Filing # 69239320 E-Filed 03/14/2018 10:56:44 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CHARMAINE PARCHMENT, CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 17-21896 CA (11)
vs.
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA,
a municipal corporation authorized to do
business under the laws of the State of Florida,
and EDDIE BROWN, in his individual capacity,

    Defendants.
________________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, CHARMAINE PARCHMENT (“Parchment” or “Plaintiff”), sues the City of

Opa-Locka, Florida (“City”) and Eddie Brown (“Brown”), collectively referred to as

(“Defendants”), for damages, demands a trial by jury, and hereby states as follows:

1. This is an action seeking damages in excess of $4,000,000.00 and other relief by

the well-respected Finance Director, an employee of the City of Opa-Locka, who was subjected

to adverse personnel action to punish her for having the integrity to disclose acts of illegality,

misconduct, and malfeasance by City Officials, as well participating in multiple investigations of

misconduct by authorities as outlined herein.

2. Plaintiff is sui juris, a resident of Miami-Dade County, and was an employee of

the City of Opa-Locka.

3. The City of Opa-Locka is a municipal government entity, and as such, an

“agency” as envisioned by Section 122.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes.

4. Eddie Brown is sui juris, and a resident of Miami-Dade County.

 5. Venue is proper in this judicial circuit because Defendant Opa-Locka is located

within Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendant Eddie Brown resides within said county, and in

that all of the acts occurred within said county.

6. All conditions precedent to this cause of action have been met, waived, excused,

occurred, or would be otherwise futile.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Parchment was the Finance Director for the City of Opa-Locka and was employed

by the City for almost nine (9) years, during which time her reputation was impeccable.

8. Notwithstanding, Parchment was terminated from her job as Finance Director,

which paid $90,000.00 per year plus benefits, because she refused to participate in the City’s

ongoing crime and corruption scandal, and she refused to keep silent about her knowledge of the

wrongdoing being committed by City officials. Parchment was fired because she refused to turn

a blind eye to financial irregularities, and as an act of retaliation by Eddie Brown, who upon

information and belief was really a bag man for corrupt City officials.

9. On March 9, 2009, Parchment was hired at the City as its Grant Writer. She was

promoted by the City to the position of Grant Coordinator, then to Accountant, then to Assistant

Finance Director, and then to Finance Director in August of 2015.

10. Parchment became aware of corruption within the City, refused to participate or

acquiesce to it, and she began cooperating with law enforcement officials including the FBI, the

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”), Miami-Dade County Ethics and Public

Trust, and the Inspector General’s Office who reports to the Governor of Florida.

11. The City Attorney, Vincent Brown, became aware of Parchment’s cooperation

and he improperly emailed approximately 180 employees of the City identifying Parchment’s

2
 
name on a confidential witness list, as it related to a Federal Grand Jury investigating widespread

corruption and criminal activity within the City of Opa-Locka. Parchment was thereby exposed

by City Attorney Vincent Brown as a confidential government witness, as a whistleblower, and

she was ostracized and exposed to personal danger, as well as public ridicule and retaliation.

12. As a result of the City’s actions, Parchment’s name even appeared in the

newspaper as a government witness, including in the Miami Herald.

13. These acts by City Attorney Vincent Brown were intended to place Parchment

and other confidential government witnesses in danger and at risk for severe retaliation and

intimidation by the high ranking City Officials who were actual targets of the widespread FBI

corruption probe -- which focused on kickback and extortion schemes within the City.

14. On April 11, 2016, Parchment wrote a letter to Mr. Joseph M. Centorino,

Executive Director of Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, along with an ethics

complaint against the City and the City Attorney, Vincent Brown, for disclosing her name as a

cooperating witness with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

15. On April 11, 2016, Parchment wrote a letter to The Florida Bar as a formal

complaint against City Attorney, Vincent Brown.

16. The Mayor and Commission and City Manager were put on written notice of

Parchment’s complaints of illegality and misconduct.

17. All officials within the City, including the Mayor and Commission and the

Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics were provided with copies of Plaintiff’s complaints to the

Ethics Commission and Florida Bar.

18. Plaintiff specifically and in writing asked for whistleblower protection from

retaliation due to her filing these written and signed complaints.

