Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc.- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Disability Discrimination, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).- Arcadier, Biggie & Wood

Disability discrimination IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SEMINOLE BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ANN L. BARNETTMICHELE CULBRETHIRENE RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 95-1152-Civ-ORL-18
Plaintiff,

-vs.-
Case No.
LESTER COGGINS TRUCKING, INC. MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATIONBARNETT BANK, N.A., CENTRAL FLORIDA,

Defendant.

AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, IRENE RODRIGUEZMICHELE CULBRETH ANN L. BARNETT, , by and through her undersigned attorney, sues Defendant, LESTER COGGINS TRUCKING, INC. (hereinafter “LCT”)BARNETT BANK, N.A., CENTRAL FLORIDA, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, and and alleges the following:
1. This action is brought to obtain relief for discrimination committed by Defendant against Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff’s age anddisability and handicapp committed by Defendant against Plaintiff.
2. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifty een Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
3. The unlawful practices alleged below were committed within Brevard Seminole Brevard County, Florida which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
4. Plaintiff currently resideds in Melbourne, BrevardSeminoleBrevard County, Florida, and at all times material hereto resided in Brevard County, Florida.
5. Defendant, LCTMARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, is a Florida Maryland corporation registered and registered and doing business in the State of Florida, which at the time of the acts complained of herein employed 2015 or more persons and was engaged in an industry affecting commerce.
6. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant LCT MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, on, in or about November 1995July 22, 1963 and was terminated by Defendant in or about November 1998. in the position of Contract Specialist.
7. 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.
8. Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on December 17, 1993, (EEOC) file number 150941032, which complaint was amended on May 16, 1994, and more than one hundred eighty (180) days have expired since the filing of said Complaints, which were dual-filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Copies of said complaints are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively. 8. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer grave and severe damage to her financial welfare, and her employment prospects, by reason of Defendant’s discriminatory actions against Plaintiff.

9. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer grave and severe damage to her financial welfare, and her employment prospects, by reason of Defendant’s discriminatory actions against Plaintiff.
9. 10. Plaintiff has suffered severe mental anguish and emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s actions.
101. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney and agreed to pay him a reasonable fee.
112. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies prior to bringing this action.
123. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent prior to bringing this action.
COUNT I
DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON DISABILITY
STATE CLAIM
13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12 as if set forth in full herein.
14. This action is brought pursuant to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, the

Florida Civil Rights Act.
15.
1Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on September 21, 1998 alleging that she was discriminated against by Defendant on the basis of her disability. More than one hundred eighty days (180 ) days have expired since the filing of said complaint and the Florida Commission on Human Relations has not entered a determination on Plaintiff’s claim. A copy of Plaintiff’s FCHR charge of discrimination is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”.
16. In or about April 1996, Plaintiff was then-employed by Defendant as a “local” truck driver.
17. In 4. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13 as if set forth in full herein.
16. 15. April 1996, Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury, resulting in a torn rotator cuff, which prohibited Plaintiff from being able to lift. In regard to her job, this meant that Plaintiff was not able to physically load and unload heavy cargo.
18. As a result of the injury, Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff under permanent lifting restrictions, such that Plaintiff was not to lift more than five (5) pounds above her shoulder level or more than fifteen (15) pounds below her shoulder level. Plaintiff was therefore substantially limited in her ability to work in any class of jobs which required heavy lifting. Specifically, Plaintiff was also substantially limited in her ability to work in a job as a truck driver that would require heavy lifting. Plaintiff therefore had a handicap, physical disability or impairment that substantially limited one or more of the major life activities of Plaintiff.MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION
19. Following Plaintiff’s injury, in or about November 1997, Defendant re-assigned Plaintiff to a position as a “no touch load” truck driver. In this position, Plaintiff was assigned the duty of driving cargo loads which did not require her to physically load and unload cargo. This job assignment satisfactorily accommodated Plaintiff’s disability.
20. On or about February 10, 1998, Defendant removed Plaintiff from her position as a “no touch load” driver and reassigned her to a position as a guard shack attendant at a location over one hundred (100) miles from her home. Plaintiff’s supervisor informed her that she could return to driving trucks only when she was able to return to work without medical restrictions.
21. In spite of her handicap and disability, Plaintiff was able to perform all of
the essential functions of her position. Plaintiff was fully qualified to, and did perform the essential functions of her job as a “no touch load” driver from November 1997 to February 10, 1998, since in that position she was not required to load or unload cargo, and her restrictions did not prevent her from driving trucks.
22. In reassigning Plaintiff to guard shack duty and failing to accommodate her disability by allowing her to continue driving “no touch load” trucks after February 20, 1998, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her handicap and disability and violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s disability.
23. In reassigning Plaintiff to guard shack duty and failing to accommodate her disability by allowing her to continue driving “no touch load” trucks after February 20, 1998, Defendant engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice and reckless indifference to the statutorily protected rights of Plaintiff.

