’s violations, and for appropriate equitable or other relief tailored to the harm 

suffered by Plaintiffs. See 29 CFR 825.300 (e). 

135. As a result of Defendant CVS’s intentional retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff Walker 

has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in the form of lost 

wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost 

economic damages, lost wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact 

of lost benefits, and compensatory damages. 

136. Plaintiff Walker further requests that her attorney’s fees and costs be awarded as 

permitted by law. 

COUNT VI 

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) 

Discrete Act – Race, Color, and National Origin 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

137. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

138. Title VII provides, in relevant part, that “it shall be an unlawful employment 

practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of [her] race, color, 

religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 

139. The elements of a prima facie case of disparate treatment are flexible and are 

tailored on a case-by-case basis to differing factual circumstances. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 21 of 44
140. Title VII further provides that “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for 

any employer . . . controlling . . . training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to 

discriminate against any individual because of [her] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin 

in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide . . . training.” 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-2(d). 

141. Title VII further provides that “un unlawful employment practice is established 

when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a 

motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the 

practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). 

142. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

143. The Defendant CVS subjected Plaintiff Walker to discriminatory treatment on the 

basis of her race. 

144. The Defendant CVS targeted Plaintiff Walker because she was black, Jamaican 

American. Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated counterparts. 

145. As a result of the Defendant CVS’s disparate treatment, Plaintiff Walker suffered 

a “tangible employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant 

change in benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment. 

146. The Defendant CVS failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial 

harassment in the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the 

workplace on the basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or 

failing to provide a reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 22 of 44
management, and failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior 

raised by the Plaintiff. 

147. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant CVS’s discriminatory conduct 

in violation of Title VII, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic 

damages in the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has 

also suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and 

other intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost 

wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and 

compensatory damages. 

148. The Defendant CVS’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and 

in reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under Title VII, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

149. The conduct of the Defendant CVS deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory 

rights guaranteed under Title VII. 

COUNT VII 

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) 

Hostile Work Environment – Race, Color, and National Origin 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

150. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

151. Title VII also prohibits hostile work environment harassment, defined as 

unwanted comments or conduct regarding the plaintiff’s protected characteristics that have the 

purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s 

employment. Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). 

152. An employer is strictly liable for supervisor harassment that “culminates in a 

tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment.” 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 23 of 44
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). 

153. Respondeat superior liability for the acts of non-supervisory employees exists 

where “the defendant knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt 

remedial action. Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1486 (3d Cir. 1990). 

154. Employer liability for co-worker harassment also exists where “the employer 

failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint.” Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. 

Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 105 (3d Cir. 2009). 

155. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

156. The Defendant CVS regularly harassed Plaintiff Walker because of her race, color, 

and/or national origin. 

157. Further, Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated 

counterparts. 

158. The Defendant CVS’s discriminatory conduct was not welcomed by Plaintiff 

Walker. On several occasions, Plaintiff Walker complained to Defendant CVS, about the 

discriminatory treatment she was forced to endure. 

159. The Defendant CVS’s discriminatory treatment was severe or pervasive enough to 

make any reasonable person of the same legally protected class believe that the conditions of 

employment were altered, and that the working environment was intimidating hostile or abusive. 

160. As a result of the hostile work environment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a “tangible 

employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, failure to promote, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant change in 

benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment.

161. The Defendant CVS failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 24 of 44
harassment in the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the 

workplace on the basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or 

failing to provide a reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher 

management, and failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior 

raised by the Plaintiff. 

162. As a direct and proximate result of the hostile work environment created by the 

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in 

the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered 

and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible 

damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, back pay, 

interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and compensatory 

damages. 

163. The Defendant CVS’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and 

in reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under Title VII, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

164. The conduct of the Defendant CVS deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory 

rights guaranteed under Title VII. 

COUNT VIII 

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) 

Retaliation 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

165. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

166. Title VII protects employees from retaliation for attempting to exercise her rights 

under the Act: 

167. The Supreme Court in Burlington v. N. & S.F. Ry. V. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 25 of 44
(2006) held that a cause of action for retaliation under Title VII lies whenever the employer 

responds to protected activity in such a way that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker 

from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” 

168. Informal complaints and protests can constitute protected activity under the 

“opposition” clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 343 

(3d Cir. 2006) (“Opposition to discrimination can take the form of informal protests of 

discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management.”). 

169. Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision also protects employees who speak out about 

discrimination by answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation. Crawford v. 

Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cty., Tennessee, 555 U.S. 271, 277 (2009) 

(declaring that there is “no reason to doubt that a person can ‘oppose’ by responding to someone 

else’s question just as surely as by provoking the discussion, and nothing in the statute requires a 

freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one 

who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.”). 

170. Retaliation need not be job-related to be actionable under Title VII—an employer 

can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking actions not directly related to her 

employment or by causing her harm outside the workplace. White, 548 U.S. at 61-62 (rejecting 

authority from the Third Circuit and others requiring that the plaintiff suffer an adverse 

employment action in order to recover for retaliation). 

171. “[A] plaintiff need not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination 

complaint, but only that ‘[she] was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation 

existed.’” Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996); Griffiths v. 

CIGNA Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir. 1993); Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 26 of 44
F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Miller v. CIGNA Corp., 47 F.3d 

586 (3d Cir.1995); see also Moore, 461 F.3d at 341 (finding that a transfer of a police officer 

from a district could constitute actionable retaliation because it “is the kind of action that might 

dissuade a police officer from making or supporting a charge of unlawful discrimination within 

his squad.”). 

172. An employee need not be a member of a protected class to be subject to 

actionable retaliation under Title VII. See Moore, 461 F.3d at 342 (“Title VII’s whistleblower 

protection is not limited to those who blow the whistle on their own mistreatment or on the 

mistreatment of their own race, sex, or other protected class.”) 

173. Title VII not only bars retaliation against the employee who engaged in the 

protected activity; it also bars retaliation against another employee if the circumstances are such 

that the retaliation against that employee might well dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging 

in protected activity. See Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863, 868 

(2011). 

174. Plaintiff Walker engaged in a protected activity when she opposed and reported 

the Defendants’ unlawful discrimination. 

175. Plaintiff Walker complained of the discriminatory comments and conduct on 

multiple occasions to Defendant CVS. 

176. In response to these complaints of race discrimination, the Defendant CVS 

retaliated against Plaintiff Walker by subjecting her to even harsher and more strenuous work 

conditions, further escalating the discriminatory conduct targeted towards Plaintiff Walker, 

transferring Plaintiff, cutting her hours, and eventually unlawfully terminating Plaintiff Walker. 

177. The Defendant CVS took the above-described materially adverse actions against 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 27 of 44
Plaintiff Walker because of her protected activities. 

178. Any reasonable employee in Plaintiff Walker’s position would be dissuaded from 

reporting discrimination if they knew that they would be subjected to the kind of treatment 

Plaintiff Walker was forced to endure. 

179. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant CVS’s retaliatory conduct in 

violation of Title VII, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic 

damages in the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has 

also suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and 

other intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost 

wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and 

compensatory damages 

180. The Defendant CVS’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and 

in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff Walker’s rights under Title VII, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

181. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under Title VII. 

COUNT IX 

ADA/ADAAA, Sec. 12203 [Section 503] 

Retaliation 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

182. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

183. SEC. 12203. [Section 503] states, “(a) Retaliation. - No person shall discriminate against 

any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or 

because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.” 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 28 of 44
184. At all times relevant, Defendant CVS employees intended to unlawfully discriminate 

against Ms. Walker in their terms and conditions of her employment in violation of the ADA because she 

requested an accommodation and subsequently opposed a practice made unlawful by the ADA.

185. And, as a result, Defendant CVS unlawfully retaliated against Ms. Walker because of that 

opposition.

186. At all times relevant, Ms. Walker acted in good faith and with the objective and 

subjective belief that violations of the ADA by Defendant CVS’s employees had occurred. 

187. Defendant CVS failed to properly investigate Plaintiff’s complaints and failed to take 

appropriate corrective action.

188. At all times material, Defendant CVS allowed the discriminatory practices to continue in 

the work environment.

189. At all times relevant, the unlawful discrimination by Defendant CVS’s employees against 

Ms. Walker in the terms and conditions of her employment because she opposed a practice made 

unlawful by the ADA which would not have occurred but for that opposition.

190. At all material times, the employer exhibiting discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff 

possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Defendant CVS.

191. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant CVS’s intentional retaliatory conduct in 

violation of the ADA, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages including lost wages and 

benefits, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, suffering, loss of dignity, humiliation, 

embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

192. At all times relevant, Defendant CVS, by and through it’s employees and agents, acted 

intentionally and with reckless disregard of Ms. Walker’s rights protected by the ADA.

193. Defendant CVS’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA, warranting the imposition of punitive damages in addition 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 29 of 44
to compensatory damages.

194. Conduct of Defendant CVS and/or its agents deprived Plaintiff of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under federal law.

195. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendant CVS.

COUNT X 

FCRA, § 760.10(1)(a) 

Discrete Act – Race, Color, and National Origin 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

196. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

197. This is an action for discrimination and harassment because of Plaintiff Walker’s 

race, color and/or national origin in violation of FCRA. 

198. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

199. The elements of a prima facie case of disparate treatment are flexible and are 

tailored on a case-by-case basis to differing factual circumstances. 

200. The Defendants subjected Plaintiff Walker to discriminatory treatment on the basis 

of her race, color and/or national origin. 

201. The Defendants targeted Plaintiff Walker because she was black, Jamaican 

American. Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated counterparts. 

202. As a result of the Defendants’ disparate treatment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a 

“tangible employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant 

change in benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment. 

203. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial harassment in 

the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the workplace on the 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 30 of 44
basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or failing to provide a 

reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher management, and 

failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior raised by the Plaintiff. 

204. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ discriminatory conduct in 

violation of FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic 

damages in the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has 

also suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and 

other intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost 

wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and 

compensatory damages. 

205. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under FCRA, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

206. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under FCRA. 

COUNT XI 

FCRA, § 760.10(1)(a) 

Hostile Work Environment – Race, Color, and National Origin 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

207. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

208. This is an action for discrimination and harassment because of Plaintiff Walker’s 

race, color and/or national origin in violation of FCRA. 

209. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

210. The Defendants regularly harassed Plaintiff Walker because of her race, color 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 31 of 44
and/or national origin. 

211. Further, Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated 

counterparts. 

212. The Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was not welcomed by Plaintiff Walker. 

On several occasions, Plaintiff Walker complained to Defendants, about the discriminatory 

treatment she was forced to endure. 

213. The Defendants’ discriminatory treatment was severe or pervasive enough to 

make any reasonable person of the same legally protected class believe that the conditions of 

employment were altered, and that the working environment was intimidating hostile or abusive. 

214. As a result of the hostile work environment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a “tangible 

employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, failure to promote, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant change in 

benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment.

215. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial harassment in 

the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the workplace on the 

basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or failing to provide 

a reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher management, and 

failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior raised by the Plaintiff. 

216. As a direct and proximate result of the hostile work environment created by the 

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in 

the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered 

and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible 

damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, back pay, 

interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and compensatory 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 32 of 44
damages. 

217. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under FCRA, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

218. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under FCRA. 

COUNT XII 

FCRA, § 760.10(7) 

Retaliation - Disability 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

219. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

220. This is an action retaliation violation of FCRA. The FCRA prohibits 

discrimination against an individual for opposing unlawful acts under the FCRA or for opposing 

or complaining about disability discrimination. § 760.10(7), Fla. Stat. (2020). 

221. At all times relevant, Defendant CVS employees intended to unlawfully discriminate 

against Ms. Walker in their terms and conditions of her employment in violation of the ADA because she 

requested an accommodation and subsequently opposed a practice made unlawful by the ADA.

222. And, as a result, Defendant CVS unlawfully retaliated against Ms. Walker because of that 

opposition.

223. At all times relevant, Ms. Walker acted in good faith and with the objective and 

subjective belief that violations of the ADA by Defendant CVS’s employees had occurred. 

224. Defendant CVS failed to properly investigate Plaintiff’s complaints and failed to take 

appropriate corrective action.

225. At all times material, Defendant CVS allowed the discriminatory practices to continue in 

the work environment.

226. At all times relevant, the unlawful discrimination by Defendant CVS’s employees against 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 33 of 44
Ms. Walker in the terms and conditions of her employment because she opposed a practice made 

unlawful by the ADA which would not have occurred but for that opposition.