3
 
 19. During April 2016, Parchment had informed the City Manager and Miami-Dade

County officials of numerous improprieties and other issues with the City’s Water and Sewer

Division. Parchment recommended conducting a comprehensive field audit of the City’s Water

and Sewer infrastructure.

20. As a result of Plaintiff’s actions, a field audit was actually conducted at the

request of Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department. The field audit revealed that

approximately 80% of the water meters were not working correctly, and that many people within

the City were not paying for water at all. Parchment and the Budget Director participated in

investigations of illegal conduct and malfeasance in the provision of water services within the

City.

21. On May 22, 2016, Parchment, upon return from Family Medical Leave and taking

care of her terminally ill sister, wrote an e-mail on the deteriorating financial status of the City to

the City Manager, Mayor, and the City Commission. The letter was made available to law

enforcement and became public.

22. Among other things, Plaintiff advised in her signed and written complaint that:

in her professional judgment and projected financial analysis, that after the
next payroll, the City would not be able to pay its bills. Finance Director
Parchment also advised that the Finance Department, which included the
Budget Administrator, had been advising of this situation for many
months. Finally, Finance Director Parchment advised that Opa-Locka
currently had a General Fund bank balance of $774,506.42 and a projected
$4.5 million deficit by year’s end.

23. Plaintiff also wrote in her written and signed complaint that, on May 22, 2017, a

Financial Recovery Plan which had been presented to the Miami-Dade County Mayor and other

officials of State and County government contained false information. Specifically, Plaintiff

4
 
complained that the false report suggested that she was an author of the report and falsely stated

that it was providing a viable recovery plan when this was not true.

24. The acts complained of in Parchment’s complaint constituted acts of malfeasance,

misfeasance, neglect of duty and other improper conduct within the City.

25. On May 23, 2016, the Miami Herald published an evening story entitled “Opa-

Locka finance chief: City can’t pay its bills.” The published report cited excerpts from

Plaintiff’s assessment of Opa-Locka’s finances; the proposed measures in the recovery plan

would not be sufficient to alleviate the City’s financial deficit for the fiscal year.

26. On May 24, 2016, the City Budget Director met with the Acting City Manager,

Yvette Bessent-Harrell, Esq., concerning the e-mail exchange and she advised him that he was

now in the same boat as Finance Director Parchment for blowing the whistle disclosing Opa-

Locka’s dire finances.

27. On May 31, 2016, while analyzing the deteriorating financial condition of Opa-

Locka, the Finance Department became aware of an estimated $150,000.00 in un-budgeted pay-

outs for sick and vacation time that was inconsistent with established Opa-Locka policy. Acting

City Manager Yvette Bessent-Harrell, Esq. was notified by Plaintiff that Human Resource

Director Ward never provided any supporting documentation for the un-budgeted sick and

vacation payouts.

28. On May 31, 2016, Parchment was required to participate in an investigation of

$39,000.00 in cash payments that the former City Manager, David Chiverton, gave to himself

without proper approvals.

29. Parchment was interviewed by the Ethics Commission and informed them that the

former City Manager, Chiverton, had used Human Resources Director Kiarra Ward to

5
 
improperly process the payouts for allegedly unused sick and vacation leave and that the Finance

Department and Budget and Procurement Department were completely bypassed. Ward is the

spouse of Dante Starks, a subject of multiple criminal investigations and an alleged criminal co-

conspirator of City Manager Eddie Brown.

30. Parchment made the City Manager and City Officials aware of her cooperation in

this investigation. Eddie Brown, who later fired Parchment, was a close ally of former City

Manager Chiverton.

31. Parchment provided the Ethics Commission with information demonstrating that

the payouts to City Manager Chiverton were wholly improper.

32. In May, 2016, Parchment refused to authorize contract payments to Eddie Brown

in his capacity as a “consultant” at that time period; later, Eddie Brown would ultimately fire

her.

33. Parchment noticed that the former City Manager, David Chiverton, had signed a

$30,000.00 consulting contract with Eddie Brown. Parchment pointed out and later informed the

Florida Oversight Board that this contract was illegal, because it exceeded the authority of the

City Manager and the matter was never brought before the City Commission as required.

Because of Parchment’s financial integrity, she blew the whistle on what was essentially a phony

job for Eddie Brown, orchestrated by his pal and felon, David Chiverton, corrupt Commissioner

Terence Pinder, and disgraced influence peddler Dante Starks in order to keep Eddie Brown

silent about his knowledge of widespread corruption in the City.

