IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JACQUELINE M. PARK
Plaintiff,
Case No. 6:00-CV-582-ORL-18-KRS
SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Defendant.
___________________________/
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Jacqueline M. Park, by and through her undersigned counsel, sue the Defendant, School Board of Brevard County and alleges:
NATURE OF CLAIM
1. This is an action for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Fla. Stat., and 42 U.S.C. §1981 and 1983 and for damages resulting from retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is appropriate in this court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as Defendant operates a Public Education School system in Brevard County Florida, and the conduct complained of herein occurred in Brevard County, Florida.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff is Caucasian and is therefore a member of a protected class. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since January 1990 through the present despite the discriminatory and harassing behavior suffered during her employment with that entity. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and resident of Brevard County, Florida.
4. Defendant is a pubic entity operating a public school system in Brevard County, Florida and is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b) and is engaged in a industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b).
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
5. Prior to the filing of this civil action, Plaintiff timely filed written Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which was dual filed on a timely basis with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). A copy of the charges are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and “B”.
6. More than 180 days have elapsed since the Charges of Discrimination were filed and the EEOC has failed to affect voluntary compliance with the requirements of Title VII through conciliation and persuasion.
7. Plaintiff has received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC and filed her initial action within 90 days of receipt thereof. A copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
8. Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendant as a school teacher at the Brevard County Public School, Endeavour Elementary, in Brevard County Florida.
9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was qualified for her position and met or exceeded her job performance requirements.
10. Plaintiff was initially hired by Defendant in November 12, 1991 as a short term (substitute) teacher at Endeavor Elementary. In this position, Plaintiff’s function was to serve as a classroom teacher during the absence of annual contract teachers and continuing contract teachers.
11. Plaintiff’s supervisor at Endeavor Elementary was Debbie Lyons (“Lyons”). Lyons is an African-American female and was principal of Endeavor Elementary at the outset of Plaintiff’s employment continuing through present day.
12. Due to the numerous requests by annual contract teacher and continuing contract teacher, Plaintiff served three consecutive short-term contracts as a substitute teacher. Due to these requests and the number of days in the 1991-92 school year that Plaintiff served, Defendant was forced to recognize Plaintiff as an annual contract teacher for purposes of her employment status.
13. At the conclusion of the 1991-92 school year, Plaintiff was laid off along with other annual contract teachers.
14. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement covering classroom teachers employed by Defendant, laid off teachers must be the first to be offered reemployment in the event that positions become available within the school system for which they are qualified.
15. In or around the Summer of 1992, Plaintiff applied for positions that were open at Defendant’s Fairglen Elementary School. Plaintiff was told by the Principal of Fairglen Elementary, Lori Ruiz-Backus, that she would be pleased to hire her as an annual contract teacher but could not because Plaintiff was not on the list of laid off teachers eligible for rehire. Plaintiff was informed that it was the responsibility of Ms. Lyons, as Plaintiff’s former supervisor, to place Plaintiff on their rehire list. Ruiz-Backus told Plaintiff to call Defendant’s headquarters in Viera, Florida to inquire as to how the omission could be rectified.
16. Lyons intentionally omitted Plaintiff’s name from the rehire list because Plaintiff is Caucasian.
17. The same day, Plaintiff called Defendant’s headquarters and spoke with the Personnel Department. Plaintiff was told that she would receive a return phone call regarding Plaintiff’s concern. No one from the Defendant’s headquarters contacted Plaintiff. Instead, Defendant’s agents contacted Lyons to warn her of Plaintiff’s complaint.
18. Lyons’ secretary later contacted Plaintiff to meet with Lyons on the following day. Plaintiff met Lyons the following day and rehired Plaintiff at Endeavour Elementary as an annual contract teacher for the 1992-93 school year. Lyons rehired Plaintiff because Lyons knew that Plaintiff could not be rehired for other positions because she was not on the rehire list and feared that Plaintiff surmises that her omission of Plaintiff’s name was based on Plaintiff’s race.
19. From the 1992-93 school year through the present, Lyons, as Defendant’s agent, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. This conduct constitutes a continuing violation of Plaintiff’s rights secured under Florida and federal law.
