Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

EDVARD D. LEGRAND, an individual,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.:___________________

vs.

CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2

d/b/a CINTAS CORPORATION, a foreign
corporation, and RAY ESPARION,
an individual,

Defendants.
______________________________________:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1. Plaintiff, EDWARD D. LEGRAND, [hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “LEGRAND”], by and

through his undersigned attorney, alleges the following against Defendants, CINTAS

CORPORATION NO. 2, d/b/a CINTAS CORPORATION, and RAY ESPARION,

[Hereinafter, “Defendants”, “CINTAS”, and/or “ESPARION”], and states, to wit:

INTRODUCTION

2. This is an action brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29

U.S.C. Section 2601, et seq. ,( “The FMLA” ) to correct various willful employment

practices, policies and procedures implemented by the Defendants, CINTAS and

ESPARION, that have resulted in the denial of benefits guaranteed by the FMLA to

eligible employees, and/or discriminated against an eligible employee who sought to

exercise his FMLA rights. Plaintiff, EDVARD D. LEGRAND, is an individual seeking

to obtain appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief rights guaranteed by the FMLA,
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 2 of 11

which rights have been wilfully impaired and denied by Defendants. Plaintiff seeks

injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as monetary damages, for the harm caused to

him by the willful actions of Defendants, which actions have resulted in the denial of

leave and other protections guaranteed by the FMLA and/or have caused him to be

discriminated against by said Defendants for his exercising the legal rights conferred

upon him under the FMLA.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, EDVARD D. LEGRAND, was an employee of the Defendant, CINTAS, at all

relevant times until his termination on or about July 28, 2010. Moreover, LEGRAND is

an individual and a citizen of the State of Florida and the causes of action that are plead

herein occurred in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff is an “employee” as defined under

the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

3. Defendant, CINTAS CORPORATION NO.2, d/b/a CINTAS CORPORATION, is an

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, and which has its principal

offices in Cincinnati, Ohio. CINTAS is authorized to do and is doing business in the

State of Florida. CINTAS has at all relevant times continuously maintained a work-force

consisting of no less than fifty (50) employees employed for at least 20 calendar

workweeks. CINTAS is a “covered” employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601

(4).

4. Defendant, RAY ESPARION, is an individual and is believed to be a citizen of the State

of Florida, as well as a resident of Broward County. Moreover, all of the causes of action

asserted against him occurred in Broward County, Florida.

Page 2 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 3 of 11

JURISDICTION

5. The Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the suit arises under the Family and

Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. The Plaintiff, EDVARD D.

LEGRAND, was employed as sales & service representative with the Defendants for over

nine years.

VENUE

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) inasmuch as the

unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed in this district, Defendant regularly

conducts business in this district, and the named Plaintiff resides in this district.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

7. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff completed a “Vacation Request Form”, requesting to go on

his annual vacation for the period of July 9, 2010, through July 23, 2010, which period of

time as his first choice. As a second or alternate choice, Plaintiff requested the period

starting July 12, 2010, through July 26, 2010. The purpose of Plaintiff’s annual vacation

was to go to Haiti on a humanitarian mission as well as to take care of his father who was

suffering from a serious health conditions. (See Exhibit “1").

9. On June 30, 2010, Plaintiff electronically filed a request for FMLA leave to take effect on

September 30, 2010, through and including December 31, 2010, with the expected date of

his of return to employment at CINTAS being on or immediately after January 1, 2011.

The request for FMLA was electronically filed with Nationwide Better Health, Cintas’

Page 3 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 4 of 11

Leave of Absence Administrator, located in Columbus, Ohio. (See Exhibit “2").

10. Defendant, ESPARION, informed the Plaintiff that his request for annual vacation was

not approved, without knowing that CINTAS’ General Manager (Tim Tarry) had already

approved the Plaintiff’s annual vacation request for the period starting July 12, 2010,

through July 26, 2010.

11. On July 1, 2010, Defendant, ESPARION, called the Plaintiff into his office to inform

him that Human Resources had forwarded Plaintiff’s FMLA leave to him to complete.

ESPARION informed Plaintiff that he intended to deny the FMLA-leave of absence

because the company was short on staff. ESPARION further stated that Plaintiff could

not take that much time off (leave). ESPARION suggested that Plaintiff resign from his

employment. However, Plaintiff explained to ESPARION that he (Plaintiff) was entitled

to take the time off as requested pursuant to the FMLA.