34. On June 1, 2016, the Governor of the State of Florida signed Executive Order

Number 16-135 declaring a financial emergency in the City of Opa-Locka. The Executive Order

stated that the Declaration of Emergency was based on information reported to the Governor by

6
 
City officials. This included information supplied by Plaintiff in her capacity as Finance

Director and as a whistleblower.

35. Prior to the Executive Order being signed, the Plaintiff had blown the whistle on

the true state of the City’s finances and the improper activities that were taking place within the

City.

36. The Mayor and Commissioners thereafter frequently expressed displeasure and

anger with Parchment and retaliated against her over the fact that they were required to have

their financial decisions reviewed by the Financial Oversight Board.

37. The City Mayor, Myra Taylor, tried to have Parchment fired because of

Parchment’s integrity in blowing the whistle as to the true state of the City’s finances and the

City’s ongoing problems.

38. On June 3, 2016, Dr. Orji, Mr. Newell Doughtry (former Opa-Locka City

Manager and now consultant) and Finance Director Parchment met to discuss Opa-Locka’s

finances and a proposed transfer of funds from the Debt Service Coverage Ratio account to cover

payroll. Town Center is an 82,000 square foot professional office building. Opa-Locka occupies

less than 40% of the office building and the remaining 60% is rentable and taxable. To finance

the purchase of the Town Center building and issuance of bonds, Opa-Locka provided a pledge

of State communications services tax revenues, public service tax revenues and all investment

income except for rebate funds to City National Bank of Florida (City National). In reading the

bond documents, Finance Director Parchment advised that Opa-Locka must maintain the Debt

Service Coverage Ratio account equal to 1.25 times the annual debt service of the bonds or risk

triggering a default in accordance with Article VII (Event of Default & Remedies) of said bond

7
 
documents. Dr. Orji read the bond documents and initially agreed with Finance Director

Parchment.

39. Plaintiff and the Budget Director advised that, if permissible, and given the

amount of financial scrutiny Opa-Locka was facing, a transfer of funds from the Debt Service

Coverage Ratio account without prior Commission approval or public notification would not be

prudent, would be irresponsible and be against the law. Plaintiff also recommended that the

Manager speak with bond counsel to get written authorization for any contemplated transfer of

funds from the Debt Service Coverage Ratio account that would be presented to Commission.

40. On June 7, 2016, in assisting with finalizing the cash flow analysis for Opa-

Locka, CIP Director Aria Austin advised of an anticipated $400,000 shortfall in funding for

renovation of Historic City Hall that would have to come from the City’s general fund. Also, an

audit of Miami-Dade County (County) funded CITT funds revealed that over $700,000 was

misappropriated during Fiscal Year 2014 and needed to be repaid from the general fund. Along

with the anticipated $400,000 expenditure for Historic City Hall, repayment of $700,000 in

misappropriated CITT funds, funding of all Commission adopted general fund reserve

requirements, and reserves for debt obligations, the projected cash flow deficit exceeded $4

million. After contentious discussions, Plaintiff was directed to not fund the CITT payments,

general fund reserve requirements and debt obligations reserves; as such, the project general fund

cash flow deficit was reduced to a little over $2 million.

41. During 2016, Plaintiff specifically blew the whistle and complained about illegal

usage of CITT funds, illegal transfer of funds set aside to cover bond debt and improprieties and

illegality in the operation of the water, including possible corruption, including but not limited to

the supply of water without receipt of any payment.

8
 
 42. During this same period of time, Plaintiff participated in investigations by the

City, Miami-Dade County’s Auditor and the Florida Inspector General on illegality and

malfeasance in the water department and supply of water, and misuse of City funds in making

unbudgeted and illegal sick and vacation payout, as well as malfeasance in the hiring of no-show

employees in the public works department.

43. On June 22, 2016, during a Commission Meeting, a resident used his allotted

time for public comments to intimidate and harass Parchment. Parchment filed complaints with

Miami-Dade Commission on Ethic and Public Trust and the FBI.

44. On July 14, 2016, Parchment outlined the need to realign several deadlines

because of the lack of technical personnel available to the Finance Department. The lack of

personnel was not addressed.