20. Lyons arbitrarily forced Plaintiff to change classrooms on numerous occasions on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. However, black teachers were and are permitted to teach the same grade level in the same classrooms each school year. When Plaintiff confronted Lyons about the constant changes, Lyons informed Plaintiff that she could move Plaintiff arbitrarily and without limitation.
21. Lyons forced Plaintiff to prepare and set up several different classrooms and prepare and teach different lesson plans for different grade levels within the same year. The grade and classroom assignment changes were usually made without notice which made it difficult for Plaintiff to efficiently perform her job. This form of discrimination and harassment has occurred for the 1992-93 school year through the present and was motivated by Plaintiff’s race.
22. Throughout the term of Plaintiff’s employment, Lyons has shown and continues to show a lack of respect and hostility towards Plaintiff, on the basis of her race, by routinely being late for appointments with Plaintiff because she was joking and conversing with black teachers while ignoring Plaintiff.
23. Lyons has arbitrarily and capriciously removed students from Plaintiff’s classroom, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, without discussing the matter with Plaintiff or notifying Plaintiff before allowing the students to move to classrooms taught by black teachers. However, when parents wanted to remove children from black teachers’ classrooms, Lyons first consulted the black teachers as to whether the children should be removed and gave black teachers a significant degree of input into the decision.
24. Lyons favored black teachers by providing them with advance notice as to when she was going to observe their classrooms. Plaintiff was not provided with advance notice on the basis of her race.
25. Since 1992, the overall ratio of Caucasian teachers who have left Endeavor Elementary (on a voluntary and involuntary basis) is significantly greater than the number of black teachers who have left.
26. Since 1992, the overall ratio of Caucasian teachers who have been hired as annual contract teachers and/or continuing contract teachers at Endeavor Elementary is significantly lower than the number of black teachers hired.
27. Lyons has encouraged and continues to encourage Caucasian teachers, including Plaintiff, to transfer from Endeavor Elementary to other schools on the basis of their race.
28. Lyons invites black teachers to in-school birthday parties, but routinely excludes Plaintiff on the basis of her race.
29. Lyons has discriminated against Plaintiff (and other Caucasian teachers) by consolidating five classes into four classes and assigning only Caucasian teachers (including Plaintiff) to teach these classes. All four of these classes were held in the portable classrooms, which are significantly smaller than the classrooms in the actual school building and are also more removed from any form of necessary assistance that a teacher may need. The number of students in these “classrooms” greatly outnumbered the number of students in classes taught by black teachers. Lyons refused to reduce the number of children in Plaintiff’s class on the basis of Plaintiff’s race.
30. In October 1995, Lyons arbitrarily stripped Plaintiff from her position as a chairperson for the third grade, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, and promoted a black teacher to the position. When Plaintiff asked Lyons for the basis of her removal from her position, Lyons refused to provide one. Plaintiff had successfully held the position of chairperson in the past and was humiliated when Lyons removed her from the position.
31. On numerous occasions throughout the period of Plaintiff’s employment at Endeavor Elementary, Plaintiff was forced by Lyons, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, to prepare lesson plans for a specific grade assignment and classroom only to have the class assignments and/or classrooms changed. For example, ten weeks into the 1995-96 school year, Plaintiff was arbitrarily removed from teaching the third grade class and told she had to teach first grade. Lyons then combined Plaintiff’s first grade class with children from the other first grade classes who had the greatest degree of behavioral and discipline problems, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race.
32. After Lyons changed Plaintiff’s grade level, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, Plaintiff prepared her room to teach first grade.
33. After Lyons changed the grade levels Plaintiff taught and had Plaintiff prepare her room for first grade, Lyons forced Plaintiff to move all of her belongings and materials from the portable classroom Plaintiff had already prepared to another portable, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. The changes in classrooms and grade levels by Lyons forced Plaintiff to work longer hours at school, including periods in which the school’s air conditioning was turned off.