12. On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff traveled to Haiti for his annual two week vacation. Plaintiff

returned to Florida from his vacation on or about Monday, July 26, 2010. Plaintiff was

scheduled to return to work on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, since Tuesdays were normally

Plaintiff’s day off . Upon returning to work on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, several co-

workers asked Plaintiff why he had returned back to work since they thought Plaintiff had

resigned from his employment. Plaintiff thought that the co-workers were joking and that

their remarks were in jest. Plaintiff took the CINTAS’s van to visit his customers/clients

as customary. Throughout his route, Plaintiff’s customers/clients were surprised to see

him because CINTAS had informed each of them that he (Plaintiff) was no longer

working at CINTAS. Plaintiff spent most of his time having to explain to the different

Page 4 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 5 of 11

customers/clients that he was visiting that he had not resigned or had been terminated.

Around 12:15 p.m., Plaintiff called his supervisor, ESPARION, about the embarrassing

and stressful situation, but ESPARION did not take or return Plaintiff’s phone call.

13. A few minutes later, Plaintiff received a phone from a co-worker named, Justin, who

informed Plaintiff that a week ago ESPARION and the General Manager had given

Plaintiff’s route to Justin. Justin also stated that he had received an e-mail from

CINTAS’ management in which he (Justin) was instructed to tell CINTAS’ clients that

Plaintiff had resigned from his employment because of family issues.

14. On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, at or about 4:00 p.m., Plaintiff returned back to office

where he was called into ESPARION’S office for a meeting. During the meeting,

ESPARION told Plaintiff “ because of my three months [FMLA] family leave request”,

he had not had any other choice but to replace Plaintiff. ESPARION further stated that he

felt that Plaintiff was no longer committed to the job. Plaintiff informed ESPARION that

his assessment of Plaintiff’s commitment to CINTAS was wrong because Plaintiff had

been working with CINTAS for over nine (9) years and Plaintiff was a top performer.

15. Plaintiff then asked to meet and speak with someone from Human Resources and the

General Manager (Tim Tarry). While at that meeting, Plaintiff was given two options

from which to choose: one option was termination and the second mutual separation,

effective that same day. (See Exhibit “3”). Plaintiff accepted neither option. He was told

to go home and to think about it. A few days later, Plaintiff received a termination letter

from CINTAS. (See Exhibit “4”).

Page 5 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 6 of 11

COUNT I
FMLA CAUSE OF ACTION

16. Plaintiff, LEGRAND, is an eligible employee with the meaning of the FMLA. Plaintiff

was employed by the Defendants for a least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of

service during the preceding 12 month period.

17. Defendants are an employer within the meaning of the FMLA. Defendants are engaged

in commerce or in an industry or activity affecting commerce and employ 50 or more

employees for each working day during each of 20 more calender work weeks in the

current or preceding calender year.

18. Plaintiff was entitled to 12 work week of leave during the period of 2010 because of the

need to care for Plaintiff’s father, who had suffered several strokes during 2009 and 2010.

The strokes had left Plaintiff’s father wheel-chair bound, paralyzed in the area of the right

arm and hand, as well as suffering from a speech impediment/impairment. As such,

Plaintiff’s father was suffering from a serious health condition within the meaning of the

FMLA and the FMLA implementing regulations.

19. Plaintiff gave the Defendant at least 30 days notice before the date his FMLA leave

request leave was to begin. (See Exhibit “2”).

20. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s right to take the FMLA leave to take care of his father, who

suffered and continues to suffer a serious health condition, by terminating Plaintiff’s

employment within only a few days upon Plaintiff’s return to work from his annual

vacation on Wednesday, July 28, 2010.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, EDVARD D. LEGRAND, demands judgment against

Page 6 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 7 of 11

Defendant, CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 d/b/a CINTAS CORPORATION, a foreign

corporation, and RAY ESPARION, an individual, for compensatory damages, including lost

wages and benefits, liquidated damages, interest, court costs, attorney fees and for any and all

other and further relief this Court deems just, necessary and proper.

DAMAGES

21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered the following

injuries and damages:

a. Plaintiff was fired from his employment with Defendants. Although Plaintiff has

diligently sought other employment, he has been unable to find a job. In addition,

Plaintiff has incurred expenses in seeking other employment;

b. Plaintiff suffered the loss of his pension or retirement benefits;

c. Plaintiff seeks compensation for all lost wages and benefits, plus prejudgment

interest thereon at the prevailing rate;

d. Plaintiff has suffered actual monetary losses resulting directly from the

Defendants’ violation of FMLA;

e. Plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest on all sums, including attorney fees

and costs awarded in this suit;

f. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and in willful violation of the FMLA.

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages within the meaning of the

FMLA.

ATTORNEY FEES

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under the FMLA.

Page 7 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 8 of 11

PRAYER

For these reasons, Plaintiff asks for judgment against Defendants for the following

a. reasonable attorney fees;

b. costs of suit;

c. all other relief the court deems appropriate.

20. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff because he filed a request with

COUNT II
FMLA RETALIATION

21 Plaintiff, LEGRAND, realleges the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 through 15,

inclusive and incorporates them herein by this reference.

