Scribd

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. ) ) Civil Action No. ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) )

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e

et seq

. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion and to provide relief to Rommy Sanchez (“Sanchez”), Norma Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), Yanileydis Capote (“Capote”), Maykel Ruz (“Ruz”), and a class of current and/or former employees of Defendant Dynamic Medical Services, Inc. (“Dynamic”), who were victims of such unlawful employment practices. As alleged with greater specificity below, Sanchez, Rodriguez, Capote, Ruz and a class of current and/or former employees of Dynamic were subjected to disparate treatment based on religion when Dynamic coerced them to adopt Scientology religious views and practices as a condition of continued employment. Sanchez, Rodriguez, Capote, Ruz and a class of current and/or former employees of Dynamic were also subjected to a hostile work environment based on religion by Dynamic’s unwelcome imposition upon them of Scientology religious views and

NATURE OF ACTION

Case 1:13-cv-21666-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2013 Page 1 of 21

2 practices. Dynamic also terminated Sanchez and Rodriguez in retaliation for opposing Dynamic’s unlawful practices. Further, Dynamic failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of Rodriguez. 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 Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. 3.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission” or “EEOC”) is an Agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

PARTIES

4.

Dynamic provides medical and chiropractic services to patients. 5.

Dr. Dennis Nobbe (“Nobbe”) is the owner of Dynamic. 6.

At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), (g), and (h).


3 7.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Sanchez, Rodriguez, Capote, and Ruz filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Dynamic.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

8.

On November 29, 2011, the Commission issued a notice to Dynamic that it was “expanding the scope of the investigation . . . to include the religious discrimination practices of Dynamic Medical Services as they affect a class, or classes, of individuals, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.” 9.

Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Commission issued Letters of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that (1) Dynamic subjected Norma Rodriguez, Maykel Ruz, Rommy Sanchez, Yanileydis Capote, and a class of individuals to a hostile work environment based on their religion; (2) Dynamic subjected Norma Rodriguez, Maykel Ruz, Rommy Sanchez, and Yanileydis Capote to disparate treatment because of their failure to conform to employer’s religion; (3) Dynamic failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of Norma Rodriguez, Maykel Ruz, Rommy Sanchez, and Yanileydis Capote; (4) and Dynamic terminated Norma Rodriguez and Rommy Sanchez in retaliation for opposing Dynamic’s unlawful employment practices. 10.

Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission’s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with Title VII through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of Section 706(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).
