Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 24 liagelD 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT zone Aug 29 AH MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA .. A 8- 53 FORT MYERS DIVISION . s~ . ANDREA SCHULTZ, an individual, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. Judge: GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Mag. Judge: KINGMAN SCHULDT, an individual, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NOW COMES the Plaintiff, ANDREA SCHULTZ by and through undersigned counsel, and states the following for her Complaint: CAUSES OF ACTION 1. This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), 42 U.S.C. ?1981 via 42 U.S.C. ?1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for (1) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII, (2) gender discrimination in violation of the FCRA, (3) retaliation in violation of Title VII, (4) retaliation in violation of the FCRA, (5) violation of 42 U.S.C. ?1933, and (6) unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA. PARTIES 2. The Plaintiff, ANDREA SCHULTZ is an individual and a former resident of Florida who at all material times resided in Lee County, FloridaCase No. %,Fm_qqm Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 24 PagelD 2 worked for the Defendant, GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT in Collier County, Florida. 3. Defendant, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida with a principal place of business located in Naples, Florida. merged with East Naples Fire Control Rescue District and Golden Gate Fire Rescue District in April 2013 and the Isle of Capri Fire Department merged in November 2014. At all material times, is a person as intended by 42 U.S.C. ?1983 and is an employer under Title VII, the CRA and the FLSA. 4. Defendant, KINGMAN SCHULDT is an individual and is the Fire Chief of SCHULDT is a person as intended by 42 U.S.C. ?1983. 5. At all material times, employed greater than ?fteen (15) employees. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. ?133 1. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 8. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida because the Plainti?? resides in, and the Defendant conducts business in, and some or all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff?s claims occurred in Collier County, Florida, which is within the Middle District of Florida. Venue is proper in the Fort Myers Division under Local Rule since Collier County is within the Fort Myers Division. 9. SCHULTZ received her Notice of Right to Sue ?'om United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 3, 2016 and the instant Complaint is ?led within the time frame required under the law. (A true and accurate copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached as Exhibit A.) Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 24 PagelD 3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. SCHULTZ was hired by in August 2005 and eventually rose to the position of captain. ll. SCHULTZ always performed her assigned duties in a professional manner and was very well quali?ed for her position. 12. SCHULTZ is a member of a protected class as a female person. 13. At all material times, SCHULDT was the Fire Chief. 14. From the outset of her employment, SCHULTZ began to be subjected to disparate treatment by which treatment would become consistent and remained ongoing until her termination. 15. In fact, has a pattern and practice of permitting, condoning and even encouraging sexual harassment and discrimination. 16. For example, SCHULTZ was subjected to gross invasion of privacy when unknown male of?cers cut a hole in the bathroom stall in order to observe female of?cers, including SCHULTZ use the restroom. Additionally, knew that several male o??icers had placed ?inactive? cameras in the locker room where female of?cers changed but took inadequate or insuf?cient steps to remedy such gross invasion of privacy and offensive conduct. Furthermore, beginning when she ?rst became employed by and escalating until her termination in February 2015, SCHULTZ was subjected to relentless slurs such as ?bitch,? ?cunt,? ?slut,? ?ballbuster,? ?skank,? and ?slut,? many of which slurs were directed at SCHULTZ by her superiors and coworkers alike without consequence. 18. Consistent with these gender-based slurs, superiors also falsely accused SCHULTZ of sexual impropriety every time she was alone with any male ?re?ghter or male Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 24 PagelD 4 o?icer, which occurred with a signi?cant degree of regularity because is a male dominated department. In such situations, the male o?cers? integrity was never called into question. 19. SCHULTZ was also subjected to repeated sexual harassment, which culminated in several incidents in March and April 2014. 20. While conducting physical training regarding the administration of ?rst aid by ?rst responders, SCHULTZ was required to make contact with male officers, for which she requested permission and for which she instructed her male o?icer trainees to remain professional. Instead, the male of?cers began sexually harassing her, which included intentionally grabbing her breasts, which was in no way part of the exercise at all. Additionally, when SCHULTZ was close to several male o?cers, they joked that they were ?getting a boner," or words to that effect. 