16. At the time of her discharge, Plaintiff was forty-eight (48) years of age, having been born on April 9, 1945.
17. The discharge of Plaintiff was motivated solely by the intent of Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her age.
18. In its discharge of Plaintiff, the Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her age.
19. By discharging Plaintiff, Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, violated the provisions of 29 USC Section 623(a)(1), which makes it unlawful for an employer “to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.”
20. On or about December 17, 1993, Plaintiff filed a charge alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of age against Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as required by 29 USC Section 626(d). Plaintiff is informed and believes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informed Defendant of the filed charge and attempted but failed, to effect voluntary compliance with the requirements of the ADEA on the part of Defendant through conciliation, conference and persuasion. More than sixty (60) days have elapsed since said charge was filed by Plaintiff with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as aforesaid.
241. Proximately and, directly and solely as as a result of Defendant discriminating against Plaintiff on account of her disability and handicapage, Plaintiff has suffered damages consisting of emotional distress, and loss of salary and other compensation.
25.2. The conduct of Defendant LCT MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATIONcomplained of herein was willful, malicious, oppressive, wanton and in complete disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover statutory liquidated damages from the Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for:
A. Judgment for her back pay, including the difference between what she would have earned in a “no touch load” driving position and what she earned as a guard shack attendant, together with such other increases or bonuses to which she would be entitled, had she not been discriminatorily re-assigned;
B. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for the travel required by her re-assignment, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries;Liquidated damages equal to her back pay.
C. Front pay;
D. Punitive damages;
E. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and all costs incurred herein;
F. F. Such other damages and relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT II
DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON DISABILITY
FEDERAL CLAIM
263. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12, and 16 through 213 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
27. This is an action for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.
28. Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on September 21, 1998 alleging that she was discriminated against by Defendant on the basis of her disability. More than one hundred eighty days (180 ) days have expired since the filing of said complaint. A copy of Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”.
29. Plaintiff has been issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights by the EEOC, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “C”.
30. In reassigning Plaintiff to guard shack duty and failing to accommodate her disability by allowing her to continue driving “no touch load” trucks after February 20, 1998, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her handicap and disability and violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., which makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s disability.
31. In reassigning Plaintiff to guard shack duty and failing to accommodate her disability by allowing her to continue driving “no touch load” trucks after February 20, 1998, Defendant engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice and reckless indifference to the statutorily protected rights of Plaintiff.

32. Proximately and directly as a result of Defendant discriminating against Plaintiff on account of her disability and handicap, Plaintiff has suffered damages consisting of emotional distress, and loss of salary and other compensation.
33. The conduct of Defendant LCT complained of herein was willful, malicious, oppressive, wanton and in complete disregard of the rights of Plaintiff.
24. At the time of her discharge, Plaintiff had one or more handicaps, physical disabilities or impairments that substantially limited one or more of the major life activities of Plaintiff.
25. In spite of her handicaps, Plaintiff was able to perform all of the essential functions of her position.
26. The termination of Plaintiff’s employment was motivated solely by the intent of Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her handicaps.
27. In its termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her handicaps.
28. By terminating Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC Section 1201, et seq., which makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s handicap.
29. In terminating Plaintiff, Defendant engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows:

A. Judgment for her back pay, including the difference between what she would have earned in a “no touch load” driving position and what she earned as a guard shack attendant, together with such other increases or bonuses to which she would be entitled, had she not been discriminatorily re-assigned;
B. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for the travel required by her re-assignment, mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries;
C. Front pay;
D. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and all costs incurred herein;
E. Such other damages and relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT III

RETALIATION

STATE CLAIM

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12 and 15 through 20 of this Complaint, as if set forth in full herein.
35. This action is brought pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act.
36. On March 19, 1999, Plaintiff filed an amended Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), alleging that she was discriminated against by Defendant on the basis of her disability and that she had been retaliated against by Defendant, specifically in that Defendant had terminated her. A copy of Plaintiff’s amended FCHR charge of discrimination is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “D”.
37. Defendant terminated Plaintiff because she had filed charges of discrimination against Defendant, alleging that Defendant had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability.
38. By terminating Plaintiff because she had opposed the discriminatory practices of Defendant, Defendant violated the provisions of Section 760.10(7), 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 under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
39. Because of the retaliatory actions of Defendant, Plaintiff has lost income and other benefits, and has suffered mental anguish, loss of dignity and emotional pain and suffering from the loss of her job.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows:
A. Back pay, lost benefits and interest;
B. Front pay;
C. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries;
D. Punitive damages;
E. Costs of suit, including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees;
F. Such other damages as may be just and proper.

COUNT IV

RETALIATION

ADA CLAIM

40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12, paragraphs 16 through 20, and paragraphs 28 and 29 of this Complaint, as if set forth in full herein.
41. This is an action for violation of section 12203 of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.
42. On March 19, 1999, Plaintiff filed an amended Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that she was discriminated against by Defendant on the basis of her disability and that she had been retaliated against by Defendant, specifically in that Defendant had terminated her. A copy of Plaintiff’s amended EEOC charge of discrimination is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “E”.
43. Defendant terminated Plaintiff because she had filed charges of discrimination against Defendant, alleging that Defendant had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability.
44. By terminating Plaintiff because she had opposed the discriminatory practices of Defendant, Defendant violated the provisions of Section 12203 of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which makes it unlawful for an employer to: discriminate against any person for opposing any act or practice made unlawful by the Americans With Disabilities Act; discriminate against any person who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Americans With Disabilities Act; or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
45. Because of the retaliatory actions of Defendant, Plaintiff has lost income and other benefits, and has suffered mental anguish, loss of dignity and emotional pain and suffering from the loss of her job.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows:
A. Back pay, lost benefits and interest;
B. Front pay;
C. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries;
D. Costs of suit, including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees;
E. Such other damages as may be just and proper.
Front pay;

COUNT III
30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
31. On or about September 24, 1993, Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, discharged Plaintiff who was then employed as a Contract Specialist by Defendant.
32. At the time of her discharge, Plaintiff was forty-eight (48) years of age, having been born on April 9, 1945.
33. The termination of Plaintiff’s employment was motivated solely by the intent of Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her age.
34. In its termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her age.
35. By terminating Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant violated the provisions of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, 1993 which makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows:
A. Judgment for her back pay, including all sums of money Plaintiff would have earned, together with such other increases to which she would be entitled, had she not been discriminatorily discharged;
B. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries.
C. Punitive Damages.
D. Front Pay.
E. Reinstatement
F. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and all costs incurred herein;
G. Such other damages as may be just and proper.

COUNT IV
37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
38. At the time of her discharge, Plaintiff had one or more handicaps, physical disabilities or impairments that substantially limited one or more of the major life activities of Plaintiff.
39. In spite of her handicaps, Plaintiff was able to perform all of the essential functions of her position.
40. The termination of Plaintiff’s employment was motivated solely by the intent of Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her handicaps.
41. In its termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendant, MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her handicaps.
42. By terminating Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant violated the provisions of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, 1993, which makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge or fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s handicap.

Dated this ____17 day of July, 1999.

___________________________
Wayne L. Allen
Attorney-at-Law

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFIY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Express Mail and a copy has been furnished via U.S. Mail to: Susan K. McKenna, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, Garwood, McKenna & McKenna, P.A., P.O. Box 60, Orlando, Florida 32802-0060 this 17 day of November, 1995

______________________________
Wayne L. Allen, Trial Counsel
Florida Bar No.: 110025
WAYNE L. ALLEN, P.A.
Florida Bar No.: 110025
Attorney for Plaintiff
700 N. Wickham Rd., Suite 107
Melbourne, FL 32935
Phone: (407) 254-7550
Fax: (407) 242-1681 fax

Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc.- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Disability Discrimination, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).

Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc.- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Disability Discrimination, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).

Client Review