34. Lyons repeatedly reinstated students into Plaintiff’s class after Plaintiff had disciplined them, without enforcing the discipline and thereby undermining Plaintiff’s authority. When black teachers disciplined a child, such as placing a student on Parent Intervention Day, Lyons supported the black teachers and enforced the instituted discipline.
35. Plaintiff was repeatedly humiliated by comments made by Lyons to her in front of other teachers and students, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. For example, in February 1996, Lyons yelled at Plaintiff in front of two other teachers and stated “your (Plaintiff’s) class is out of control and that I (Lyons) will have to come and straighten you (Plaintiff) out”. Lyons also berated and humiliated the Plaintiff by yelling at the Plaintiff in front of students and faculty about how two of Plaintiff’s students misbehaved in art class and how she (Lyons) was going to remove all of Plaintiff’s students from her classroom in order to have Plaintiff watch other teachers in order to learn how to properly control her class.
36. In 1996, all teachers were requested to list their three choices for grade level placement. The black teachers, many of whom had less seniority than Plaintiff, received one of their choices as their next year class assignment, whereas Plaintiff, received none of the assignments she requested, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. Instead, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, Plaintiff was forced to teach the In School Suspension (ISS) class, which consists of disruptive students from three different grade levels in one class. The students are assigned on a daily basis to the ISS class, making it much more difficult to prepare lesson plans, teach the students, and to maintain control within the class.
37. In March 1996, Plaintiff received a “needs improvement” in two areas of her evaluation, which therefore only gave Plaintiff an “effective” for her overall evaluation, not an “exemplary” evaluation which Plaintiff deserved. Lyons’ evaluation was based on one twenty minute evaluation throughout the entire year. Plaintiff had no prior knowledge that Lyons or the Defendant was concerned about her teaching ability. Lyons then humiliated Plaintiff by suggesting in front of other staff members that Plaintiff should be evaluated by the supervisor of the Defendant’s Beginning Teacher Program after Plaintiff had successfully taught for several years at Endeavour Elementary.
38. Lyons routinely permitted black teachers to keep their classroom keys throughout the summer, which allowed them to have significant more time to prepare their classrooms; whereas Plaintiff was not allowed her key until several days into the Pre-Planning week, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. This hostile action forced Plaintiff to have to frantically set up her bulletin boards and prepare her room the weekend before her students arrived.
39. Lyons routinely gave black teachers their class assignments prior to the end of the previous year. However, based on Plaintiff’s race, Plaintiff did not receive her class assignment until right before school began, and the assignment was often temporary. For example, July 1999, Plaintiff called Lyons and requested her class assignment, which Plaintiff should have already received according to the classroom teachers’ collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff knew that black teachers under Lyons’s supervision had already received their class assignments and had even prepared their rooms for the school year. Lyons refused to tell Plaintiff her assignment. Plaintiff finally received her assignment the Friday evening before Plaintiff was scheduled to return to school.
40. Plaintiff prepared her room and lesson plans to teach first grade. Four business days after Lyons gave Plaintiff her class assignment and only two business days before students arrived, Lyons informed Plaintiff that she may change Plaintiff from teaching first grade to fifth grade. Lyons informed Plaintiff that this change may be temporary.
41. On the first day of school, Lyons told Plaintiff to teach fifth grade. Lyons also forced Plaintiff to change rooms. Plaintiff was forced to prepare a new classroom and new lesson plans for the fifth grade. Because Plaintiff’s change as the fifth grade teacher was temporary, students called Plaintiff Mrs. TBA (“to be announced”).
42. Twenty-one days later, Lyons told Plaintiff that she was being removed from the fifth grade class to teach second grade.
43. Approximately one month after Plaintiff was told to teach second grade, Lyons changed Plaintiff’s room and grade level to teach SLD Resource, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race. Plaintiff informed Lyons that she did not have the additional education required to teach SLD Resource, but Lyons still instructed Plaintiff to change classes. This change was the fourth grade level change in two month time period. Black teachers, who had less seniority, were not subjected to such constant change. When Plaintiff asked why she was being changed again, Lyons informed her that she could move her as often as she liked.
44. Lyons provided black teachers $250.00 to spend on school supplies but Plaintiff was only allotted $30.00 by Lyons to spend on school supplies, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race.
45. Lyons intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff the necessary teaching materials for her classroom, such as the Success for All Charts. However, Lyons provided black teachers with the necessary materials in a timely manner.
46. Because Lyons repeatedly had Plaintiff cover other teachers’ classrooms, change the grade levels that Plaintiff taught, and change classrooms in which Plaintiff taught, other teachers had access to the classroom Plaintiff prepared in the beginning of the school year. Such access by numerous teachers and students and the constant movement of the Plaintiff resulted in Plaintiff’s personal belongings and classroom materials being removed, misplaced, and destroyed. When informed about such activity, Lyons ignored Plaintiff’s concerns.
47. Plaintiff was not provided with a planning period, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race.
48. Lyons forced Plaintiff, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, to be on “lunch duty”. During lunch duty, Plaintiff was assigned, among other tasks, to clean the tables. Black teachers were assigned lunch duty but routinely did not show up and were not penalized or disciplined by Lyons.
49. On the basis of Plaintiff’s race, Plaintiff was routinely told by Lyons to substitute for other classes without prior notice. Black teachers in non-class assignments were not made to substitute for other teachers.
50. Due to the discriminatory and racially hostile work environment suffered by Plaintiff during her employment at Endeavour Elementary, Plaintiff was forced to retain an attorney to protect her rights and has agreed to pay her attorneys a reasonable fee for their services.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
AND RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
51. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs numbered 1 through 50 above, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth hereafter.
52. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000(b) and is subject to and governed by the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42. U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.
53. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000(f).
54. Defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees, by their conduct herein alleged, intentionally, willfully and without justification, did deprive the Plaintiff of her rights, privileges and immunities secured to her by the Constitution of the laws of the United States, particularly her right to be free from racial discrimination and a hostile work environment and her rights as provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.
55. Plaintiff, by being subjected to the racially intimidating, hostile, offensive and anti-Caucasian atmosphere created by Brevard County School Board and Lyons, Principal of Endeavour Elementary, was unreasonably affected in a “term, condition or privilege” of her employment as envisioned by 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., and as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, in that: (a) Plaintiff’s physical and psychological well-being was affected; and (b) the workplace was hostile.
56. The racially hostile and race-biased environment to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on her being Caucasian.
57. As a direct, natural, and proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other non-pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
58. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. An order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice.
B. Back pay.
C. Front pay.
D. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses.
E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action.
F. Such other damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 760, FLORIDA STATUTES:
RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RACIALLY
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
59. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs numbered 1 through 50, above, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth hereafter.
60. Defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees, by their conduct herein alleged, intentionally, willfully and without justification, did deprive the Plaintiff of her rights, privileges and immunities secured to her by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, particularly her right to be free from racial discrimination and a hostile work environment and her rights as provided by Chapter 760, Fla. Stat.
61. Plaintiff, by being subjected to the racial intimidating, hostile, offensive and anti-Caucasian atmosphere created by Brevard County School Board and Lyons Principal of Endeavour Elementary, was unreasonably affected in a “term, condition or privilege” of employment as envisioned by Chapter 760, Fla. Stat., in that: (a) Plaintiff’s physical and psychological well-being was affected; and (b) the workplace was hostile.
62. The racially hostile and race-biased environment to which Plaintiff was subjected was based on her being Caucasian.
63. As a direct, natural, and proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other non-pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
64. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. An order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice.
B. Back pay.
C. Front pay.
D. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses.
E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action.
F. Such other damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981 AND SECTION 1983
65. Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs numbered 1 through 50 above, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth hereafter.
66. Defendant, and its agents were acting under the color of state law.
67. At all times relevant hereto, the discrimination suffered by Plaintiff was inflicted pursuant to a policy officially endorsed by Defendant which was so customary and widespread to be within the constructive knowledge of policy-making officials.
68. Defendant failed to properly train or supervise its management employees with regard to Defendant’s obligations under federal laws outlawing discrimination on the basis of race and employment to such an extent that it amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom those management employees came into contact.