21. SCHULTZ immediately reported this sexual harassment to her supervisors, but to no avail as did nothing to investigate or stop the sexual harassment, despite there being video of at least some of the incidents. Speci?cally, SCHULDT received the complaints but took no remedial steps. Furthermore, he was aware of the slurs SCHULTZ was being subjected to but took no steps to stop the sexual harassment and gender discrimination. 22. Instead, opted to retaliate against SCHULTZ for her objections to sexual harassment and gender discrimination, which began in 2010 but which culminated in more passionate objections after this sexual harassment while she was conducting trainings in March and April 2014, by opening an investigation into her conduct, which was unwarranted since she had done nothing wrong whatsoever. Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5 23. On May 6, 2014, informed SCHULTZ in writing that she was under investigation for ?ve (5) vague, unde?ned ?offenses.? 24. SCHULTZ immediately objected to these allegations and stated that actions were retaliatory. 25. When refused to investigate her complaints, SCHULTZ was le? with no choice but to ?le a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, which she did on June 13, 2014. 26. On June 23, 2014, immediately placed SCHULTZ on administrative leave, which acknowledged was due to its receipt of Charge of Discrimination. While on administrative leave, SCHULTZ became aware that had begun a campaign to malign and impugn SCHULTZ by trying to elicit statements from her coworkers that she was engaged in extramarital a?'airs. 27. SCHULTZ was regularly told by her male superiors that ?women shouldn?t be in the fire service.? Additionally, in the months prior to being placed on administrative leave, further subjected SCHULTZ to disparate treatment by requiring SCHULTZ to perform grossly disproportionate amounts of work compared to similarly situated male of?cers, subjecting her to additional requirements that male of?cers did not have to adhere to such as being forced to submit written time sheets, being required to submit written reports under the auspices that her work would be included in newsletters or public dissemination but which inclusion did not occur, being accused of not being present at work, failing to provide SCHULTZ with her own work vehicle, declining to assist SCHULTZ in lifting objects heavier that her job description requires her to and re?ising to remit payment to SCHULTZ for overtime hours she worked. SCHULDT was aware of all of these instances of disparate treatment based on gender and even participated in them rather than preventing them. Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 6 of 24 PageID 6 28. has an unwritten policy of failing to hire and promote female of?cers and subjecting those female of?cers to far greater scrutiny than their male counterparts. 29. In fact, SCHULTZ was the only captain not promoted when the 2013 merger described in 1l3 occurred. Not only was she the only captain not promoted, but she was the only female captain, at the time, in the Operations Division of all of her male colleagues received promotions, despite the fact that SCHULTZ was objectively more quali?ed and had higher degrees, greater experience and longer tenure. SCHULDT was responsible for determining who was promoted and promoted all male captains over SCHULTZ. 30. At the time of her termination, SCHULTZ was the only captain in the Operations Division of that was a female and, in fact, still employs no females as captains in the Operations Division of 31. Speci?cally, has illegally refused to hire or promote quali?ed female applicants in favor of under-quali?ed male applicants and has targeted its female of?cers for unwarranted discipline. 32. This includes SCHULTZ, who has been targeted by for unwarranted discipline based upon her status as a female o?icer whereas those similarly situated male ?re?ghters go undisciplined for the same ?offenses.? These undisciplined male individuals include, but are not limited to, Eugene Bogert. Sean Hunt and Jeff Davenport. 33. Additionally, terminated SCHULTZ for ?offenses? such as use of department assets for personal gain, more than de minimis use of department vehicle and inaccurate time card records that, when committed by male of?cers, including but not limited to, Eugene Bogart, Sean Hunt and Jeff Davenport, did not lead to termination. Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 7 of 24 PagelD 7 34. After enduring years of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation, which continued unabated and which actually increased dramatically when she objected to the same, SCHULTZ was required to resign her employment on or about February 28, 2015. 35. nor SCHULDT investigated complaints. 36. Male employees of including but not limited to Eugene Bogert, Sean Hunt and Jeff Davenport (all captains), were provided better opportunities and/or received no discipline under similar circumstances by SCHULDT. 37. SCHULDT and have a policy and practice of subjecting female employees to sexual harassment, far greater scrutiny and disparate discipline in a diaproportionate manner towards women. 38. and SCHULDT also refused to engage in any investigative process despite clear request to do so on many occasions, including in April and May 2014, when she requested a meeting with SCHULDT to discuss the harassment, discrimination and retaliation she and others similarly situated were suffering at 39. SCHULTZ always received much greater scrutiny from her supervisors than those same supervisors gave to those not in protected class. 40. objected to sexual harassment and gender discrimination, but to no avail, and instead, and SCHULDT targeted SCHULTZ for termination in retaliation for lodging those complaints. 41. and SCHULDT continue their discriminatory employment practices. 42. has violated Title VII and the FCRA, and and SCHULDT have violated 42 U.S.C. ?l983. 43. has also failed to remit payment to SCHULTZ for overtime wages. Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 8 of 24 PagelD 8 44. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an hourly employee of which is a covered entity under the FLSA. 45. On a weekly basis, SCHULTZ worked between 63-68 hours, which is in excess of the hours permitted to be worked for ?re?ghters and which requires those hours in excess of 53 to be compensated at time and one half. 46. When SCHULTZ tried to submit those hours on her time sheet, refused to accept them and refused to pay SCHULTZ for those overtime hours worked. 47. This practice occurred consistently during the last three years of employment with and occurred within the three years preceding this action. 48. re?isal to pay SCHULTZ overtime wages in willful because it knew SCHULTZ worked the hours claimed and yet refused to remit payment of overtime wages due to its animas towards SCHULTZ, rather than based on a good faith belief that it was not required to remit payment for those overtime hours. COUNT I VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, GENDER DISCRINIINATION- 49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as though ?rlly set forth below. 50. SCHULTZ is a female and as such, is a member of a protected class. 51. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an employee and is her employer covered by and within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C ?2000e. 52. SCHULTZ was, and is, quali?ed for the positions that she held with Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 24 PagelD 9 53. SCHULTZ has endured gender-based comments, harassment, jokes, disparate treatment and failures to promote her while employed with thereby altering the terms and conditions of her employment and creating a hostile work environment. 54. The acts, failures to act, practiees and policies of set forth above constitute intentional discrimination on the basis of Plainti?'s gender in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. as referenced and cited herein, SCHULTZ has lost bene?ts and privileges of her employment and has been substantially and signi?cantly injured in her career path. 56. As a direct and result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. as referenced and cited herein, and as a direct and proximate result of the prohibited acts perpetrated against her, SCHULTZ is entitled to all relief necessary to make her whole as provided for under 42 USC 2000c et seq. As a direct and proximate result of actions, SCHULTZ has su??ered damages, including but not limited to, a loss of employment Opportunities, loss of past and future employment income and fringe bene?ts, humiliation, and non-economic damages for physical injuries, mental and emotional distress. 58. SCHULTZ has exhausted her administrative remedies and this count is timely brought. WHEREFORE, Plainti?' requests trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right, and: i. Injunctivc relief directing Defendant to cease and desist from all retaliation against employees who engage in statutorily protected acts; Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 10 of 24 PageID 10 ii. Back pay and all other bene?ts, perquisites and other compensation for employment which plaintiff would have received had she maintained her position with the Defendant, plus interest, including but not limited to lost salary and bonuses; Front pay, including raises, bene?ts, insurance costs, bene?ts costs, and retirement bene?ts; iv. Reimbursement of all expenses and ?nancial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of Defendant?s actions; v. Declaratory relief declaring the acts and practices of Defendants to be in violation of the statute cited above; vi. Reasonable attomey's fees plus costs; vii. Compensatory damages, and; Such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT II - VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDACIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, GENDER DISCRIMINATION- 59. Plainti?" incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as though hilly set forth below. 60. SCHULTZ is a fernale and as such, is a member of a protected class. 61. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an eruployee and is her employer covered by and within the meaning of the FCRA. 62. SCHULTZ was, and is, quali?ed for the positions that she held with 63. SCHULTZ has endured gender-based comments, harassment, jokes, disparate treatment and failures to promote her while employed with thereby altering the terms and conditions of her employment and creating a hostile work environment. 10 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11 of 24 PageID 11 64. The acts, failures to act, practices and policies of set forth above constitute intentional discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs gender in violation of the FCRA. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of the FCRA as referenced and cited herein, SCHULTZ has lost bene?ts and privileges of her employment and has been substantially and signi?cantly injured in her career path. 66. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of the FCRA as referenced and cited herein, and as a direct and proximate result of the prohibited acts perpetrated against her, SCHULTZ is entitled to all relief necessary to make her whole as provided for under the FCRA. 67. As a direct and proximate result of actions, SCHULTZ has su?'ered damages, including but not limited to, a loss of employment opporttmities, loss of past and future employment income and fringe benefits, humiliation, and non-economic damages for physical injuries, mental and emotional distress. 68. SCHULTZ has exhausted her administrative remedies and this count is timely brought. WI-IEREFORE, Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right, and: i. Injunctive relief directing Defendant to cease and desist from all retaliation against employees who engage in statutorily protected acts; ii. Back pay and all other bene?ts, perquisites and other compensation for employment which plaintiff would have received had she maintained her position with the Defendant, plus interest, including but not limited to lost salary and bonuses; Front pay, including raises, bene?ts, insurance costs, bene?ts costs, and retirement bene?ts; 11 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 12 of 24 PageID 12 iv. Reimbursement of all expenses and ?nancial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of Defendant?s actions; v. Declaratory relief declaring the acts and practices of Defendants to be in violation of the statute cited above; vi. Reasonable attorney's fees plus costs; vii. Compensatory damages, and; Such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT - VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964- RETALIATION- 69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as though ?tlly set forth below. 70. SCHULTZ is a female a person and, as such, is a member of a protected class. 71. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an employee and was her employer covered by and within the meaning of Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C ?2000e. 72. SCHULTZ was quali?ed for the positions that she held with 73. SCHULTZ endured continuous gender-based comments, harassment, inappropriate discipline, disparate treatment and inappropriate threats on her employment while employed with thereby altering the tems and conditions of her employment and creating a hostile work environment, which, after SCHULTZ complained, caused the separation of her employment with the 74. SCHULTZ complained to about the gender harassment, hostile environment, violation of policies and retaliation, and clearly observed her growing discomfort concerning the same. 12 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 13 of 24 PageID 13 75. SCHULTZ's complaints constitute a protected activity because her complaints were concerning an unlawful activity of 76. Said protected activity was the proximate cause of negative employment actions against SCHULTZ which created a working environment that was toxic. 77. Instead of preventing said treatment, retaliated against SCHULTZ. 78. The acts, failures to act, practices and policies of set forth above constitute retaliation in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq., as referenced and cited herein, SCHULTZ has lost all of the bene?ts and privileges of her employment and has been substantially and signi?cantly injured in her career path. 80. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq., as referenced and cited herein, and as a direct and proximate result of the prohibited acts perpetrated against her, SCHULTZ is entitled to all relief necessary to make her whole as provided for under 42 USC 2000c et seq. 81. As a direct and proximate result of actions, SCHULTZ has suffered damages, including but not limited to, a loss of employment opportunities, loss of past and future employment income and ?inge bene?ts, humiliation, and non-economic damages for physical injuries, mental and emotional distress. 82. SCHULTZ has exhausted her administrative remedies and this count is timely brought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right, and: i. Injunctive relief directing Defendant to cease and desist ?'om all retaliation against employees who engage in statutorily protected acts; 13 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 14 of 24 PageID 14 ii. Back pay and all other bene?ts, perquisites and other compensation far employment which plainti?? would have received had she maintained her position with the Defendant, plus interest, including but not limited to lost salary and bonuses; Front pay, including raises, bene?ts, insurance costs, bene?ts costs, and retirement bene?ts; iv. Reimbursement of all expenses and ?nancial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of Defendant?s actions; v. Declaratory relief declaring the acts and practices of Defendant to be in violation of the statute cited above; vi. Reasonable attorney's fees plus costs; vii. Compensatory damages, and; Such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992- RETALIATION 83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as though fully set forth below. 84. SCHULTZ is a female a person and, as such, is a member of a protected class. 85. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an employee and was her employer covered by and within the meaning of the FCRA. 86. SCHULTZ was quali?ed for the positions that she held with 87. SCHULTZ endured continuous gender-based comments, harassment, inappropriate discipline, disparate treatment and inappropriate threats on her employment while employed with thereby altering the terms and conditions of her employment and 14 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 15 of 24 PageID 15 creating a hostile work environment, which, a?er SCHULTZ complained, caused the separation of her employment with the 88. SCHULTZ complained to about the gender harassment, hostile environment, violation of policies and retaliation, and clearly observed her growing discomfort concerning the same. 89. complaints constitute a protected activity because her complaints were concerning an unlawful activity of 90. Said protected activity was the proximate cause of negative employment actions against SCHULTZ which created a working environment that was toxic. 91. Instead of preventing said treatment, retaliated against SCHULTZ. 92. The acts, failures to act, practices and policies of set forth above constitute retaliation in violation of the FCRA. 93. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of the FCRA, as referenced and cited herein, has lost all of the bene?ts and privileges of her employment and has been substantially and signi?cantly injured in her career path. 94. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of the FCRA, as referenced and cited herein, and as a direct and proximate result of the prohibited acts perpetrated against her, SCHULTZ is entitled to all relief necessary to make her whole as provided for under the FCRA. 95. As a direct and proximate result of actions, SCHULTZ has su?'ered damages, including but not limited to, a loss of employment opportunities, loss of past and future employment income and ?inge bene?ts, humiliation, and non-economic damages for physical injuries, mental and emotional distress. 15 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 16 of 24 PageID 16 96. brought. SCHULTZ has exhausted her administrative remedies and this count is timely WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all issues so u'iable as of right, and: i. ii. iv. Injunctive relief directing Defenth to cease and desist ?'om all retaliation against employees who engage in statutorily protected acts; Back pay and all other bene?ts, perquisites and other compensation for employment which plainti?? would have received had she maintained her position with the Defendant, plus interest, including but not limited to lost salary and bonuses; Front pay, including raises, bene?ts, insurance costs, bene?ts costs, and retirement bene?ts; Reimbursement of all expenses and ?nancial losses Plainti?? has incurred as a result of Defendant?s actions; v. Declaratory relief declaring the acts and practices of Defendant to be in violation of the statute cited above; vi. Reasonable attorney's fees plus costs; vii. Compensatory damages, and; Such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. COUNT - VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. ?l983- 97. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as though fully set forth below. 98. SCHULTZ, by virtue of her gender, is a member of a protected class. 16 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 17 of 24 PageID 17 99. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an employee and was the employer of SCHULTZ. 100. engaged in unlaw?rl employment practices prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause (enforced via Section 1983) by creating, condoning and perpetuating a discriminatory and hostile work environment and interfering with contractual rights because of her gender. 101. engaged in unlaw?ll employment practices prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause by creating, condoning and perpetuating a discriminatory and hostile work environment and interfering with contractual rights because SCHULTZ was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside SCHULTZ 's protected class. 102. acted with malice and reckless disregard for SCHULTZ '5 rights under the Equal Protection Clause. 103. Supervisory personnel of intentionally subjected SCHULTZ to unequal and discriminatory treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment that altered the conditions of employment. 