Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Jorge Mejia, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.____________________

) COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Amazon Logistics, Inc., )
)
Defendant. )

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful

employment practices, and to provide relief to Plaintiff Jorge Mejia who was adversely affected

by such practices. As alleged with greater specificity below, Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc.

terminated Plaintiff Jorge Mejia’s employment in retaliation for him communicating with human

resources about employment discrimination.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and

1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and

Section 102 of Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

2. The unlawful employment practices alleged in this Complaint were committed

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,

Fort Lauderdale Division.

3. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-5(f), venue is

appropriate in this Court.

Page 1 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 2 of 9

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Jorge Mejia, was an employee of Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc., and resides

in Broward County.

5. Defendant, Amazon Logistics, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Amazon”), provides delivery

services to, inter alia, South Florida, including Broward County.

6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been doing business in the State of

Florida and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting

commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§

2000e(b), (g) and (h).

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

8. Plaintiff, Jorge Mejia (“Mejia”), has exhausted all the requisite administrative remedies

prior to bringing this action. Specifically, but not as a limitation, Plaintiff Mejia timely filed a

Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

Pursuant to a work sharing agreement, the Charge was dual filed with the Florida Commission

on Human Relations (“FCHR”).

9. Plaintiff Mejia received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on January 26, 2018.

Plaintiff Mejia timely commenced this action.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. Plaintiff Mejia began employment with Defendant during December 2014 as a Senior

Human Resource Administrator (“Sr. HRA”).

Page 2 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 3 of 9

11. When Plaintiff Mejia began employment with Defendant, he was put on a “flexible”

schedule which means he was not given a set time to begin or end the work day.

12. As more Senior Human Resource Administrators were hired by Defendant, they too were

put on a flexible schedule.

13. On or about October 1, 2017, Plaintiff Mejia, along with all Sr. HRA’s in the east coast

region for Defendant, were advised that they would be coded to a “fixed” schedule which meant

they would be given a set time to begin and end their work day.

14. However, after said announcement, it was noticed by Plaintiff Mejia that he was the only

Sr. HRA put on a fixed schedule.

15. The discriminatory treatment of being the only person put on a fixed schedule was

reflected in the records of the timekeeping software Defendant uses called MyTime.

16. The discriminatory treatment of being the only person put on a fixed schedule resulted in

Plaintiff Mejia’s unpaid time (UPT) being reduced.

17. Plaintiff Mejia was concerned about such an employment benefit being affected as he

was the only Sr. HRA in the east region officially coded to a fixed schedule.

18. Consequently, on or around October 10, 2017, during a one-on-one phone call Plaintiff

Mejia spoke to Senior Human Resources Business Partner Kristina Dudley about said concern.

19. As a result of Plaintiff Mejia going to upper management about his good faith belief that

discriminatory acts were taking place against him, Ms. Dudley began to seek a reason to

unlawfully terminate Plaintiff Mejia’s employment.

20. About a week after Plaintiff Mejia questioned why he was having his unpaid time

affected and why he was put on a fixed schedule, Ms. Dudley began to question Plaintiff Mejia’s

punching-in times which is something she never questioned before.

Page 3 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 4 of 9

21. Plaintiff Mejia started using the timeclocks as soon as he was told that it was mandatory,

which was approximately October 23, 2017.

22. On or about November 17, 2017, Ms. Dudley, with the permission of Regional Human

Resource Manager Bria Sullivan, terminated Plaintiff Mejia’s employment alleging that his

online punch-in times at the Amazon Logistics DMI2 Building don’t match his lenel (employee

security badge scanner) scans.

23. However, it is common knowledge that there are multiple legal entry points at the

Amazon Logistics DMI2 Building as well as multiple AMZL buildings across the network where

employees do not need their badge to be scanned on a lenel device in order to enter the premises.

24. Unlike fulfillment centers and sort centers, which are highly secured buildings,

Defendant’s buildings have access points where employees can enter without the need of a

badge.

25. Further, working from home was common practice by other Sr. HRA’s, especially on

Saturdays. Yet, other Sr. HRA’s were not terminated for alleged improper online punch-ins.

26. Regarding lunch breaks, there were numerous times when Plaintiff Mejia had to eat

while working. Ms. Dudley was very aware of this and in many instances would watch him

work along her side without taking a meal break. Ms. Dudley often did this during Plaintiff

Mejia’s Orlando visits.

27. Also, it was common for Sr. HRA’s to take conference calls while outside the

Defendant’s office and still be paid for being part of said conference call as this was considered

compensable working time.

Page 4 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 5 of 9

28. Regarding personal days, personal days by Sr. HRA’s did not require prior approval by

a manager. Only vacation time required twenty-four (24) hour notice. Nonetheless, Plaintiff

Mejia always provided as much notice as possible prior to taking any personal days.

29. Moreover, using another timekeeping program, MyTime Lite, was a common practice

for Sr. HRAs ever since Plaintiff Mejia started working with Defendant in December 2014, and

he was never told that using Mytime Lite was not allowed.

30. Ms. Dudley and Regional Human Resource Manager Bria Sullivan, while acting within

the scope of their employment with Defendant, terminated Plaintiff Mejia’s employment in

retaliation for him engaging in the protected activity of going to human resources about a

legitimate, good faith concern about his benefits and discriminatory behavior against him.

31. The reasons proffered by Defendant for Plaintiff Mejia’s discharge are pretextual and

are being used as a cover up for Defendant’s unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff Mejia.

32. Plaintiff Mejia’s punch-in timesheet accurately reflected the time he spent working for

Defendant.

