Preview
Filing # 178119209 E-Filed 07/24/2023 06:53:56 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 2023-018281 CA 01
OSCAR GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Defendant, The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (“Defendant”), by
and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.140(c) of the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure, files the following Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint
(“Complaint”).
“INTRODUCTION”
1. Defendant admits that this purports to be an action seeking damages
under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). Defendant specifically denies that any
action has occurred that would entitle Plaintiff to any relief.
“JURISDICTION”
2. Defendant admits this Court has jurisdiction.
Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board
Case No. 23-018281 CA 01
“VENUE”
3. Defendant admits that venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, otherwise
denied.
“PARTIES”
4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations related to Plaintiff’s citizenship and residency in this paragraph, and
therefore it denies them. Defendant admits Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant.
5. Admitted.
6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore it denies them.
“STATEMENT OF FACTS”
7. Admitted.
8. Denied.
9. Denied.
10. Denied.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore it denies them.
14. Defendant admits that Plaintiff resigned, otherwise denied.
2
Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board
Case No. 23-018281 CA 01
“COUNT I
FCRA SEX DISCRIMINATION-FAILURE TO PROMOTE”
15. Denied.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the
“Wherefore” paragraph of the Complaint.
“DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ”
Defendant admits that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
In further responding to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant asserts the following
defenses and affirmative defenses, which may be supplemented and/or amended as
discovery unfolds.
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
2. All actions taken with regard to Plaintiff’s employment were based on
legitimate business reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s sex.
3. All actions taken with regard to Plaintiff’s employment were based on
legitimate business reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s sex.
4. All actions taken with regard to Plaintiff’s employment were for good cause
and taken in good faith.
3
Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board
Case No. 23-018281 CA 01
5. Based on information and belief, any recovery by Plaintiff must be
reduced, in whole or in part, because he failed or refused to take reasonable efforts to
mitigate his damages.
6. Defendant, reserves the right to assert a mixed motive defense because,
even if Plaintiff proves that an impermissible intent was a motivating factor in the
challenged employment decision(s), the adverse employment decision(s) at issue would
have been made anyway in the absence of any impermissible intent.
7. Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages must fail because no managing
agent of Defendant engaged in any discriminatory act or any act in violation of any
statutorily-protected rights with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s statutorily-
protected rights, and because any violation of those rights is contrary to Defendant’s
good-faith efforts to comply with all applicable employment laws. Defendant also
asserts that as a political subdivision of the state it is not subject to punitive damages.
8. Defendant states that as a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Defendant is entitled to sovereign immunity under Section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims are limited to the provisions, statutory caps, and
exclusions of Section 768.28, Florida Statues.
9. Defendant states that neither the School Board nor any of its employees
engaged in any conduct that proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged
injuries and damages.
10. To the extent that Plaintiff has failed to timely file his cause of action, it is
barred.
11. To the extent that Plaintiff failed to exhaust any administrative remedies
available to him, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear those claims.
4
Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board
Case No. 23-018281 CA 01
12. If the School Board is liable to Plaintiff for any monetary relief, which the
School Board denies, then such amounts must be reduced and set-off by Plaintiff’s
interim earnings and benefits and by amounts and benefits Plaintiff could have earned
through the exercise of reasonable diligence.
WHEREFORE Defendant, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida
respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, award
Defendant its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, and award
any such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Defendant reserves the right to raise additional general and affirmative defenses
as discovery progresses. Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer pursuant to
Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., So. 2d 1262, 1264-1265 (Fla. 1996), to
contend any damages of which Plaintiff complains were caused and/or contributed to by
additional non-parties.
Dated: July 24, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. Harvey, General Counsel
The School Board of Miami-Dade County, FL
1450 NE 2nd Avenue, Room 430
Miami, FL 33132
By: /s/ Christopher J. La Piano _
Christopher J. La Piano, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
Florida Bar No. 0059157
cjlapiano@dadeschools.net
Telephone (305) 995-1304
Facsimile (305) 995-1412
5
Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board
Case No. 23-018281 CA 01
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was
filed via E-File and e-mailed this 24th day of July 2023, to Chad E. Levy, Esq.; Law
Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A.; 2844 North University Drive, Coral Springs, FL 33065;
chad@levylevylaw.com; assistant@levylevylaw.com.