69. As a direct, natural, and proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other non-pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
70. By reason of the aforesaid discriminatory conduct and the invidious practices and policies of discrimination, Defendant has denied Plaintiff her right to a neutral work environment, and has denied Plaintiff equal terms and conditions of her employment as provided for under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Section 1983.
71. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. An order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice.
B. Back pay.
C. Front pay.
D. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses.
E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action.
F. Such other damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
COUNT IV — RETALIATION (FEDERAL CLAIM)
72. This is an action for damages for violation of the of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq.
73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Amended Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
74. On May 14, 2001, Plaintiff filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”), alleging retaliation by Defendant against Plaintiff for her filing of race and age discrimination charges against it.
75. Subsequent to filing charges of race and age discrimination against Defendant on or about July 7, 2000, and because Plaintiff filed those charges of race and age discrimination, Plaintiff has experienced retaliation by Defendant which included: changing Plaintiff’s teaching assignments by moving Plaintiff from Fourth Grade to Third grade in the Success for All Reading Program at the beginning of the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year; changing Plaintiff’s Success for All Reading Group with another teacher at the start of the second semester of the 2000-2001 school year; Plaintiff was assigned Fourth Grade for the 2001-2002 school year, in May 2001 and Plaintiff made preparations to teach Fourth Grade over the summer, on the first day of school in August 2001 Plaintiff was moved from Fourth Grade to Third Grade and was assigned the largest Third Grade class; students were moved in and out of Plaintiff’s classroom without notification to Plaintiff; students Plaintiff referred to the Principal’s office for discipline were not disciplined; good students were removed from Plaintiff’s classroom and problem students were moved into Plaintiff’s classroom.
76. The actions described in paragraph 75 constitute retaliation and a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2, regarding unlawful employment practices.
77. Defendant’s actions as described in paragraph 75, constitute a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq., which makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any of [its] employees because such individual has opposed any practice made unlawful [by the ADEA], or because such individual has made a charge [of discrimination under the ADEA]”.
78. Plaintiff has suffered severe mental anguish and emotional distress and loss of dignity as a result of Defendant’s actions.
79. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. An order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice.
B. Back pay.
C. Front pay.
D. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses.
E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action.
F. Such other damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
COUNT V — RETALIATION (STATE CLAIM)
80. This is an action for damages for violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act.
81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 50 and 75 of this Amended Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
82. On May 14, 2001, Plaintiff filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”), which was dual filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging retaliation by Defendant against Plaintiff for her filing of race and age discrimination charges against it and 180 days have past since the filing of her claim.
83. More than one hundred eighty (180) days have passed since the filing of said claim, and the Florida Commission on Human Relations has not entered a determination on Plaintiff’s claim.
84. 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.”
85. Defendant’s actions as described in paragraph 75, supra, constitute a violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice or because that person has made a charge [of discrimination pursuant to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes] ”
86. As a result of retaliation perpetrated by Defendant against Plaintiff for filing charges of race and age discrimination, Plaintiff has sustained emotional damages in the form of severe mental anguish, emotional distress and loss of dignity.
87. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. An order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice.
B. Back pay.
C. Front pay.
D. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses.
E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action.
F. Such 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 January, 2002.
______________________
Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Court and a true and correct copy was sent by U.S. Mail to Michael H. Bowling, Esquire, BELL, LEEPER & ROPER, P.A., 2816 East Robinson St., Orlando, FL 32803, on this _______ day of January, 2002.
________________________
Wayne L. Allen, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 110025
Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0060119
W. John Gadd, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0463061
WAYNE L. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
700 N. Wickham Road, Suite 107
Melbourne, Florida 32935
Phone: (321) 254-7550
Fax: (321) 242-1681
Attorney: Maurice Arcadier
Status: Closed
Date Filed: 05/15/2001
Our Melbourne office is centrally located in Brevard County, enabling our lawyers to serve clients throughout “the Space Coast”, including Cocoa Beach, Palm Bay and Vero Beach.