45. On April 18, 2017, Parchment participated in an FDLE investigation on

misconduct in Opa-Locka Government. Plaintiff was contacted by the FDLE and officially

requested to participate in their investigation of allegations of misconduct, malfeasance, and

misfeasance on the part of City Officials.

46. Plaintiff was asked to, and did in fact provide, a lengthy statement to officials of

the FDLE and Inspector General concerning her knowledge of malfeasance and illegal conduct

on the part of City officials.

47. City officials were aware of Plaintiff’s cooperation and participation in the FDLE

and Florida Inspector General Investigation, because the FDLE agents contacted and visited the

City Manager’s Office to officially request her participation at which time the City Manager and

City Commission became aware of Plaintiff’s participation in this investigation.

9
 
 48. In or about June, 2017, Plaintiff was issued a subpoena by the State Attorney’s

Office and Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust in an investigation on payments

made to the then City Manager without prior approval of the State Oversight Board.

49. Plaintiff, in June, 2017, under subpoena from the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s

Office, gave a sworn statement to the State Attorney’s Office and Miami-Dade Public Corruption

and Miami-Dade Ethics Commission investigators concerning her knowledge of the improper

processing and issuance of checks for severance and retroactive payments in the City.

50. City officials were aware of Plaintiff’s subpoena to the State Attorney’s Office

and her willing participation in the government’s investigation.

51. On July 27, 2017, Eddie Brown was sworn in as the Interim City Manager for the

City of Opa-Locka.

52. Eddie Brown had previously been fired as Director of the City of Opa-Locka,

CRA, and had also been replaced as City Manager.

53. Upon information and belief, Eddie Brown had received payments for illegally

lobbying the City without registering as a lobbyist.

54. Upon information and belief, Eddie Brown had also been paid large sums of

money for improperly using his influence to obtain contracts that were not in the best interests of

the City.

55. Upon information and belief, Eddie Brown had served as a “bag man” who

delivered cash bribes to Commissioners.

56. The State Oversight Board sent multiple letters clearly demonstrating their

opposition to Eddie Brown’s selection.

10
 
 57. The Resolution appointing Eddie Brown as Interim City Manager stated that it

required approval of the State Oversight Board.

58. The State Oversight Board did not approve of the appointment until July 26,

2017, and then the approval was conditioned on Eddie Brown signing a document pledging his

cooperation with the State Oversight Board.

59. Section 7 of Governor’s Declaration of Emergency requires the City of Opa-

Locka to “notify the Governor in writing of any events, occurrences, transactions, or thing that

might affect the financial condition of the City.”

60. Section 8 of the Governor’s Declaration of Emergency states that the “City shall

cooperate fully with the Governor” on his efforts to provide assistance to the City.

61. In August, 2017, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to the State Oversight Board, and to the

Mayor and Commission of the City of Opa-Locka, which ultimately blew the whistle on the fact

that Eddie Brown was refusing to execute the document agreeing to cooperate with the Oversight

Board and, as a result, the City was imperiled by their inability to sign checks.

62. Eddie Brown expressed anger and displeasure with Plaintiff’s e-mail because it

exposed the fact that the he was obstructing the City’s ability to pay its bills by refusing to

cooperate with the State Oversight Board.

63. Eddie Brown expressed that he had disdain for the Oversight Board and did not

wish for staff to cooperate with the Oversight Board.

64. After Eddie Brown was sworn in and actually began working as City Manager on

July 27, 2017, he ordered Plaintiff to have payroll pay him retroactive to July 17, 2017.

65. Plaintiff advised him that this could not be done without the approval of the State

Oversight Board.

11
 
 66. Plaintiff advised Brown that based on advice that she had received from the City

Attorney, later confirmed in writing, granting such approval required approval of the State

Oversight Board, and in her opinion would be illegal and constitute malfeasance and violation of

the agreement with the State.

67. Brown then went behind Plaintiff’s back, and despite a conflict of interest, Brown

both verbally and in writing ordered payroll staff (under Plaintiff’s supervision) to illegally

approve payments to him retroactive to July 17, 2017.

68. Further, Brown ordered Plaintiff to spend money that was not budgeted to use

costly wire transfers to pay police officers for off-duty overtime assignments.

