IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
JULIANNE L’ARGENT,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO.
UNITED SPACE ALLIANCE, LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, JULIANNE L’ARGENT, by and through her undersigned attorney, sues Defendant, UNITED SPACE ALLIANCE, LLC, and alleges the following:
1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees.
2. This is an action for damages for retaliation in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, The Florida Civil Rights Act.
2. The unlawful practices alleged below were committed within Brevard County, Florida.
3. Plaintiff resided in Brevard County, Florida at all times material hereto.
4. Defendant, UNITED SPACE ALLIANCE, LLC, is a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, which at the time of the acts complained of herein employed 15 or more persons and was engaged in an industry affecting commerce.
5. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant, UNITED SPACE ALLIANCE, LLC, since 1989.
6. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Senior Aerospace Shuttle Inspector at the Oribiter Processing Facility Bay Three (OPF3) at Kennedy Space Center.
7. Plaintiff dated a co-worker from June to October 2002 and after they stopped dating he went out on medical leave for approximately a month.
8. After the co-worker’s return to work on November 11, 2002 he began to follow Plaintiff and stare at her. His actions made Plaintiff very uncomfortable and she made a complaint of sexual harassment to her lead, who in turn reported her sexual harassment complaint to the supervisor. The co-worker was then moved to another facility, the Oribiter Processing Facility Bay One (OPF1) but he still came over to Plaintiff’s work area at the OPF3 and continued to follow her and stare at her.
9. On January 22, 2003, Plaintiff was informed by her manager that she was going to be moved from the OPF3 to the Hypergols Maintenance Facility (HMF). On January 28, 2003, Plaintiff took a 30 day leave of absence.
10. On March 3, 2003, Plaintiff returned to work at the OPF3 and her co-worker was sent to the HMF. On March 10, 2003, Plaintiff was moved to the HMF and her co-worker was moved back to the OPF3.
11. After being moved to the HMF, Plaintiff was unable to work overtime because overtime was not available at the HMF and Plaintiff was no longer allowed to work overtime at the OPF 3. If Plaintiff had remained at the OPF3 Facility she would have been eligible to work eight (8) hours of overtime every Saturday. While Plaintiff was assigned to the OPF3 Facility, she worked overtime at almost every opportunity. Plaintiff’s reassignment to the HMF where she was not able to earn overtime was in retaliation for making complaints of sexual harassment.
12. Additionally, for the first month that Plaintiff was at the HMF she was not issued the proper badge for the HMF and had to be escorted at the facility. She also did not have all of the certifications required for the HMF Facility thus there were a number of duties that she was unable to perform because she was not certified.
13. Plaintiff was also informed that she could request a re-evaluation of her assignment to the HMF in 60 days, which she did. However, after she requested a re-evaluation she was informed that she would be set up to be fired if she returned to OPF3. Plaintiff felt she had no choice but to continue to work at the HMF Facility.
14. Plaintiff was unable to work overtime at the HMF from March to August 2003 but was finally allowed to start working overtime in September 2003 after she had made additional complaints to Human Resources regarding the retaliatory denial of overtime.
15. Plaintiff started receiving monthly performance appraisals in August 2002 after Plaintiff made the additional complaints about the retaliatory denial of overtime to Human Resources. Plaintiff also received low scores on her evaluations, which determined her raise and layoff ranking status. Plaintiff was even told that she was receiving low scores because she complained to Human Resources. Plaintiff was also informed that her supervisor was having all of the paperwork that she closed in Quality Control copied and reviewed. None of the other QA employees in Plaintiff’s group had their paperwork copied and reviewed.
16. At all times, Plaintiff performed all duties assigned to her in a professionally competent manner, faithfully followed all reasonable instructions given to her by her supervisors, and abided by all the rules and regulations of Defendant.
17. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damage to her financial welfare, by reason of Defendant’s discriminatory actions against Plaintiff.
18. Plaintiff has suffered severe mental anguish and emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s actions.
19. On or about November 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) alleging discrimination based on sex and retaliation.
20. On or about November 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination based on sex and retaliation.
21. More than one hundred eighty (180) days have passed since the filing of Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination, and the Florida Commission on Human Relations has not entered a determination on Plaintiff’s claim.
22. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies and complied with all conditions precedent prior to bringing this action.
23. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a reasonable fee.
24. Subsequent to Plaintiff making an internal complaint of sexual harassment to Defendant and because Plaintiff made an internal complaint of sexual harassment, Plaintiff experienced retaliation by Defendant.
25. Subsequent to Plaintiff making an internal complaint of retaliation to Defendant and because Plaintiff made an internal complaint of retaliation, Plaintiff experienced retaliation by Defendant.
26. Subsequent to Plaintiff filing a charge of sexual harassment and retaliation by Defendant to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Florida Commission on Human Relations and because Plaintiff made a charge of sexual harassment and retaliation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Florida Commission on Human Relations, Plaintiff has continued to experience retaliatory acts by Defendant.
27. The acts alleged in this Complaint constitute a violation of Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes, “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 in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section.”
28. As a result of the retaliation perpetrated by Defendant against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained lost income and suffered emotional damages in the form of severe mental anguish, emotional distress and loss of dignity, and was transferred from her position by Defendant.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, but not limited to:
A. Judgement for back pay and front pay
B. Compensatory damages including, but not limited to, mental anguish, loss of dignity and other intangible injuries;
C. Punitive damages;
D. An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and all costs incurred herein; and
E. All other damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues herein triable by jury.
DATED: This ____ day of July, 2004.
ALLEN & TRENT, P.A.
Wayne L. Allen, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 110025
Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 060119
Daniel A. Perez, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 426903
Attorneys For Plaintiff
700 N. Wickham Road, Suite 107
Melbourne, Florida 32935
Phone: (321) 254-7550
Fax: (321) 242-1681
