1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. ____________-CIV-___________/____________

KENNETH VARAS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARTEZA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” and 

“VARAS”), was an employee of Defendant, ARTEZA. INC., and brings this action against 

Defendant for alleged sex/gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Florida 

Statutes §760.01 et seq., as well as for violations of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(d) et seq.

2. At all times material to this Complaint, VARAS was a Male individual residing in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Defendant, ARTEZA. INC., a Delaware Corporation (referred to as “Defendant”

and “ARTEZA”), has at all times material to this Complaint owned and operated an art supplies 

business with a corporate office at 1801 NE 123rd Street, Suite 400, North Miami Beach, Florida 

33181 in Miami-Dade County.

4. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343, and 1367.

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as a substantial part of 

the events giving rise to this action occurred in Miami-Dade County, within the jurisdiction of 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 23
2

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

6. In February 2021, ARTEZA hired VARAS as a Human Resources (HR) 

Generalist in its North Miami Beach, Florida office based upon a salary of $75,000 per year plus 

benefits.

7. At all times material to this action, VARAS was an employee of Defendant,

ARTEZA. INC., within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(f), the FCRA, F.S. 

§760.10(1)(a), and the EPA-FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

8. At all times material to this action, ARTEZA. INC. had fifteen (15) or more 

employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or 

preceding calendar year within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b) and F.S. §760.02(7).

9. At all times material to this action, Defendant, ARTEZA. INC. was VARAS’s

employer within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b), the FCRA, F.S. §760.02(7), and 

the EPA-FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(d).

10. At all times material to this action, ARTEZA was an “enterprise” within the 

meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§203(s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C). 

11. More specifically, at all times material to this action including but not necessarily 

limited to during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, ARTEZA had two (2) or more employees who 

have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on goods and/or materials that have been 

moved in or produced for commerce. In this regard, Plaintiff alleges based upon information and 

belief and subject to discovery, that at all times material to this Complaint including but not 

necessarily limited to during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, ARTEZA employed two (2) or 

more employees who, inter alia, regularly handled and worked and/or sold goods and/or 

materials moved in or produced for commerce including, by way of example: (a) art supplies as 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 23
3

well as computers, copy machines, scanners, and telephones, all of which were goods and/or 

materials moved in or produced for commerce; (b) commercial office supplies—including but 

not limited to paper, pens, and UPS, and FedEx—that were goods and/or materials moved in or 

produced for commerce; and (c) regularly processed bank and/or other electronic transfers across 

State lines by and between multiple States and Florida.

12. Based upon information and belief, the annual gross sales volume of ARTEZA 

has been in excess of $500,000.00 per annum at all times material to this action, including but 

not necessarily limited to during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022. 

13. At all times material to this Complaint including but not necessarily limited to 

during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, ARTEZA was an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(s). 

14. When VARAS began working for ARTEZA in March 2021, Plaintiff reported to 

Heather Toro, ARTEZA’s Director of Human Resources, Female.

15. Between March 2021 and October 2021, VARAS satisfactorily performed his

essential duties as HR Generalist for ARTEZA.

16. In or around June 2021, ARTEZA hired Andrea Stanley, Female, as HR Manager 

based upon a salary of approximately $120,000 per year, and VARAS was required to train Ms. 

Stanley for her position with Defendant.

17. Notably, during one or more weeks between approximately June 2021 and 

October 2021, ARTEZA paid similarly situated Female employees to VARAS, such as Andrea 

Stanley, based upon a salary of approximately $120,000 per year despite Plaintiff performing 

equal work to Ms. Stanley, the performance of which required equal skill, effort, and 

responsibility.

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 23
4

18. Throughout VARAS’s employment with ARTEZA between approximately June

2021 and October 2021, Andrea Stanley, a Female HR Manager for ARTEZ, performed 

substantially the same or similar duties to the duties Plaintiff performed for ARTEZA, but 

ARTEZA paid Ms. Stanley at a higher rate of pay than Defendant paid Plaintiff for performing 

essentially the same work. 

