12.06.2017 Views

Private Sector Florida Whistleblower Act Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Ramirez.

Plaintiff Ramirez.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!