1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

ANDREW L. HORACE Jr., 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

BROWARD HEALTH IMPERIAL 

POINT AUXILIARY, INC., 

a Florida Not for Profit Corporation,

 Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ANDREW L. HORACE JR., (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and through his undersigned 

attorney hereby sues Defendant BROWARD HEALTH IMPERIAL POINT AUXILIARY, INC., 

a Florida Not for Profit Corporation (hereinafter, "Defendant"), and states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This is an action for damages and other relief based on unlawful employment practices 

committed by Defendant and jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the provisions 

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

Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), §§ 760.01-760.11.

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331, 1343.

3. The claims asserted in this Complaint arose in the Southern District of Florida during the 

course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendant in the South District of Florida, which at all material times conducted, and 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 1 of 15
2

continues to conduct, business in the Southern District of Florida, and because the acts that 

give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Florida and because 

Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff was at all times relevant to this action, resided within the Southern District of 

Florida. Plaintiff is over the age of eighteen and otherwise sui juris.

6. Plaintiff is a black male and a member of a class protected under Title VII, and the FCRA 

because the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment were altered because of his 

race, and /or sex.

7. Further, Plaintiff was retaliated against for his complaints of discriminatory conduct on 

behalf of Defendant which places him within a class protected under Title VII and the FCRA.

8. Defendant is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation organized and existing in Florida and 

authorized to do business in Florida. 

9. Defendant had, at all times material, employed 15 or more employees for each working day 

in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in accordance with 

Title VII and the FCRA (42 U.S.C. §2000e(b); Fla. Stat. §760.02(7)).

10. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely charge of 

discrimination ("Charge") against the Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”) and the Florida Commission on Human Relations(“FCHR”). 

11. Plaintiff’s Charge was filed on or about September 10, 2021. The actions complained of 

herein occurred within 300 days thereof and/or continued from that date stemming from the 

same actions set forth in the Charge. 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 2 of 15
3

12. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on September 7, 2022. (“Notice”). This suit is 

filed in accordance with that Notice and within the applicable 90-day time limitation (a copy 

of the Notice is attached hereto as "Exhibit A").

13. The FCHR has taken no action or issued any determination with respect to Plaintiff’s Charge 

of Discrimination within 180 days of the filing of Charge. 

14. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

15. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March 2019 through December 2021 as a secretary 

under the supervision of nurse manager Barbara Donnelly (White American, Female).

16. Plaintiff received regular reviews during his employment with Defendant. Plaintiff’s reviews 

from 2019- June 2020 all identified Plaintiff as having consistently met or exceeded the 

company’s expectations. 

17. Based on Plaintiff's tenure with the company, positive performance throughout his 

employment, and positive work history, Plaintiff was fully qualified for his position at the 

time all discriminatory events complained of herein occurred. 

18. From the outset of his employment, Plaintiff noticed that Black African American employees 

were treated less favorably than their non-African American Non-Black counterparts by 

Donnelly.

19. Specifically, Donnelly spoke in a condescending and demeaning manner to Plaintiff on a 

regular basis. Donnelly did not speak in this manner to Hispanic and/or non-American

employees. Furthermore, Donnelly provided none of the requisite job support incumbent of her 

as Plaintiff’s supervisor. 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

20. Donnelly would constantly deny Plaintiff’s requests for time off but would allow other NonBlack employees to take time off freely. Plaintiff also saw that Donnelly would give 

preference in scheduling to the White employees rather than the Black employees.

21. Donnelly’s inability to work with Plaintiff caused problems and made it difficult for Plaintiff

to do his job or comply with the training requirements on many occasions.

22. Around the second week of October 2020, Donnelly requested that Plaintiff needed to 

complete a required course by the end of the month. Given the short notice, the only dates 

available were October 19, 2020, and October 27, 2020, both during which Plaintiff was 

already scheduled to work. 

23. On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff called out to attend the required course per Donnelly’s request

after he ensured that there was coverage. Nevertheless, Donnelly scolded Plaintiff for his 

absence. Donnelly spoke to Plaintiff in a condescending and belittling manner. 

24. While Defendant allowed Donnelly’s disparate treatment of Black employees to permeate 

the workplace throughout Plaintiff’s employment, the disparate treatment significantly 

worsened after October 26, 2020, when Plaintiff was interviewed by Tamieka Johnson in 

Human Resources in active investigation against Donnelly. Plaintiff also spoke with Barbara 

Pickering and Flavia Fernandez in HR of Donnelly’s harassment. 