19. Subject to discovery, based upon VARAS being owed unpaid wages as a result of 

ARTEZA’s unlawful gender discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of the EPA because he 

was a Male employee in the amount of approximately $865.38 per week during approximately 

Twenty (20) work weeks between June 2021 and October 2021—while ARTEZA paid Andrea 

Stanley, a Female HR employee, average gross weekly wages of approximately $2,307.69 per 

week in comparison to the average gross wages ARTEZA paid to VARAS in the amount of 

approximately $1,442.31 per week despite Plaintiff performing work which required equal skill, 

effort, and responsibility, VARAS’s unpaid wages under the EPA total approximately 

$17,307.69 [$2,307.69 - $1,442.31 per week = $865.38 x 20 work weeks = $17,307.69].

20. Based upon information and belief, the complete records of all of the wages paid 

by ARTEZA to VARAS and similarly situated Female employees between approximately June 

2021 and October 2021 are in the possession, custody, and/or control of Defendant.

21. In August 2021, Heather Toro resigned her employment with ARTEZA, which 

VARAS learned was upsetting to ARTEZA's Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Michael Pacifico,

and ARTEZA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO), Kenneth Hara, because no other Female 

employees were left in the company’s Human Resources department besides Ms. Stanley.

22. Around the time of Ms. Toro’s resignation from ARTEZA, VARAS applied in 

approximately August 2021 to Michael Pacifico to become a Human Resources Business Partner

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 23
5

for ARTEZA, a position for which the salary was approximately $150,000 per year and for 

which VARAS was qualified, but ARTEZA rejected VARAS’s application to become a Human 

Resources Business Partner with Defendant.

23. Significantly, in or around August 2021, VARAS overheard both Michael 

Pacifico and Kenneth Hara each make disparaging statements about how they believed men 

should not be working in Human Resources for ARTEZA and that women should handle Human

Resources jobs.

24. As a result of Ms. Toro resigning her employment as ARTEZA’s Director of 

Human Resources, between approximately late August 2021 and October 2021, VARAS 

absorbed and successfully carried out all of the essential Human Resources duties for ARTEZA

that Ms. Toro previously handled.

25. Despite VARAS’s exemplary performance of his own duties and the additional 

responsibilities that had been performed by ARTEZA’s previous, Female Director of Human 

Resources (Ms. Toro), on October 21, 2021, Andrea Stanley notified VARAS that ARTEZA was 

terminating VARAS’s employment—but when Plaintiff questioned why he was being terminated 

when his performance had been satisfactory, Ms. Stanley had no answer for VARAS. 

26. Moreover, when VARAS pressed Ms. Stanley on October 21, 2021 about whether 

ARTEZA's upper management didn’t want a Male employee in Human Resources, Ms. Stanley 

again had no answer but instead stated that there had been a problem with FedEx losing an order 

of telephones several months earlier which ARTEZA claimed was VARAS’s fault. 

27. Shortly after VARAS was terminated, Plaintiff learned in approximately 

November 2021 that ARTEZA hired a Female employee as a Human Resources Business 

Partner even though VARAS was told by Ms. Stanley earlier in October 2021 prior to his 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 23
6

termination—when VARAS communicated to Ms. Stanley Plaintiff’s renewed efforts to become 

a Human Resources Business Partner with ARTEZA, which efforts were rejected by ARTEZA a

second time—that ARTEZA was not looking to hire a Human Resources Business Partner at all.

28. ARTEZA’s termination of VARAS’s employment on October 21, 2021 was 

because (a) of a discriminatory animus against VARAS because of Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male; 

and (b) retaliation against VARAS because Plaintiff exercised his rights as a Male employee 

under the law to seek a promotion and equal pay for comparable work performed by one or more

similarly situated Female employees of ARTEZA, including Andrea Stanley, all in violation of 

Title VII and the FCRA.

29. The reasons proffered and/or relied upon y ARTEZA in October 2021 for the 

termination of VARAS’s employment were (a) discriminatory because of Plaintiff’s sex/gender, 

Male; and (b) retaliatory because VARAS exercised his rights as a Male employee under the law

to seek a promotion and equal pay for comparable work performed by one or more similarly 

situated Female employees of ARTEZA, all in violation of Title VII and the FCRA.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

30. On November 11, 2021, VARAS dual filed a Charge of Discrimination against

ARTEZA with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the 

Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) alleging sex/gender discrimination and 

retaliation in violation of Title VII and the FCRA, EEOC Charge No. 15C-2022-00034, which 

Charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

31. On or around July 25, 2022, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue to VARAS

on EEOC Charge No. 15C-2022-00034. See Exhibit B. 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 23
7

32. This Complaint is being filed with the Court within Sixty-Seven (67) days of 

VARAS’s receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue in connection with EEOC Charge No. 15C-2022-

00034and Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies on the claims pled in the 

Complaint.

33. As of September 30, 2022, more than One Hundred and Eighty (180) days have 

passed since the filing of VARAS’s Charge of Discrimination on November 11, 2021 and the 

FCHR did not issue any determination concerning VARAS’s Charge. As a result, pursuant to 

F.S. §760.11(18), which provides that in the event that the FCHR fails to conciliate or determine 

whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under that section within 180 days of the 

filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may file a civil action “as if the commission 

determined that there was reasonable cause,” VARAS has exhausted all administrative remedies 

under Florida as well as Federal law.

34. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have either occurred or 

been waived.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,

42 U.S.C. §2000e ET SEQ. - UNLAWFUL SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations of Paragraphs 1 

through 34 as if fully set forth herein and further states that this is an action against ARTEZA. 

INC. for sex/gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.

35. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides that it is unlawful

for an employer to “discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 23
8

with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of 

such individual's ... sex ...” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1).

36. Between approximately August 2021 and October 2021, VARAS was subjected 

to disparate treatment by ARTEZA because of his sex/gender, Male, by, inter alia, Defendant:

(a) paying VARAS less wages because he was a Male HR employee in comparison to similarly 

situated Female HR employees such as Andrea Staley; (b) denying VARAS’s application in 

August 2021 to become Human Resources Business Partner for ARTEZA because of Plaintiff’s 

sex/gender, Male, a promotion which entailed a loss to Plaintiff of approximately $75,000 per 

year in base salary; and (c) terminating VARAS’s employment on October 21, 2021 because of 

Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1).

37. ARTEZA’s disparate treatment of VARAS was so severe and pervasive that it

altered, the terms, conditions, and privileges of VARAS’s employment with Defendant

culminating with the termination of Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021.

38. On October 21, 2021, ARTEZA terminated VARAS’s employment because of 

Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1).

39. A motivating factor behind ARTEZA’s termination of VARAS’s employment in 

October 2021 was Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1).

40. ARTEZA’s management knew between at least June 2021 and October 2021 that 

Federal and State law prohibited sex/gender discrimination against VARAS because he was a 

Male HR employee but Defendant nonetheless willfully and intentionally subjected VARAS to 

unlawful disparate treatment and discrimination because of Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in 

violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1).

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 23
9

41. ARTEZA’s violations of Title VII were intentional and were done with malice 

and reckless disregard for VARAS’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the United States. 

42. VARAS has suffered lost earnings and employment benefits, emotional distress, 

loss of self-esteem and other injuries as a direct result of ARTEZA’s violations of 42 U.S.C. 

§2000e-2(a)(1).

43. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k) and §1988(b), VARAS is entitled to recover 

his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from ARTEZA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, demands judgment against Defendant,

ARTEZA. INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, equitable relief including but not limited to front pay, punitive damages, 

injunctive relief, interest, attorney’s fees, costs, expert fees and such other and further relief as 

this Honorable Court deems proper.

COUNT II

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII 

OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e ET SEQ.

Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations of Paragraphs 1 

through 34 as if fully set forth herein and further states that this is an action against ARTEZA. 

INC., for Retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. §2000e-3.

44. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a), “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment 

practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees .... because [the 

employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, 

or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 23
10

45. When VARAS applied to ARTEZA’s CFO, Michael Pacifico, in August 2021 for 

Plaintiff to become Human Resources Business Partner for Defendant, VARAS engaged in 

protected activity within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a).

46. ARTEZA intentionally retaliated against VARAS in October 2021 by terminating 

Plaintiff’s employment on October 21, 2021 following Defendant’s previous denial of VARAS’s 

application to become a Human Resources Business Partner for ARTEZA, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. §2000e-3(a).

47. The fact that VARAS engaged in activity protected by Title VII was a motivating 

factor in ARTEZA’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. §2000e-3(a).

48. ARTEZA’s management knew between at least August 2021 and October 2021 

that Federal law prohibited both (a) sex/gender discrimination against VARAS because he was a 

Male HR employee and (b) retaliation against VARAS because he exercised his rights as a Male 

employee, but Defendant nonetheless willfully and intentionally subjected VARAS to retaliation

in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) when Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in 

October 2021.

49. ARTEZA’s unlawful retaliation against VARAS was intentional and done with 

malice and reckless disregard for VARAS’s rights as guaranteed under Title VII. 