69. Plaintiff refused to do so because she advised Brown that this would be illegal and

a violation with the State agreement and because it was an unbudgeted expense.

70. On August 16, 2017, Parchment participated in a Miami-Dade County

Commission on Ethics and Public Trust investigation on public records request.

71. Specifically, Plaintiff was requested to participate in a Miami-Dade Ethics

Commission investigation of public records request violations in the City of Opa-Locka.

72. Plaintiff was interviewed and participated in the investigation.

73. Plaintiff received a subpoena from the FBI and U.S. attorney’s Office during the

first week of August, 2017 and was requested to participate in the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s

Grand Jury investigation of the City and corruption in the City of Opa-Locka.

74. On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff was visited by William Green, who had been hired

by Eddie Brown as Deputy City Manager, reporting directly to Eddie Brown.

75. Among other things, Green did the following:

12
 
 a. Ordered Plaintiff to pay the City Manager his retroactive payment without

approval of the City Commission or State Oversight Board and contrary to the

legal opinion of the City Attorney;

b. Directed and physically stopped Plaintiff and her staff from compiling records

in response to the Federal Grand Jury subpoena and told Plaintiff that

cooperating with the FBI and complying with the subpoena was “not

important” and must cease;

c. Ordered Plaintiff to illegally and improperly use and pay for wire transfers to

make off-duty payments to police officers without money in the budget or

approval of the City Commission or State Oversight Board; and

d. Ordered Plaintiff to immediately begin work on new “assignments” and

directed Plaintiff to cease cooperating with the State Oversight Board and to

stop providing said Oversight Board with City-related information as there

was a new “sheriff in town.”

76. On August 18, 2017, Parchment filed a written and signed complaint of

Retaliation and sought protection, and sent this complaint to the Interim City Manager, the City

Mayor and Commission, Inspector General’s Office, Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics

and Public Trust, the State Oversight Board, and the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office.

77. Her complaint specifically advised of the following among other things:

a. That she was being directed to engage in what she believed to be illegal,

improper conduct including not cooperating with the Oversight Board, and not

following the City Commissions’ policies and directives;

13
 
 b. That she was being illegally ordered to make retroactive payment to Brown

that the City attorney advised in a legal opinion could not be made without

City Commission and Oversight Board approval;

c. That she was being retaliated against because of her participation in

investigations with the FBI, FDLE, State Inspector General, Miami-Dade

County and other agencies; and

d. That she specifically advised she wished to continue her career with the City

of Opa-Locka, that she had no intention of leaving the City and that she in fact

wanted her career to flourish and to receive promotional opportunities.

78. On August 18, 2017, Parchment requested a meeting with Brown but received no

response.

79. Prior to her memo of August 18, 2017, Plaintiff had an unblemished record at the

City and she had NEVER received any disciplinary action of any kind.

80. On August 20, 2017, Parchment did not approve Eddie Brown’s retroactive pay

and forwarded the request to the State Contract Committee and sought the City Attorney’s

opinion.

81. In retaliation for her protected activities, on August 22, 2017, Eddie Brown

officially terminated Parchment’s employment.

82. Eddie Brown, as Interim City Manager, ordered his Executive Assistant to

physically escort Parchment out of the building, and in full view of City staff and the public, and

leaving Plaintiff subjected to complete humiliation.

83. At the time the City terminated her, Parchment had filed written complaints about

corruption and wrongful conduct in the City to the State of Florida Inspector General, the FDLE,

14
 
the FBI, the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics, the City Mayor, and the City Commission, and

Plaintiff’s participation with such investigation by law enforcement.

84. Prior to the City terminating her, Parchment wrote to the City Mayor and

Commission, the City Manager, the State of Florida and the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics

and the Governor General explicitly seeking whistleblower protection and informing the City of

her request for protection from adverse action as a result of her engaging in protected activity

under the Florida Whistleblower Act and other laws.

85. The decision to terminate Plaintiff was made by Eddie Brown and the City in

direct retaliation for Parchment’s protected activities.

86. Plaintiff then sent a memo to the Manager, the City Commission, the State

Oversight Board and other agencies requesting that she be permitted to return to work and that

she receive due process under all existing City, County and State procedures. This was denied

with no explanation.