22. On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff completed a “Vacation Request Form”, requesting to go on

his annual vacation for the period of July 9, 2010, to July 23, 2010 as his first choice.

Plaintiff also requested the period of July 12, 2010, to July 26, 2010 as his second choice.

The purpose of Plaintiff’s vacation was to go to Haiti on a Humanitarian mission and also

to take care of his father who suffered from a serious health condition. (See Exhibit 1).

23. On June 30, 2010, Plaintiff electronically filed a request for FMLA leave to take effect on

September 30, 2010, through and including December 31, 2010, with the expected date of

his of return to employment at CINTAS being on or immediately after January 1, 2011.

The request for FMLA was electronically filed with Nationwide Better Health, Cintas’

Leave of Absence Administrator, located in Columbus, Ohio. (See Exhibit “2").

24. On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff traveled to Haiti for his annual two week vacation. Plaintiff

returned to Florida from his vacation on or about Monday, July 26, 2010. Plaintiff was

Page 8 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 9 of 11

scheduled to return to work on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, since Tuesdays were normally

Plaintiff’s day off . Upon returning to work on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, several co-

workers asked Plaintiff why he had returned back to work since they thought Plaintiff had

resigned from his employment. Plaintiff thought that the co-workers were joking and that

their remarks were in jest. Plaintiff took the CINTAS’s van to visit his customers/clients

as customary. Throughout his route, Plaintiff’s customers/clients were surprised to see

him because CINTAS had informed each of them that he (Plaintiff) was no longer

working at CINTAS. Plaintiff spent most of his time having to explain to the different

customers/clients that he was visiting that he had not resigned or had been terminated.

Around 12:15 p.m., Plaintiff called his supervisor, ESPARION, about the embarrassing

and stressful situation, but ESPARION did not take or return Plaintiff’s phone call.

25. A few minutes later, Plaintiff received a phone from a co-worker named, Justin, who

informed Plaintiff that a week ago ESPARION and the General Manager had given

Plaintiff’s route to Justin. Justin also stated that he had received an e-mail from

CINTAS’ management in which he (Justin) was instructed to tell CINTAS’ clients that

Plaintiff had resigned from his employment because of family issues.

26. On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, at or about 4:00 p.m., Plaintiff returned back to office

where he was called into ESPARION’S office for a meeting. During the meeting,

ESPARION told Plaintiff “ because of my three months [FMLA] family leave request”,

he had not had any other choice but to replace Plaintiff. ESPARION further stated that he

felt that Plaintiff was no longer committed to the job. Plaintiff informed ESPARION that

his assessment of Plaintiff’s commitment to CINTAS was wrong because Plaintiff had

Page 9 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 10 of 11

been working with CINTAS for over nine (9) years and Plaintiff was a top performer.

27. Plaintiff then asked to meet and speak with someone from Human Resources and the

General Manager (Tim Tarry). While at that meeting, Plaintiff was given two options

from which to choose: one option was termination and the second mutual separation,

effective that same day. (See Exhibit “3”). Plaintiff accepted neither option. He was told

to go home and to think about it. A few days later, Plaintiff received a termination letter

from CINTAS. (See Exhibit “4”).

28. Defendant, CINTAS, violated Section 2615 of the FMLA by retaliating against

LEGRAND for exercising his rights under the FMLA.

29. The fact that LEGRAND asserted his FMLA rights was a substantial motiving factor in

CINTAS’s decision to terminate his employment of 9 years.

30. With regard to the unlawful retaliation described above, CINTAS, acted willfully and in

bad faith such that Plaintiff, LEGRAND, is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount

that is equal to his lost wages.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the actions, LEGRAND, has suffered damages

including lost wages, benefits and other compensation and interest thereon.

32. Moreover, LEGRAND, is entitled to recover liquidated damages pursuant to Section

2617(a)(1)(A) and his attorneys’ fees and court costs pursuant to Section 2617(a)(3).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, EDVARD D. LEGRAND, demands judgment against

Defendant, CINTAS CORPORATION NO.2 d/b/a CINTAS CORPORATION, a foreign

corporation and RAY ESPARION, an individual, for compensatory damages, including lost

wages and benefits, liquidated damages, interest, court costs, attorney fees and for any and all

Page 10 of 11
Case 0:10-cv-62476-PAS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2010 Page 11 of 11

other and further relief this Court deems just, necessary and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES JEAN-FRANCOIS, P.A.

6100 Hollywood Blvd. Ste. 211-A
Hollywood, FL 33024
Telephone: (954)987-8832
Telecopier: (954)987-2622
e-address: jjonlaw@hotmail.com

By:_________________/s/_____________________
JAMES JEAN-FRANCOIS, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No.: 0495115

Page 11 of 11