Private Sector Florida Whistleblower Act Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Ramirez.
Plaintiff Ramirez.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document 7-1 Filed 11/02/10 Page 11 of 25 PageID 163<br />
events, meriting investigation and corrective action under SOPs. The Plaintiff complained that<br />
the required documentation per the SOP was missing or improperly recorded.<br />
35. On May 21, 2008, following up on discussions the Plaintiff had with WANDA<br />
ROSARIO about the recurring breakages on production line 4, the Plaintiff requested that<br />
ROSARIO identify the SOPs governing the cleaning steps an operator must follow to remediate<br />
glass contamination/adulteration.<br />
36. On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff expressed concern to Quality Group Leader<br />
GORDON that he had not received the SOP prescribed level of training sufficient to enable him<br />
to enter training form certifications in the Defendant’s data system.<br />
37. In or about June 2008, the Plaintiff complained about being bypassed from<br />
promotion based on his national origin after being denied the Compounder I position in May<br />
2008.<br />
38. On June 10, 2008, the Plaintiff notified THOMAS and GORDON that he<br />
discovered excess unit counts in the filling production line. THOMAS and GORDON told the<br />
Plaintiff to take no action other than discarding the excess unit. The Plaintiff objected because<br />
SOPs set forth a specific procedure governing responses to excess unit counts. SOP 60-021<br />
“Cleaning and Sanitization of the Aseptic Core” also specifies that the sanitization process<br />
include a line clearance of rejected filled and empty containers at the end of each working shift.<br />
Later that day, the Plaintiff objected to THOMAS that a filling associate was present inside the<br />
manufacturing area without wearing prescribed personal protective clothing, in violation of SOP<br />
61-064, which prescribes guidelines for “Proper Attire Within the Manufacturing Facility”.<br />
39. On June 12, 2008, in response to the Quality Control Supervisor’s inquiries, the<br />
Plaintiff objected to her accusatorial interrogation of him as to justifications for his prior<br />
First <strong>Amended</strong> <strong>Complaint</strong>, page 11