87. In retaliation for her protected activities, Eddie Brown disseminated a memo

containing false statements throughout the City and the State and which was made available to

the public, slandering Plaintiff and casting her in a false light by, among other things, stating the

following:

a. That the Plaintiff was of the belief that she: “did not possess the skill set to

perform proficiently and effectively as Finance Director” and that Plaintiff

was “conspicuously fabricating the present events.”

88. Brown published to third parties, and made public to potentially millions,

statements that were false.

15
 
 89. Brown purposely disseminated these false statements to third parties to have the

effect of destroying Plaintiff’s reputation and he achieved his intended effect.

90. Brown’s actions were done in bad faith, were with malicious purpose and in

wanton disregard of Parchment’s human dignity and life, safety and property.

91. Brown, in bad faith, with malicious purpose and in wanton disregard of

Parchment’s human dignity and life, safety and property went outside the scope of his duties and

disseminated these false statements to vendors, lobbyists and other third parties outside the City

of Opa-locka.

92. In addition, in an act completely outside the scope of his duties and having

nothing to do with his official City functions, Brown called the Miami Herald and made the

following comments:

Mr. Brown commented to Miami Herald journalist, Jay Weaver. Per the article dated
10/25/2017 Mr. Brown stated that “Everyone knows that Charmaine Parchment was
grossly inappropriate and unqualified for this position”.
93. These comments were false and Brown knew that they were false when he made

them in bad faith.

94. These comments quoted in the Miami Herald were not contained in any document

that Brown prepared as part of his official duties.

95. Brown’s actions were done in bad faith, were with malicious purpose and in

wanton disregard of Parchment’s human dignity and life, safety and property.

96. Brown purposely disseminated these false statements to third parties to have the

effect of destroying Plaintiff’s reputation and he achieved his intended effect.

97. The false statements by Brown in the Miami Herald were read and available to be

read by millions of people.

16
 
 98. In addition to making these false statements, Brown intentionally humiliated

Parchment by having her escorted out of City Hall.

99. In addition to these false statements, Brown sent City police to Parchment’s home

after her termination and after he knew she was represented by an attorney.

100. The site of City police officers visiting her home and harassing her mother caused

Parchment severe emotional duress.

101. In addition to Brown making these false statements, he convened meetings of City

staff, including long time friends of Parchment and directed them not to communicate with her in

an effort to further isolate and humiliate her and cause her severe emotional duress.

102. The actions of Brown and the City did in fact cause Plaintiff to experience severe

emotional suffering which also resulted in physical manifestations.

103. The conduct of Brown was odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

104. Under the City Charter, as City Manager, Brown owed Plaintiff a duty of care to

provide her with a safe work environment free from harassment, unreasonable working

conditions and emotional duress.

105. Brown breached that duty both intentionally, recklessly, and negligently by failing

to provide her with a safe work environment free from harassment, unreasonable working

conditions and emotional duress.

106. In addition, Brown and the City took adverse action against the Plaintiff by firing

her in retaliation for her blowing the whistle to state law enforcement officials.

107. Specifically, this adverse action was to retaliate against the Plaintiff for her

disclosures of misconduct and illegalities and for her steadfast refusal to turn a blind eye to

17
 
illegalities and gross malfeasance and misfeasance within the City committed by City Official

including against Eddie Brown.

108. Moreover, Parchment’s termination was, and is, wrongful and in violation of the

City Charter.

109. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys, and said lawyers are entitled to

the recovery of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 112.3187.

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF SECTION 112.3187, F.S.
(Against Defendant CITY)

110. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 109 as if fully set forth herein.

111. The City of Opa-Locka is an agency, a term defined by Section 112.3187(3)(a),

Florida Statutes.

112. Plaintiff was, at all times material, an employee as that term is defined by

Section 112.3187(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

113. The City of Opa-Locka took adverse personnel action against the Plaintiff, as that

term is defined by Section 112.3187(3)(c), Florida Statutes.

114. The action taken against Plaintiff included termination, and loss of titles,

positions, compensation, and benefits within the City.

115. The actions taken by the City were prohibitive under Section 112.3187(4), Florida

Statutes.

116. The prohibitive actions were taken because the Plaintiff disclosed information, as

defined by Sections 112.3187(5)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes.

117. The Plaintiff disclosed suspected violations of federal, state and local law and

regulations committed by employees and agents of the City of Opa-Locka.