104. At all material times, personnel acted under the color of state law as they acted with authority possessed by virtue of their employment with the state and had authority to a?'ect, indirectly or directly, the terms and conditions of SCHULTZ's employment. 105. and personnel intentionally subjected SCHULTZ to unequal and discriminatory treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment that altered the conditions of her employment and by knowingly failing and re?rsing to protect SCHULTZ, and other women, ?'om those hostile and abusive conditions. 17 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 18 of 24 PagelD 18 106. actions re?ect a policy, custom, or pattern of of?cial conduct of engaging in and condoning harassment and discrimination: a. employees intentionally subjected SCHULTZ to unequal and discriminatory treatment by engaging in repeated and persistent acts of unwelcome and offensive gender discrimination and sexual harassment of b. employees have engaged in conduct with other female employees who have found such conduct to be unwelcome and o??ensive; c. Supervisors, including and particularly SCHULDT, and employees of treated SCHULTZ and other female employees in a degrading, offensive, disparate and discriminatory manner because of their membership in protected classes, and re?ned to take corrective action; d. SCHULTZ and other females were subjected to a discriminatory and hostile work environment because of their such memberships, and failed and re?rsed to take corrective action; 107. The actions of against SCHULTZ violate her equal protection right to be ?ne from gender discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 108. The actions of were intentional, willful, and malicious andlor in deliberate indi??erence for clearly established legal rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 109. could not have believed doing nothing was law?rl in light of the clearly established law that gender harassment and discrimination was an in?ingement of legal rights. 18 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 19 of 24 PageID 19 110. The actions of in intentionally engaging in and condoning gender harassment and discrimination against SCHULTZ has caused SCHULTZ great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and su??ering, inconvenience, lost wages and bene?ts, ?xture pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests: i. iv. vi. All wages and bene?ts SCHULTZ would have received but for the discrimination, including pre-judgment interest; Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial to compensate SCHULTZ for her depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and defamation, caused by conduct; be required to pay prejudgment interest to on these damages; A permanent injunction enjoining the from engaging in the discriminatory practices complained of herein; A permanent injunction requiring that the adopt employment practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and further requiring that adopt and initiate effective remedial actions to ensure equal treatment of male and female employees and subordinates; A declaratory judgment that actions violate federal law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; . The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured that the has remedied the policies and practices complained of herein and are determined to be in full compliance with the law; An award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and litigation expenses, and; I9 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 20 of 24 PagelD 20 ix. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable. COUNT VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. ?l983 (EQUAL PROTECTIOE SCHULDT 11]. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as though fully set forth below. 112. SCHULTZ, by virtue of her gender, is a member of a protected class. 113. At all material times, SCHULTZ was an employee and was the employer of SCHULTZ. 114. SCHULDT engaged in unlaw?il employment practices prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause by creating, condoning and perpetuating a discriminatory and hostile work environment and interfering with contractual rights because of her gender. 115. SCHULDT engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause by creating, condoning and perpetuating a discriminatory and hostile work environment and interfering with contractual rights because SCHULTZ was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside SCHULTZ 's protected class. 116. SCHULDT acted with malice and reckless disregard for SCHULTZ's rights under the Equal Protection Clause. 117. SCHULDT intentionally subjected SCHULTZ to unequal and discriminatory treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment that altered the conditions of employment. 118. At all material times, SCHULDT acted under the color of state law as they acted with authority possessed by virtue of their employment with the state and had authority to affect, indirectly or directly, the terms and conditions of SCHULTZ's employment. 20 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 21 of 24 PageID 21 119. SCHULDT intentionally subjected SCHULTZ to unequal and discriminatory treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment that altered the conditions of her employment and by knowingly failing and re?tsing to protect SCHULTZ, and other women, ??om those hostile and abusive conditions. 120. actions re?ect a policy, custom, or pattern of o?icial conduct of engaging in and condoning harassment and discrimination: a. SCHULDT intentionally subjected SCHULTZ to unequal and discriminatory treatment by engaging in repeated and persistent acts of unwelcome and offensive gender discrimination and sexual harassment of b. SCHULDT engaged in conduct with other female employees who have found such conduct to be unwelcome and offensive; c. SCHULDT treated SCHULTZ and other female employees in a degrading, o??ensive, disparate and discriminatory manner because of their membership in protected classes, and SCHULDT refused to take corrective action; d. SCHULTZ and other females were subjected to a discriminatory and hostile work environment because of their such memberships, and SCHULDT failed and re?rsed to take corrective action; 121. The actions of SCHULDT against SCHULTZ violate her equal protection right to be ?ee from gender discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 122. The actions of SCHULDT were intentional, will?tl, and malicious and/or in deliberate indi??erence for clearly established legal rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 21 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 22 of 24 PageID 22 123. SCHULDT could not have believed doing nothing was lawful in light of the clearly established law that gender harassment and discrimination was an infringement of legal rights. A 124. The actions of SCHULDT in intentionally engaging condoning-i gender - harassment and discrimination against SCHULTZ has caused SCHULTZ great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and su??ering, inconvenience, lost wages and bene?ts, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages. WHEREFORE, Plainti?' respectfully requests: . i. All wages and bene?ts scnuvrn would have received but for the discrimination, including pure-judgment interest; ii. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial to compensate SCHULTZ for her depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and defamation, caused by conduct; SCHULDT he required to pay prejudgment interest to on these damages iv. A permanent injunction enjoining SCHULDT from engaging in the discriminatory practices complained of herein; v. A permanent injunction requiring that SCHULDT adhere to employment practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 42 1983, and further requiring that SCHULDT undertake remedial actions to ensure understanding of equal treatment of male?and female employees and subordinates; vi. A declaratory judgment that actions violate federal law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 22 Case RM Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 23 of 24 PageID 23 vii. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured that SCHULDT has remedied the policies and practices .complainedof herein and are determined to be in full compliance with the law; 1 Punitive damages as allowed by law as against ix. An award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and litigation expenses, and; x. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable. COUNT VII: VIOLATION OF THE ELSA 125. The Plaintiff? hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1-48 in this Count as though fully set forth herein. I i I 126. SCHULTZ was a covered, non-exempt employee under the all times during her employment with 127. was required by the FLSA to pay SCHULTZ at least time and one-half for all hours worked the SCHULTZ in excess of 53 hours in a 7-day period. 128. had operational control over all aspects of day-to-day functions during her employment, including compensation. 129. was SCHULT 's "employer" and is liable for violations of the FLSA in this case. 130. violated the FLSA by failing to pay SCHULTZ at least time and one- - halffor all hours worked over 53 in a 7-day work period when SCHULTZ worked in excess of 212 hours in the 28-day work period. 131. has violated the FLSA in refusing to pay SCHULTZ proper overtime for all hours worked over 212 in a 28-day work period. 132. As a result of the foregoing, the SCHULTZ has su?'ered damages of lost wages. 23 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/16 Page 24 of 24 PagelD 24 133. is the proximate cause of the SCHIETZ?s?damag?es. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter aJudgment, in his favor and against the Defendant for an amount consistent with eVidence, together with liguidated damages, the costs of litigation, interest, and reasonable attorneys" fees. I Plain??' ANDREA SCHULTZ respectfully demands a jury trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 on all counts and prays forjudgment against and SCHULDT. Respectfu?y submitted, Dated: August 26, 2016 sf Benjamin H. Yormak 7 . Benjamin H. Yormak . . Florida Bar Number 71272 Trial Counsel for Plaintiff 4 Yormak Employment Disability Law 9990 Coconut Road Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Fax: (239) 288-2534 Email: byormak@yormaklaw.com 24