By: /s/ Christopher J. La Piano
Christopher J. La Piano, Esq.
6
Preview
Filing # 178119209 E-Filed 07/24/2023 06:53:56 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2023-018281 CA 01 OSCAR GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant. ____________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Defendant, The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.140(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, files the following Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Complaint”). “INTRODUCTION” 1. Defendant admits that this purports to be an action seeking damages under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). Defendant specifically denies that any action has occurred that would entitle Plaintiff to any relief. “JURISDICTION” 2. Defendant admits this Court has jurisdiction. Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board Case No. 23-018281 CA 01 “VENUE” 3. Defendant admits that venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, otherwise denied. “PARTIES” 4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations related to Plaintiff’s citizenship and residency in this paragraph, and therefore it denies them. Defendant admits Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. 5. Admitted. 6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore it denies them. “STATEMENT OF FACTS” 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. 9. Denied. 10. Denied. 11. Denied. 12. Denied. 13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore it denies them. 14. Defendant admits that Plaintiff resigned, otherwise denied. 2 Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board Case No. 23-018281 CA 01 “COUNT I FCRA SEX DISCRIMINATION-FAILURE TO PROMOTE” 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the “Wherefore” paragraph of the Complaint. “DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ” Defendant admits that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES In further responding to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant asserts the following defenses and affirmative defenses, which may be supplemented and/or amended as discovery unfolds. 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action. 2. All actions taken with regard to Plaintiff’s employment were based on legitimate business reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s sex. 3. All actions taken with regard to Plaintiff’s employment were based on legitimate business reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s sex. 4. All actions taken with regard to Plaintiff’s employment were for good cause and taken in good faith. 3 Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board Case No. 23-018281 CA 01 5. Based on information and belief, any recovery by Plaintiff must be reduced, in whole or in part, because he failed or refused to take reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages. 6. Defendant, reserves the right to assert a mixed motive defense because, even if Plaintiff proves that an impermissible intent was a motivating factor in the challenged employment decision(s), the adverse employment decision(s) at issue would have been made anyway in the absence of any impermissible intent. 7. Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages must fail because no managing agent of Defendant engaged in any discriminatory act or any act in violation of any statutorily-protected rights with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s statutorily- protected rights, and because any violation of those rights is contrary to Defendant’s good-faith efforts to comply with all applicable employment laws. Defendant also asserts that as a political subdivision of the state it is not subject to punitive damages. 8. Defendant states that as a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant is entitled to sovereign immunity under Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims are limited to the provisions, statutory caps, and exclusions of Section 768.28, Florida Statues. 9. Defendant states that neither the School Board nor any of its employees engaged in any conduct that proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. 10. To the extent that Plaintiff has failed to timely file his cause of action, it is barred. 11. To the extent that Plaintiff failed to exhaust any administrative remedies available to him, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear those claims. 4 Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board Case No. 23-018281 CA 01 12. If the School Board is liable to Plaintiff for any monetary relief, which the School Board denies, then such amounts must be reduced and set-off by Plaintiff’s interim earnings and benefits and by amounts and benefits Plaintiff could have earned through the exercise of reasonable diligence. WHEREFORE Defendant, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, award Defendant its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, and award any such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant reserves the right to raise additional general and affirmative defenses as discovery progresses. Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer pursuant to Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., So. 2d 1262, 1264-1265 (Fla. 1996), to contend any damages of which Plaintiff complains were caused and/or contributed to by additional non-parties. Dated: July 24, 2023. Respectfully submitted, Walter J. Harvey, General Counsel The School Board of Miami-Dade County, FL 1450 NE 2nd Avenue, Room 430 Miami, FL 33132 By: /s/ Christopher J. La Piano _ Christopher J. La Piano, Esq. Associate General Counsel Florida Bar No. 0059157 cjlapiano@dadeschools.net Telephone (305) 995-1304 Facsimile (305) 995-1412 5 Oscar Gonzalez v The School Board Case No. 23-018281 CA 01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was filed via E-File and e-mailed this 24th day of July 2023, to Chad E. Levy, Esq.; Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A.; 2844 North University Drive, Coral Springs, FL 33065; chad@levylevylaw.com; assistant@levylevylaw.com. By: /s/ Christopher J. La Piano Christopher J. La Piano, Esq. 6