25. Donnelly then retaliated against Plaintiff for his complaints to human resources by threatening 

his job verbally and writing Plaintiff up for things which were not violations of policy; and which 

other, non-black employees were not written up when doing the same thing. 

26. Plaintiff continued complaining about the harassment, continued disparate treatment, and the 

intimidation/retaliation to Tamieka Johnson, Letitia Woods (“Woods”), and Antonia Garrick 

in HR, and CEO Randy Gross, between October 26, 2020 and through June 2021. 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 4 of 15
5

27. Donnelly’s conduct carried over to other counterparts of Plaintiff’s and supervisors, who began 

subjecting Plaintiff to the same level of disparaging remarks and related inappropriate conduct.

28. Plaintiff ultimately made multiple requests by phone and written communication to human 

resources to be removed from the hostile work environment between October 26, 2020, and his 

forced resignation, all to no avail. 

29. On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff received an Annual Review which reflected 18 points total which 

is considered not meeting expectations. During his tenure with the company, Plaintiff had 

not received such a low score. 

30. Because of this review, Plaintiff was denied a merit increase in his pay and was placed on a 

performance improvement plan (PIP). 

31. Plaintiff made a complaint to Defendant’s Human Resources (HR) department in writing and 

through verbal communication regarding the unfair evaluation. HR ignored Plaintiff’s 

complaint. 

32. After HR refused to investigate, Plaintiff went to the Employee Advocacy, who initiated an 

investigation and Plaintiff was granted his raise. 

33. On or about September 9, 2021, after yet another confrontation instigated by Donnelly,

Plaintiff contacted the Fort Lauderdale Police Department to report the harassment as 

Plaintiff fear for his safety. Donnelly, then, in retaliation, wrote up Plaintiff for alleged 

insubordination and suspended Plaintiff without pay. 

34. On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC about the 

discriminatory treatment. 

35. October 2021 Plaintiff returned to work. Upon Plaintiff’s return to work, on or about October 

26, 2021, Plaintiff continued to be harassed and discriminated against, so much so that 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 5 of 15
6

Plaintiff’s car was vandalized on Defendant’s property. There were no prior incidents similar 

to that of Plaintiff of employee vehicles having been vandalized on the property. 

36. On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Garrick setting forth all the discriminatory 

behavior and retaliatory actions towards him by Donnelly since his return. Although Plaintiff 

was told the issue was being handled, there was no resolution.

37. On or around November 2021, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave because of the mental 

anguish the harassment he was being subjected to had caused him.

38. Plaintiff’s FMLA leave was approved. On December 5, 2021, Plaintiff then took FMLA 

leave for two weeks. Plaintiff started therapy and medication for all the mental anguish he 

experienced with the Defendant. Plaintiff was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and 

PTSD.

39. On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff was asked to return to work before his approved leave 

expired. 

40. The work conditions created a hostile work environment which were an immediate threat to 

Plaintiff’s life. Therefore, Plaintiff had no other choice but to resign. 

41. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII and the 

FCRA. 

42. Any reason proffered by Defendant for the adverse employment actions is mere pretext for 

unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation. 

43. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s race, 

color, gender and or complaints of discrimination were motivating factor(s) in the decision 

for adverse employment action(s).

44. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on his behalf and has 

agreed to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 6 of 15
7

45. Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if he is the prevailing party in 

this action.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE)

46. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-45 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

47. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII §§706(a) and 706(g) for damages caused by 

Defendant’s unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff.

48. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, black race.

49. Defendant, by and through its supervisors and other representatives, did not treat Plaintiff

the same as other Non-Black employees as alleged above.

50. Defendant did not treat Plaintiff the same as other Non-Black employees in that Plaintiff 

suffered adverse employment actions and was subject to discriminatory practices. 

51. At all times material hereto, the Defendant failed to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

[42 U.S.C. 2000 e-2 (a)].

52. The Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment in the workplace, in that similarly situated, 

Non-Black employees were allowed better work opportunities.

53. At the time of this treatment from Defendant, the Plaintiff did perform and excel at the 

performance of the essential functions assigned to him by Defendant.

54. The Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of 

Title VII, as amended.