33. Meanwhile, other lower level employees of Defendant that were investigated for the

same improper punch-in infraction and had actual proven fraudulent punch-in sheets were not

fired.

34. Plaintiff Mejia was never written up for poor performance issues while working for

Defendant.

35. Defendant has a system where write-ups are recorded. A first infraction results in a first

written notice until a third written notice is given for continued infractions which would then

lead to a termination.

36. Plaintiff Mejia never signed any write-ups for poor performance from Defendant.

Page 5 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 6 of 9

37. In addition, employees of Defendant with poor performance issues are placed on a PIP

(“Performance Improvement Plan”) or PIVOT which never took place for Plaintiff Mejia.

COUNT I
Retaliation
(Title VII of Civil Rights Act)

38. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 9 are re-alleged as if fully set forth

herein.

39. Plaintiff Mejia began employment with Defendant during December 2014 as a Senior

Human Resource Administrator (“Sr. HRA”).

40. When Plaintiff Mejia began employment with Defendant, he was put on a “flexible”

schedule which means he was not given a set time to begin or end the work day.

41. As more Senior Human Resource Administrators were hired by Defendant, they too were

put on a flexible schedule.

42. On or about October 1, 2017, Plaintiff Mejia, along with all Sr. HRA’s in the east coast

region for Defendant, were advised that they would be coded to a “fixed” schedule which meant

they would be given a set time to begin and end their work day.

43. However, after said announcement, it was noticed by Plaintiff Mejia that he was the only

Sr. HRA put on a fixed schedule.

44. The discriminatory treatment of being the only person put on a fixed schedule was

reflected in the records of the timekeeping software Defendant uses called MyTime.

45. The discriminatory treatment of being the only person put on a fixed schedule resulted in

Plaintiff Mejia’s unpaid time (UPT) being reduced.

46. Plaintiff Mejia was concerned about such an employment benefit being affected as he

was the only Sr. HRA in the east region officially coded to a fixed schedule.

Page 6 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 7 of 9

47. Consequently, on or around October 10, 2017, during a one-on-one phone call he spoke

to Senior Human Resources Business Partner Kristina Dudley about said concern.

48. As a result of Plaintiff Mejia going to Ms. Dudley about his good faith belief that

unlawful discriminatory acts were taking place against him, Ms. Dudley began to seek a reason

to unlawfully terminate Plaintiff Mejia’s employment in retaliation.

49. Plaintiff Mejia had a good faith, reasonable belief that Defendant was engaged in

unlawful employment practices when he was the only person coded to a fixed schedule which

affected his UPT.

50. About a week after Plaintiff Mejia questioned why he was having his unpaid time

affected and why he was put on a fixed schedule, Ms. Dudley began to question Plaintiff Mejia’s

punching-in times which is something she never questioned before.

51. Ms. Dudley, during all times material, never questioned the punching-in times of other

Sr. HRA’s.

52. Ms. Dudley and Regional Human Resource Manager Bria Sullivan, while acting within

the scope of their employment with Defendant, terminated Plaintiff Mejia’s employment on

November 17, 2017, in retaliation for him engaging in the protected activity of going to human

resources about a legitimate, good faith concern about his job benefits and discriminatory

behavior against him.

53. Ms. Sullivan was aware that Plaintiff Mejia opposed being discriminated against

regarding UPT and scheduling prior to approving Plaintiff Mejia’s employment being

terminated.

54. The unlawful termination of Plaintiff Mejia’s employment is the adverse employment

action at issue in this count.

Page 7 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 8 of 9

55. The reasons proffered by Defendant for Plaintiff Mejia’s discharge are pretextual and

are being used as a cover up for Defendant’s unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff Mejia.

Plaintiff Mejia’s punch-in timesheet accurately reflected the time he spent working for

Defendant.

56. Plaintiff Mejia was never written up for poor performance issues while working for

Defendant.

57. Defendant has no legitimate non-retaliatory, non-discriminatory reason for

terminating Plaintiff Mejia’s employment.

58. Plaintiff Mejia was qualified for his position as Senior HRA.

59. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful retaliatory conduct of terminating Plaintiff

Mejia’s employment, Plaintiff Mejia has suffered the loss of income and the loss of fringe

benefits he received while employed by the Defendant.

60. Plaintiff Mejia has exhausted all the requisite administrative remedies prior to bringing

this action. Specifically, but not as a limitation, Plaintiff Mejia timely filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Pursuant to a

work sharing agreement, the Charge was dual filed with the Florida Commission on Human

Relations (“FCHR”).

61. Plaintiff Mejia received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on January 26, 2018.

Plaintiff Mejia timely commenced this action.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Jorge Mejia demands judgment against Defendant for back pay,

front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Page 8 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 9 of 9

JURY TRIAL REQUEST

Plaintiff Jorge Mejia, by and through his counsel, demands trial by jury with regard to

all issues in the above-referenced cause.

Date: April 24, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

/s
Nnamdi S. Jackson, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 99804

THE LAW OFFICE OF NNAMDI S. JACKSON, P.A.

2645 Executive Park Drive,
Suite 340
Weston, Florida 33331
(954) 670-1267
[email protected]

Page 9 of 9
Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 1 of 1
 Case 0:18-cv-60933-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2018 Page 1 of 1

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
SouthernDistrict
__________ Districtof
of__________
Florida

Jorge Mejia )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-60933-XXXX
)
Amazon Logistics, Inc. )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Amazon Logistics, Inc.

Registered Agent: Corporation Service Company
1201 Hays Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301-2525

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Nnamdi S. Jackson.
2645 Executive Park Drive, suite 340
Weston, FL 33331.

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk