Private Sector Florida Whistleblower Act Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Ramirez. Plaintiff Ramirez.
Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document 7-1 Filed 11/02/10 Page 14 of 25 PageID 166 48. On October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff’s prior counsel, reiterated to CALLEJAS the Plaintiff’s concerns regarding defective products and inappropriate management pressures to certify defective products as having met prescribed inspection criteria. 49. On November 3, 2008, when the Plaintiff reported back to work following approved Family Medical Leave that commenced August 4, 2008, Defendant managers CALLEGAS and MUJAGIC called him into a meeting. They questioned him regarding his retention of legal counsel to assert his employment rights. The Plaintiff referenced these supervisors to the history of his compliance reports and complaints and the failure to remediate the resulting hostile work environment and other retaliatory actions. The Plaintiff then requested of MUJAGIC that he be retrained pursuant to SOP 80-010, which requires retraining for Quality Coordinators who have been absent for over one month. MUJAGIC questioned the need for such SOP compliance. 50. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff undertook the required post-absence review of current SOP revisions. THOMAS summoned Plaintiff to the line, where WALKER informed Plaintiff that he was needed to start the production line. Having not yet completed the required SOP currency review, or otherwise having completed mandated training, Plaintiff informed WALKER he could not accept responsibility for the production line, which Plaintiff reiterated to GORDON. 51. The next day, November 5, 2008, the Plaintiff questioned MUJAGIC and CALLEJAS as to regulatory compliance regarding recently completed production and packaging runs. They refused to answer. 52. On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff communicated the above referenced concerns to FDA officials. First Amended Complaint, page 14
Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document 7-1 Filed 11/02/10 Page 15 of 25 PageID 167 VII. FACTS REGARDING ADVERSE ACTIONS 53. The adverse actions taken against the Plaintiff exhibit a pattern of retaliation for the above referenced protected activity. These adverse actions included: 54. Plaintiff was subjected to the ongoing maintenance and failure to abate a hostile work environment against him, which included abusive and berating language, insults, ridicule, threats, and hostile interrogations. 55. On March 13, 2008, THOMAS verbally abused Plaintiff because he stopped the production line and stated his intent to contacting higher management regarding compliance violations. 56. On or about March 25, 2008, Plaintiff’s Second Shift Quality Group Leader threatened Plaintiff with words to the effect that, “remember HR leaves at 17:00, after that you are stuck with us”, and “I don’t know how much you need your job but...”. 57. On June 10, 2008, in response to the Plaintiff’s concerns regarding improper attire in violation of SOPs, THOMAS informed Plaintiff she was unwilling to discuss the problem and dismissively rebuked him with words to the effect of “go to HR”. 58. On June 12, 2008, GORDON forbade Plaintiff from (a) observing work lines during his lunch hour as other employees could; (b) observing or making compliance reports about production lines to which he was not assigned; or (c) communicating his compliance concerns directly to manufacturing leaders without prior approval of GORDON. Plaintiff was also admonished against emailing other department’s managers about his compliance concerns. 59. On July 14, 2008, Defendant managers and Human Resources falsely accused and reprimanded Plaintiff for improperly stopping the production line and breaching protocol by not first communicating with the operator of the offending line. BRIGGS verbally reprimanded First Amended Complaint, page 15
- Page 1 and 2: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 3 and 4: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 5 and 6: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 7 and 8: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 9 and 10: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 11 and 12: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 13: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 17 and 18: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 19 and 20: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 21 and 22: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 23 and 24: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
- Page 25: Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document
Case 8:10-cv-02003-RAL-TGW Document 7-1 Filed 11/02/10 Page 14 of 25 PageID 166<br />
48. On October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff’s prior counsel, reiterated to CALLEJAS the<br />
Plaintiff’s concerns regarding defective products and inappropriate management pressures to<br />
certify defective products as having met prescribed inspection criteria.<br />
49. On November 3, 2008, when the Plaintiff reported back to work following<br />
approved Family Medical Leave that commenced August 4, 2008, Defendant managers<br />
CALLEGAS and MUJAGIC called him into a meeting. They questioned him regarding his<br />
retention of legal counsel to assert his employment rights. The Plaintiff referenced these<br />
supervisors to the history of his compliance reports and complaints and the failure to remediate<br />
the resulting hostile work environment and other retaliatory actions. The Plaintiff then requested<br />
of MUJAGIC that he be retrained pursuant to SOP 80-010, which requires retraining for Quality<br />
Coordinators who have been absent for over one month. MUJAGIC questioned the need for such<br />
SOP compliance.<br />
50. On November 4, 2008, Plaintiff undertook the required post-absence review of<br />
current SOP revisions. THOMAS summoned Plaintiff to the line, where WALKER informed<br />
Plaintiff that he was needed to start the production line. Having not yet completed the required<br />
SOP currency review, or otherwise having completed mandated training, Plaintiff informed<br />
WALKER he could not accept responsibility for the production line, which Plaintiff reiterated to<br />
GORDON.<br />
51. The next day, November 5, 2008, the Plaintiff questioned MUJAGIC and<br />
CALLEJAS as to regulatory compliance regarding recently completed production and packaging<br />
runs. They refused to answer.<br />
52. On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff communicated the above referenced<br />
concerns to FDA officials.<br />
First <strong>Amended</strong> <strong>Complaint</strong>, page 14
Change language