55. The failure of Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and its violations 

of the provisions of the Act were willful.

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 7 of 15
8

56. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious 

or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff 

on account of his race in violation of Act with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff different 

from other Non-Black employees.

57. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s race, 

was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

58. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

mental pain and suffering.

59. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions 

of Title VII.

60. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under Title VII. Defendant, by 

and through their officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the 

unlawful conduct of Defendant’s employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive 

damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to his professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant’s discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, §706(g);

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney’s 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, 

or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(RETALIATION)

61. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-45 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

62. Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s Human Resources department, as set forth above, about the 

harassment to which he was subjected, the preference Donnelly had towards Non-Black 

employees in the department, and unfounded disciplinary actions.

63. Plaintiff’s complaints were ignored, Plaintiff had to endure a hostile work environment.

64. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

federal law. 

65. On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Shortly 

thereafter, Plaintiff was subjected to unfounded disciplined and harassed by Donnelly as 

stated above.

66. Plaintiff’s complaints of disparate treatment as stated above, were protected activity under 

the Act. 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

67. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under the Title VII. Defendant, by and 

through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful 

conduct of its employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from 

Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

68. Defendant’s stated reason(s) for the adverse employment action(s) against Plaintiff, 

including but not limited to the harassment and unfounded discipline and suspension (if any) 

are pretextual. 

69. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s 

complaints of discrimination, were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse 

employment action(s). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, injury to his professional reputation, and emotional pain and 

suffering caused by Defendant’s discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined 

at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §706(g);

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney’s 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, 

or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE)

70. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-45 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

71. Plaintiff brings this action under the FCRA for damages caused by Defendant’s unlawful 

employment practices committed against Plaintiff on the basis of his race, Black.

72. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, Black race.

73. Defendant, by and through its supervisors, by the conduct describe above, Defendant has 

engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s race and subjected the 

Plaintiff to unequal treatment based on his race. 

74. Defendant’s though its employees acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as a 

person of Black race under the FCRA.

75. Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a reason for the disparate treatment were pretextual for 

unlawful discrimination. However, even if Defendant had a reason, Plaintiff’s race was, at 

minimum, a motivating factor in its adverse employment action.

76. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibiting discriminatory conduct towards 

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

employment with the Defendant. 

77. Defendant retained all employees who exhibited discriminatory conduct toward the Plaintiff 

and did so despite the knowledge of said employees engaging in discriminatory actions.

78. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of FCRA.

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

79. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for his protected rights under the FCRA. Defendant, 

by and through their officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the 

unlawful conduct of its employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages 

from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate him for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, injury to his professional reputation, and emotional pain and 

suffering caused by Defendant’s discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined 

at trial and in accordance with the Florida Civil Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11.

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, 

or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

D. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney’s 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

(RETALIATION)

80. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1-45 as though full set forth herein.

81. Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s Human Resources department, as set forth above, about the 

harassment to which he was subjected, the preference Donnelly had towards Non-Black 

employees in the department, and unfounded disciplinary actions.

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

82. Plaintiff’s complaints were ignored, Plaintiff had to endure a hostile work environment.

83. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

the FCRA. 

84. On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Shortly 

thereafter, Plaintiff was subjected to unfounded disciplined and harassed by Donnelly as 

stated above.

85. By the conduct describe above, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising rights 

protected under the FCRA.

86. As a result of Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, 

has been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and 

damage. 

87. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant’s failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

state law. 

88. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for his protected rights under FCRA. Defendant, by and through 

its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct 

of its employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in 

a sum according to proof at trial. 

89. Defendant’s alleged reason(s) for the adverse employment action against Plaintiff, (if any) 

are pretextual as described above. 

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

90. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff’s 

complaint(s) of discrimination, were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse 

employment action(s). 

91. Plaintiff further seeks his attorney's fees and costs as permitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate his for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, injury to his professional reputation, and emotional pain and 

suffering caused by Defendant’s discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined 

at trial and in accordance with the Florida Civil Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11.

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law;

C. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, 

or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

D. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with his reasonable attorney’s 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff ANDREW L. HORACE JR. demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts of 

this Complaint so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: December 6, 2022

By: /s/ Nathaly Saavedra 

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Case 0:22-cv-62282-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 15 of 15