18
 
 118. The Plaintiff disclosed acts and suspected acts of gross management, malfeasance,

misfeasance, gross waste of public funds committed by employees and agents of the City of Opa-

Locka.

119. Plaintiff participated in investigations and other inquiries conducted by agencies

of the Local, State and Federal government as defined in Section 112.3187(7), Florida Statutes.

120. Plaintiff disclosed information to law enforcement agencies and federal

government entities, including the Office of Chief Inspector General and employees of the

Inspector General, as well as to the Chief Executive and appropriate local officials as those terms

are defined in Section 112.3187(6), Florida Statutes.

121. Plaintiff filed written and signed complaints disclosing information enumerated in

Section 112.3187(5), Florida Statutes and to parties and entities enumerated in

Section 112.3187(6), Florida Statutes.

122. In addition, Plaintiff refused to participate in adverse actions prohibited by

Section 112.3187, Florida Statutes.

123. In addition, Plaintiff refused to participate in unethical, illegal, and inappropriate

violations of Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations and policies, and disclosed to City

officials and officers such violations and misrepresentations to City and State officials.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is requesting immediate reinstatement to her position as

Financial Director, along with reinstatement to her former position, with full pay including back

pay and front pay, benefits, compensation, seniority rights, and any lost income and

compensatory damages. Plaintiff is additionally seeking immediate payment of all her attorneys’

fees and costs.

19
 
 COUNT II
SLANDER (AGAINST BROWN)

124. Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1 through 109 as if fully set forth herein.

125. Brown made statements about the Plaintiff that were false, and publicly

disseminated said false statements.

126. Brown knew the statements were false and slanderous.

127. The statements were false and with no merit.

128. Brown’s statements have harmed the Plaintiff’ reputation and caused her

economic damages, as a direct and proximate cause of having made said false statements made

said false statements.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests an award of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and all

other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DURESS
(Against Defendant Brown)

114. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 109 as if fully set forth herein.

115. Defendant Brown engaged in outrageous conduct.

116. The conduct was intended to inflict harm on the Plaintiff.

117. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Brown’s outrageous conduct,

the Plaintiff has suffered both severe emotional and physical duress.

118. At all times material, Defendant Brown acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose

and in a manner exhibiting wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s human rights, safety and

property.

20
 
 119. Such conduct by Defendant Brown was so outrageous in character, and so

extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as

atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

120. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence acts, as alleged herein, the

Plaintiff, suffered injury, which resulted in pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity

for the enjoyment of life, inconvenience, care and treatment, loss of earnings, and loss of the

ability to earn money in the future. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and

Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory damages against

Defendant Brown, together with costs incurred herein, and all other relief the Court deems just

and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff respectfully demands trial by jury for all issues so triable as a matter of law.

DATED: March 14th, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. JEFFREY, P.A.

6625 Miami Lakes Drive East, Suite 379
Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
Telephone: (305) 828-4744
Facsimile: (305) 828-4718
Email: dj@jeffreylawfirm.com

By: Douglas J. Jeffrey, Esq.

DOUGLAS J. JEFFREY
Florida Bar No. 149527

21
 
 REINER & REINER, P.A.
9100 So. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901
Miami, Florida 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-8282
Facsimile: (305) 670-8989
Email: dpr@reinerslaw.com, eservice@reinerslaw.com,
 
By: David P. Reiner, II, Esq.
DAVID P. REINER, II
Florida Bar No. 416400

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, P.A.

6625 Miami Lakes Drive East, Suite 316
Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
Telephone: (305) 777-3800
Fax: (305) 777-3802
Email: mpizzi@pizzilaw.com

By: Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq.

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR.
Florida Bar No.: 079545

   

22
 
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 14, 2018, we electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using Florida Courts eFiling Portal. We also certify that
the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties
identified on the attached or below Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by Florida Court e-Filing Portal or in some other
authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically
Notices of Electronic Filing.

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, P.A.

6625 Miami Lakes Drive East, Suite 316
Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
Telephone: (305) 777-3800
Fax: (305) 777-3802
Email: mpizzi@pizzilaw.com

By: Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq.

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR.
Florida Bar No.: 079545

W:\200\29818 - Parchment\29818-Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial.docx

23