50. As a direct and proximate result of ARTEZA’s unlawful retaliation against 

VARAS, Plaintiff has suffered damages and was deprived of job-related economic benefits, all 

in amounts to be established at trial, including suffering a loss of earnings, emotional distress, 

loss of self-esteem and other injuries as a direct result of Defendant’s violations of 42 U.S.C. 

§2000e-3(a).

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 23
11

51. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k) and §1988(b), VARAS is entitled to recover 

his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from ARTEZA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, demands judgment against Defendant,

ARTEZA. INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, equitable relief including but not limited to front pay, punitive damages, 

injunctive relief, interest, attorney’s fees, costs, expert fees and such other and further relief as 

this Honorable Court deems proper.

COUNT III

SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 

THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 34 above and further states that this is an action against ARTEZA. INC. for 

sex/gender discrimination in violation of Florida Statutes §760.10(1).

52. The Florida Civil Rights Act provides that it is an unlawful employment practice 

for an employer “[t]o discharge . . . any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any 

individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because 

of such individual’s . . . religion . . .” F.S. §760.10(1)(a). 

53. At all times material to this action, VARAS has been an aggrieved person within 

the meaning of F.S. §760.02(10).

54. Between approximately August 2021 and October 2021, VARAS was subjected 

to disparate treatment by ARTEZA because of his sex/gender, Male, by, inter alia, Defendant:

(a) paying VARAS less wages because he was a Male HR employee in comparison to similarly 

situated Female HR employees such as Andrea Staley; (b) denying VARAS’s application in 

August 2021 to become Human Resources Business Partner for ARTEZA because of Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 11 of 23
12

sex/gender, Male, a promotion which entailed a loss to Plaintiff of approximately $75,000 per 

year in base salary; and (c) terminating VARAS’s employment on October 21, 2021 because of 

Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in violation of F.S. §760.10(1).

55. ARTEZA’s disparate treatment of VARAS was so severe and pervasive that it 

altered, the terms, conditions, and privileges of VARAS’s employment with Defendant

culminating with the termination of Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021.

56. On October 21, 2021, ARTEZA terminated VARAS’s employment because of 

Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in violation of F.S. §760.10(1).

57. A motivating factor behind ARTEZA’s termination of VARAS’s employment in 

October 2021 was Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in violation of F.S. §760.10(1).

58. ARTEZA’s management knew between at least June 2021 and October 2021 that 

Florida State law prohibited sex/gender discrimination against VARAS because he was a Male 

HR employee but Defendant nonetheless willfully and intentionally subjected VARAS to 

unlawful disparate treatment and discrimination because of Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, in 

violation of the FCRA, F.S. §760.10(1).

59. ARTEZA’s violations of §760.10(1)(a) were intentional and were done with 

malice and reckless disregard for VARAS’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the State of 

Florida, such that VARAS is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant pursuant to F.S. 

§760.11(5).

60. VARAS has suffered lost earnings and employment benefits, emotional distress, 

loss of self-esteem and other injuries as a direct result of ARTEZA’s violations of F.S. 

§760.10(1).

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 12 of 23
13

61. VARAS has suffered lost earnings, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, and 

other damages as a direct result of Defendant’s violations of F.S. §760.10(1).

62. Pursuant to F.S. §760.11(5), VARAS is entitled to recover his reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs from ARTEZA as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, demands judgment against Defendant,

ARTEZA. INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of 

dignity, and any other intangible injuries, equitable relief, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, expert 

fees and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems proper.

COUNT IV

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, F.S. §760.10

Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 34 above and further states that this is an action against ARTEZA. INC. for 

Retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, F.S. §760.10. 

63. Pursuant to F.S. §760.10(7), it is “an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer ... to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice 

which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a 

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or 

hearing under this section.”

64. At all times material to this action, VARAS has been an aggrieved person within 

the meaning of F.S. §760.02(10).

65. When VARAS applied to ARTEZA’s CFO, Michael Pacifico, in August 2021 for 

Plaintiff to become Human Resources Business Partner for Defendant, VARAS engaged in 

protected activity within the meaning of the FCRA, F.S. §760.10(7)

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 13 of 23
14

66. ARTEZA intentionally retaliated against VARAS in October 2021 by terminating 

Plaintiff’s employment on October 21, 2021 following Defendant’s previous denial of VARAS’s 

application to become a Human Resources Business Partner for ARTEZA, in violation of F.S. 

§760.10(7).

67. The fact that VARAS engaged in activity protected by Title VII was a motivating 

factor in ARTEZA’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment in October 2021, in violation of F.S. 

§760.10(7).

70. ARTEZA’s management knew between at least August 2021 and October 2021 

that Federal law prohibited both (a) sex/gender discrimination against VARAS because he was a 

Male HR employee and (b) retaliation against VARAS because he exercised his rights as a Male 

employee, but Defendant nonetheless willfully and intentionally subjected VARAS to retaliation

in violation of F.S. §760.10(7) when Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in October 

2021.

71. ARTEZA’s unlawful retaliation against VARAS was intentional and done with 

malice and reckless disregard for VARAS’s rights as guaranteed under the FCRA. 

72. As a direct and proximate result of ARTEZA’s unlawful retaliation against 

VARAS, Plaintiff has suffered damages and was deprived of job-related economic benefits, all 

in amounts to be established at trial, including suffering a loss of earnings, emotional distress, 

loss of self-esteem and other injuries as a direct result of Defendant’s violations of F.S. 

§760.10(7).

73. Defendant’s violations of §760.10 were intentional and were done with malice 

and reckless disregard for VARAS’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the State of Florida

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 14 of 23
15

through the Florida Civil Rights Act, such that VARAS is entitled to punitive damages against 

VARAS pursuant to F.S. §760.11(5).

74. Pursuant to F.S. §760.11(5), VARAS is entitled to recover his reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs from ARTEZA as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FCRA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, demands judgment against Defendant,

ARTEZA. INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

compensatory damages, equitable relief including but not limited to front pay, injunctive relief, 

interest, attorney’s fees, costs, expert fees and such other and further relief as this Honorable 

Court deems proper.

COUNT V – WAGE VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT

Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, reasserts and reaffirms the allegations of Paragraphs 1 

through 34 as if fully set forth herein and further states that this is an action against ARTEZA, 

INC., for violations of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206 et seq.

75. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. applies to 

employers and enterprises engaged in interstate commerce including not for profit organizations

such as ARTEZA. 29 U.S.C. §§203(d), (s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C). 

76. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) is incorporated into the FLSA at 29 U.S.C. §206 and 

provides:

“No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this 

section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such 

employees are employed, between employees on the basis of 

sex/gender by paying wages to employees in such establishment at 

a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the 

opposite sex/gender in such establishment for equal work on jobs 

the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and 

responsibility, and which are performed under similar working 

conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to 

(i) a seniority system; 

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 15 of 23
16

(ii) a merit system; 

(iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or 

quality of production; or 

(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than 

sex/gender: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate 

differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to 

comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate 

of any employee.”

29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1).

77. Between approximately June 2021 and October 2021, VARAS performed the 

following job for ARTEZA: Human Resources (HR) Generalist.

78. Between approximately June 2021 and October 2021, VARAS’s performance of 

his assigned duties for ARTEZA in the position of HR Generalist required Plaintiff to exercise 

similar skill, effort, and responsibility as Female HR employees—including but not necessarily 

Andrea Staley—who were similarly situated and/or performed the same or similar positions 

and/or duties.

79. Between approximately June 2021 and October 2021, ARTEZA willfully paid 

VARAS less wages than similarly situated Female employees of Defendant—including but not 

necessarily limited to Andrea Stanley—because of Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, for equal work 

which Plaintiff performed for Defendant, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1).

80. Between approximately June 2021 and October 2021, ARTEZA willfully violated 

the EPA-FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1), by intentionally paying VARAS less wages than similarly 

situated Female employees of Defendant, because of Plaintiff’s sex/gender, Male, for equal work 

which Plaintiff performed for ARTEZA in comparison to similarly situated Female HR 

employees of Defendant.

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 16 of 23
17

81. ARTEZA’s violations of VARAS’s rights under 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1) were 

intentional and were done with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed 

under the laws of the United States of America. 

82. VARAS has suffered a loss of earnings, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem 

and other injuries as a direct result of ARTEZA’s violations of 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1).

83. With every pay period that occurred between approximately June 2021 and 

October 2021, ARTEZA paid Plaintiff less wages than similarly situated Female employees of 

Defendant, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1).