227. At all material times, the employer exhibiting discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff 

possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Defendant CVS.

228. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant CVS’s intentional retaliatory conduct in 

violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages including lost wages and 

benefits, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, suffering, loss of dignity, humiliation, 

embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

229. At all times relevant, Defendant CVS, by and through its employees and agents, acted 

intentionally and with reckless disregard of Ms. Walker’s rights protected by the FCRA.

230. Defendant CVS’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA, warranting the imposition of punitive damages in addition 

to compensatory damages.

231. Conduct of Defendant CVS and/or its agents deprived Plaintiff of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under federal law.

232. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendant CVS.

COUNT XIII 

FCRA, § 760.10(7) 

Retaliation – Complaints of Discrimination 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

233. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

234. This is an action retaliation violation of FCRA. The FCRA prohibits 

discrimination against an individual for opposing unlawful acts under the FCRA or for opposing 

or complaining about race, color, and national origin discrimination. § 760.10(7), Fla. Stat. 

(2020). 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 34 of 44
235. Plaintiff Walker engaged in a protected activity when she opposed and reported 

the Defendants’ unlawful discrimination. 

236. Plaintiff Walker complained of the discriminatory comments and conduct on 

multiple occasions to Defendants. 

237. In response to these complaints of race discrimination, the Defendants retaliated 

against Plaintiff Walker by subjecting her to even harsher and more strenuous work conditions, 

further escalating the discriminatory conduct targeted towards Plaintiff Walker, transferring 

Plaintiff, cutting her hours, and eventually unlawfully terminating Plaintiff Walker. 

238. The Defendants took the above-described materially adverse actions against 

Plaintiff Walker because of her protected activities. 

239. Any reasonable employee in Plaintiff Walker’s position would be dissuaded from 

reporting discrimination if they knew that they would be subjected to the kind of treatment 

Plaintiff Walker was forced to endure. 

240. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ retaliatory conduct in violation 

of FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in the 

form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered and 

will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible 

damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, back pay, 

interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and compensatory damages 

241. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of the Plaintiff Walker’s rights under FCRA, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

242. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 35 of 44
guaranteed under FCRA. 

COUNT XIV 

MDCO 97, Art. IV, Sec. 11A-26(1) 

Discrete Act – Race, Color, and National Origin 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

243. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

244. This is an action for discrimination and harassment because of Plaintiff Walker’s 

race, color and/or national origin in violation of MDCO. 

245. The MDCO prohibits employers from discriminating against the terms, 

conditions, or privileges of an individual’s employment because of her race, color, and/or 

national origin. 

246. Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(1) states in relevant parts as follows: 

“It shall be unlawful for any employer to engage in any practices 

described below on account of the race, color, religion, ancestry, 

sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, marital status, 

familial status, gender identity, gender expression, sexual 

orientation, or actual or perceived status as a victim of domestic 

violence, dating violence or stalking of any individual or any person 

associated with such individual: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to 

otherwise discriminate against any individual...” 

247. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

248. The elements of a prima facie case of disparate treatment are flexible and are 

tailored on a case-by-case basis to differing factual circumstances. 

249. The Defendants subjected Plaintiff Walker to discriminatory treatment on the basis 

of her race, color and/or national origin. 

250. The Defendants targeted Plaintiff Walker because she was black, Jamaican 

American. Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated counterparts. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 36 of 44
251. As a result of the Defendants’ disparate treatment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a 

“tangible employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant 

change in benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment. 

252. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial harassment in 

the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the workplace on the 

basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or failing to provide a 

reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher management, and 

failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior raised by the Plaintiff. 

253. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ discriminatory conduct in 

violation of MDCO, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic 

damages in the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has 

also suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and 

other intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost 

wages, back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and 

compensatory damages. 

254. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under MDCO, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

255. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under MDCO. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 37 of 44
COUNT XV 

MDCO 97, Art. IV, Sec. 11A-26(1) 

Hostile Work Environment – Race, Color, and National Origin 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

256. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

257. This is an action for discrimination and harassment because of Plaintiff Walker’s 

race, color and/or national origin in violation of MDCO. 

258. The MDCO prohibits employers from discriminating against the terms, 

conditions, or privileges of an individual’s employment because of her race, color, and/or 

national origin. 

259. Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(1) states in relevant parts as follows: 

“It shall be unlawful for any employer to engage in any practices 

described below on account of the race, color, religion, ancestry, 

sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, marital status, 

familial status, gender identity, gender expression, sexual 

orientation, or actual or perceived status as a victim of domestic 

violence, dating violence or stalking of any individual or any person 

associated with such individual: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to 

otherwise discriminate against any individual...” 

260. Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(1) prohibits inappropriate conduct in 

the workplace which leaves any person feeling harassed or discriminated against, due to his or 

her gender, age, religion, national origin or race. 

261. Plaintiff Walker is a black, Jamaican American and is therefore, a protected class 

member. 

262. The Defendants regularly harassed Plaintiff Walker because of her race, color 

and/or national origin. 

263. Further, Plaintiff Walker was treated less favorably than her similarly situated 

counterparts. 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 38 of 44
264. The Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was not welcomed by Plaintiff Walker. 

On several occasions, Plaintiff Walker complained to Defendants, about the discriminatory 

treatment she was forced to endure. 

265. The Defendants’ discriminatory treatment was severe or pervasive enough to 

make any reasonable person of the same legally protected class believe that the conditions of 

employment were altered, and that the working environment was intimidating hostile or abusive. 

266. As a result of the hostile work environment, Plaintiff Walker suffered a “tangible 

employment action” defined as a significant change in employment status, failure to promote, 

reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, and/or a decision causing a significant change in 

benefits, including but not limited to unlawful termination of employment.

267. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent racial harassment in 

the workplace by failing to establish an explicit policy against harassment in the workplace on the 

basis of race, failing to fully communicate the policy to its employees, and/ or failing to provide 

a reasonable way for Plaintiff Walker to make a claim of harassment to higher management, and 

failing to take reasonable steps to promptly correct the harassing behavior raised by the Plaintiff. 

268. As a direct and proximate result of the hostile work environment created by the 

Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in 

the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered 

and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible 

damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, back pay, 

interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and compensatory 

damages. 

269. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of Plaintiff Walker’s rights under MDCO, warranting the imposition of 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 39 of 44
punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

270. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under MDCO. 

COUNT XVI 

MDCO 97, Art. IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) 

Retaliation - Disability 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

271. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

272. This is an action retaliation violation of MDCO. The MDCO prohibits 

discrimination against an individual for opposing unlawful acts under the MDCO or for opposing 

or complaining about disability discrimination. 

273. Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) states: 

“It shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer to 

discriminate against any of his or her employees or applicants for 

employment, for an employment agency or similar organization to 

discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to 

discriminate against any member or applicant for membership 

because he or she has opposed any practice made unlawful by this 

article or because he or she has testified, assisted, or participated in 

any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this 

article.” 

274. The MDCO prohibits discrimination against an individual for opposing unlawful 

acts under the MDCO or for opposing or complaining about pregnancy discrimination. Sec. 

11A-26(4). 

275. At all times relevant, Plaintiff acted in good faith and with the objective and 

subjective belief that violations of Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) by Defendants’ 

employees had occurred. 

276. At all times relevant, the unlawful discrimination by Defendants against Plaintiff 

in the terms and conditions of her employment occurred because she opposed a practice made 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 40 of 44
unlawful by Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) which would not have occurred but for 

that opposition. 

277. At all times relevant, Defendant CVS employees intended to unlawfully discriminate 

against Ms. Walker in their terms and conditions of her employment in violation of the ADA because she 

requested an accommodation and subsequently opposed a practice made unlawful by the ADA.

278. And, as a result, Defendant CVS unlawfully retaliated against Ms. Walker because of that 

opposition.

279. At all times relevant, Ms. Walker acted in good faith and with the objective and 

subjective belief that violations of the ADA by Defendant CVS’s employees had occurred. 

280. Defendant CVS failed to properly investigate Plaintiff’s complaints and failed to take 

appropriate corrective action.

281. At all times material, Defendant CVS allowed the discriminatory practices to continue in 

the work environment.

282. At all times relevant, the unlawful discrimination by Defendant CVS’s employees against 

Ms. Walker in the terms and conditions of her employment because she opposed a practice made 

unlawful by the ADA which would not have occurred but for that opposition.

283. At all material times, the employer exhibiting discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff 

possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Defendant CVS.

284. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant CVS’s intentional retaliatory conduct in 

violation of the MDCO, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages including lost wages and 

benefits, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, suffering, loss of dignity, humiliation, 

embarrassment, loss of reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

285. At all times relevant, Defendant CVS, by and through its employees and agents, acted 

intentionally and with reckless disregard of Ms. Walker’s rights protected by the MDCO.

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 41 of 44
286. Defendant CVS’s actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the MDCO, warranting the imposition of punitive damages in 

addition to compensatory damages.

287. Conduct of Defendant CVS and/or its agents deprived Plaintiff of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under federal law.

288. Plaintiff has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Defendant CVS.

COUNT XVII 

MDCO 97, Art. IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) 

Retaliation – Complaints of Discrimination 

(As against Defendant CVS) 

289. Plaintiff reincorporates the factual allegations in the previous paragraphs 20-82. 

290. This is an action retaliation violation of MDCO. The MDCO prohibits 

discrimination against an individual for opposing unlawful acts under the MDCO or for opposing 

or complaining about race, color, and national origin discrimination. 

291. Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) states: 

“It shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer to 

discriminate against any of his or her employees or applicants for 

employment, for an employment agency or similar organization to 

discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to 

discriminate against any member or applicant for membership 

because he or she has opposed any practice made unlawful by this 

article or because he or she has testified, assisted, or participated in 

any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this 

article.” 

292. The MDCO prohibits discrimination against an individual for opposing unlawful 

acts under the MDCO or for opposing or complaining about pregnancy discrimination. Sec. 

11A-26(4). 

293. At all times relevant, Plaintiff acted in good faith and with the objective and 

subjective belief that violations of Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) by Defendants’ 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 42 of 44
employees had occurred. 

294. At all times relevant, the unlawful discrimination by Defendants against Plaintiff 

in the terms and conditions of her employment occurred because she opposed a practice made 

unlawful by Ordinance 97-17, Article IV, Sec. 11A-26(4) which would not have occurred but for 

that opposition. 

295. Plaintiff Walker engaged in a protected activity when she opposed and reported 

the Defendants’ unlawful discrimination. 

296. Plaintiff Walker complained of the discriminatory comments and conduct on 

multiple occasions to Defendants. 

297. In response to these complaints of race discrimination, the Defendants retaliated 

against Plaintiff Walker by subjecting her to even harsher and more strenuous work conditions, 

further escalating the discriminatory conduct targeted towards Plaintiff Walker, transferring 

Plaintiff, cutting her hours, and eventually unlawfully terminating Plaintiff Walker. 

298. The Defendants took the above-described materially adverse actions against 

Plaintiff Walker because of her protected activities. 

299. Any reasonable employee in Plaintiff Walker’s position would be dissuaded from 

reporting discrimination if they knew that they would be subjected to the kind of treatment 

Plaintiff Walker was forced to endure. 

300. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ retaliatory conduct in violation 

of MDCO, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial and economic damages in 

the form of lost wages (front and back pay) and lost benefits. Plaintiff Walker has also suffered 

and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other 

intangible damages. Plaintiff Walker accordingly demands lost economic damages, lost wages, 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 43 of 44
back pay, interest, front pay, the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits, and 

compensatory damages 

301. The Defendants’ actions were knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, and in 

reckless disregard of the Plaintiff Walker’s rights under MDCO, warranting the imposition of 

punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 

302. The conduct of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Walker of her statutory rights 

guaranteed under MDCO. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff Walker hereby demands a jury trial of all issues so triable pursuant to § 760.11(5), Florida 

Statutes. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment against the 

Defendant for all damages suffered by the Plaintiff, including economic damages, lost wages (back 

pay and front pay) and benefits, liquidated damages, statutory damages, compensatory damages, 

emotional distress damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney’s fees and costs, disbursements 

of action, and any other remedies (monetary and/or equitable) allowable by law as a result of the 

Defendant’s conduct in violation of Section 1981, the FMLA, Title VII, the ADA/ADAA, the 

FCRA, and MDCO. 

Dated: Miami, Florida    DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 

 November 7, 2022 

_________________________________ 

Caroline H. Miller, Esq. 

701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1310 

Miami, Florida 33131 

P: (305) 946-1884 

caroline@dereksmithlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 0:22-cv-62066-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 44 of 44