84. Each paycheck VARAS received from ARTEZA between approximately June

2021 and October 2021 constituted a current and/or continuing violation of the EPA-FLSA.

85. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), VARAS is entitled to an award of liquidated 

damages from ARTEZA in an amount equal to all wages, salary, and other compensation 

wrongfully denied to or lost by Plaintiff by reason of Defendant’s violations of 29 U.S.C. 

§206(d)(1).

86. VARAS has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this action, and 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover from ARTEZA all reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of Defendant’s violations of the EPA-FLSA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KENNETH VARAS, demands judgment against Defendant,

ARTEZA. INC., for back pay, employment benefits, other compensation including bonuses, 

liquidated damages, compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental 

anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries, equitable relief, interest, costs, 

attorney’s fees, expert fees and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems 

proper.

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 17 of 23
18

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

KENNETH VARAS demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 30, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: s/KEITH M. STERN

Keith M. Stern, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 321000

E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.

80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000

Miami, Florida 33130

Telephone: (305) 901-1379

Facsimile: (561) 288-9031

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 18 of 23
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 19 of 23
Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 20 of 23
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 21 of 23
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Miami District Office

100 SE 2nd St, Suite 1500

Miami, FL 33131

(800) 669-4000

Website: www.eeoc.gov

DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

(This Notice replaces EEOC FORMS 161 & 161-A)

Issued On: 07/25/2022

To: Kenneth Varas

c/o Keith Stern, Esq. 

Law office of Keith M. Stern

80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000

Miami, FL 33130

Charge No: 15C-2022-00034

EEOC Representative and email: FLORENCIO OCAMPO

Acting State & Local Coordinator

florencio.ocampo@eeoc.gov

DISMISSAL OF CHARGE

The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge. The EEOC has adopted the findings of the 

state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated your charge.

NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHT TO SUE

This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If 

you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) on this charge under federal law in federal 

or state court, your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice.

Receipt generally occurs on the date that you (or your representative) view this document. You 

should keep a record of the date you received this notice. Your right to sue based on this charge 

will be lost if you do not file a lawsuit in court within 90 days. (The time limit for filing a lawsuit 

based on a claim under state law may be different.)

If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

On behalf of the Commission,

Digitally Signed By:Roberto Chavez

07/25/2022

Roberto Chavez

Acting Director

Arteza, Inc.

c/o Jacob K. Auerbach, Esq. 

Gallup Auerbach

4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265 South

Hollywood, FL 33021

Please retain this notice for your records.

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 22 of 23
Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (01/22)

INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC

(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law. If you also 

plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits may be shorter and 

other provisions of State law may be different than those described below.)

IMPORTANT TIME LIMITS – 90 DAYS TO FILE A LAWSUIT

If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge of discrimination, 

you must file a complaint in court within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Receipt 

generally means the date when you (or your representative) opened this email or mail. You should 

keep a record of the date you received this notice. Once this 90-day period has passed, your 

right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an 

attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and the record of 

your receiving it (email or envelope).

Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. 

Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your 

attorney. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case 

which shows that you are entitled to relief. Filing this Notice is not enough. For more information 

about filing a lawsuit, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION

For information about locating an attorney to represent you, go to:

https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.

In very limited circumstances, a U.S. District Court may appoint an attorney to represent individuals 

who demonstrate that they are financially unable to afford an attorney.

HOW TO REQUEST YOUR CHARGE FILE AND 90-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR REQUESTS

There are two ways to request a charge file: 1) a FOIA Request or 2) a Section 83 request. You may 

request your charge file under either or both procedures. EEOC can generally respond to Section 83 

requests more promptly than FOIA requests.

Since a lawsuit must be filed within 90 days of this notice, please submit your request for the charge 

file promptly to allow sufficient time for EEOC to respond and for your review. Submit a signed 

written request stating it is a “FOIA Request” or a “Section 83 Request” for Charge Number 15C2022-00034 to the District Director at Roberto Chavez, 100 SE 2nd St Suite 1500

Miami, FL 33131.

You can also make a FOIA request online at https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login.

You may request the charge file up to 90 days after receiving this Notice of Right to Sue. After the 

90 days have passed, you may request the charge file only if you have filed a lawsuit in court and 

provide a copy of the court complaint to EEOC. 

For more information on submitting FOIA Requests and Section 83 Requests, go to:

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/index.cfm.

Case 1:22-cv-23173-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 23 of 23