Filing # 97356201 E-Filed 10/16/2019 10:52:39 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
030366-01
Case No.: 2019-________

STEVEN MIRO

Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF MIAMI

Defendant.
_______________________________________/

CORRECTED COMPLAINT
(to include attachments)

Plaintiff Steven Miro hereby sues Defendant City of Miami for violating

Section 112.3187 of the Florida Statutes (the “Public Whistleblower Act” or “the

Act”).

Introduction

1. Steven Miro was a long-time Joe Carollo loyalist. But Joe Carollo,

a Miami City Commissioner with a history of public fraud and outlandish

behavior, was engaged in a felony. He used City of Miami funds and resources

to benefit the campaign of Alex Diaz de la Portilla, a then-candidate for the

Miami-Dade County Commission. He brought his knowledge of the public

fraud to the attention of the City of Miami. After bringing it to the attention of

the City, Miro learned that Joe Carollo was (and remains) the subject of one or

more criminal investigations for public corruption. Starting on approximately

May 9, 2018, Miro cooperated as a witness for the government while he

remained employed by the City.

 2. Joe Carollo and his people discovered that Miro was working with

the authorities on Thursday, May 31 or Friday, June 1, 2018. On Monday,

June 4, 2018, Miro was unceremoniously terminated by Carollo’s Chief of Staff

Richard Blom. No explanation was given.

Parties, Jurisdiction & Venue

3. Plaintiff Steven Miro is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade

County, Florida. At all material times he was an employee of the City of Miami

and a protected employee within the meaning of the Act.

4. Defendant City of Miami is an independent municipality and is an

employer within the meaning of the Act.

5. Jurisdiction and venue is proper pursuant to Section 112.3187 of

the Florida Statutes.

6. A timely whistleblower complaint was filed on July 23, 2018. See

Exhibit A.

7. Final action in response to the complaint was taken by the City of

Miami on or about May 14, 2019. See Exhibit B.

8. All conditions precedent, if any, have been satisfied.

Facts

9. Miro began working for Commissioner Joe Carollo on December 4,

2017 as District Liaison. His employer was the City of Miami.

10. Miro previously worked for Joe Carollo when Carollo ran for District 3

office.

2
 11. In his capacity as District Liaison, he witnessed the following

illegal acts:

a. Commissioner Carollo would hold events at senior centers.

b. Commissioner Carollo would have food and beverage provided at

these events, as well as blue bags with the City logo and

“Commissioner Joe Carollo” written on them. All of this was paid

for by the City.

c. Commissioner Carollo would hand out gift cards at these events.

d. Commissioner Carollo would use government employees and

government vehicles to travel to and from and to operate these

events.

e. These are authorized City events where Commissioner Carollo is

using and handing out City dollars.

f. During these events that occurred during the race for Miami-Dade

County District 5’s Special Election, Commissioner Carollo would

invite and bring Alex Diaz de la Portilla to these events. Diaz de la

Portilla was an announced and active candidate for the Miami-

Dade County District 5 Special Election held on May 22, 2018.

Miro witnessed this occur on or around 3 events at senior centers,

but he is aware that they occurred 8-10 times.

3
 g. Commissioner Carollo would introduce Diaz de la Portilla as a

candidate for County Commission District 5 and encourage the

seniors in attendance to vote for him. 1

h. Diaz de la Portilla did not contribute any funds for these events.

These events were essentially campaign events for Diaz de la

Portilla funded entirely by the City of Miami via Commissioner

Carollo.

i. Tonia Gimenez-Cruz (Diaz de la Portilla’s campaign manager) was

also present for these campaign style events paid for by the City of

Miami. Other campaign workers employed by the Diaz de la

Portilla campaign were also present.

j. There are photographs confirming all of this.

12. On multiple occasions, Miro discussed and complained about this

to Anthony Barcena (then-Deputy Chief of Staff to Commissioner Carollo), Jose

Suarez (then-Special Assistant to Commissioner Carollo), Mara Roman (District

Liaison for Commissioner Carollo) and Lissette Pallaris (Administrative

Assistant to Commissioner Carollo). Barcena responded that he did not like

what Commissioner Carollo was doing, but that “Joe is Joe” or words to that

effect.

13. On or about May 7 or 8, 2018, Miro spoke with City Manager

Emilio Gonzalez. Miro advised and complained to the City Manager that

1 Miro openly supported a rival candidate for the District Five County Commission seat.
Carollo later admitted that he was extraordinarily upset that Miro – a Carollo loyalist – would
support a rival candidate. This may warrant a separate First Amendment retaliation lawsuit
against Carollo directly.

4
Commissioner Carollo was using City funds to underwrite Diaz de la Portilla’s

County Commission campaign as explained above. Miro also complained that

Commissioner Carollo was not actually doing anything as commissioner,

except attacking all of his perceived political opponents including Mayor

Francis Suarez (who he calls “the Little Emperor,”) City Manager Gonzalez (who

he calls “the Colonel without Bullets,”) Vicky Leyva, Ken Russell, Tim Gomez,

among many others.

14. At around the same time, Miro also brought these issues to the

attention of the Mayor.

15. On or about May 9, 2018, the Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s

Office (“SAO”) contacted Miro via telephone. The SAO advised that it received a

tip that Miro had information concerning misconduct by Commissioner Carollo.

The SAO requested that Miro participate in their investigation. After the

telephone conversation, Miro agreed to meet with them in person. The SAO

and Miro met that same day.

16. Miro has communicated with the SAO since May 9, 2018 about

the pending investigation.

17. On Thursday, May 31, 2018, the SAO attempted to contact to Jose

Suarez by visiting him at his home. The SAO identified themselves as

prosecutors. Suarez refused to come to the door and instead his wife stated he

did not live there. His white pickup truck with the City decal was located

outside the residence where his wife claimed he did not live. Jose Suarez, and

5
by extension Commissioner Carollo, must have been alerted to the pending

investigation.

18. On Friday, June 1, 2018, Jose Suarez requested a meeting with

everyone working for Commissioner Carollo, but requested that Miro not be

present. When the employees returned from the meeting, the employees began

scanning their emails in what appeared to be an effort to search for and purge

evidence of misconduct.

19. Carollo learned for the first time that he was under investigation

on May 30 or June 1, 2018.

20. On Monday, June 4, 2018, Commissioner Carollo terminated Miro.

Richard Bloom (Carollo’s Chief of Staff) advised Miro of the termination. Bloom

advised Miro there were some unspecific allegations made against him, but

that they wanted to terminate him to avoid any investigation and to avoid

telling him what those allegations were.

21. Prior to his termination, Miro had an unblemished record as an

employee of the City of Miami.

22. After Miro’s termination, Commissioner Carollo engaged in a series

of acts confirming his guilt and covering up his misconduct.

23. Commissioner Carollo requested that the City conduct a post-

termination forensic analysis of Miro’s computers in an attempt to find

something the City could use to justify his termination after the fact.

24. Carollo did not trust the City’s information technology personnel.

Carollo requested the City retain an outside vendor to conduct the forensic

6
examination even though the City has competent employees on staff who could

have conducted the same examination.

25. The retention of an outside vendor for the forensic examination

was authorized by the City Attorney.

26. The forensic examination discovered nothing that could be used

against Miro.

27. The outside vendor invoiced the City over $30,000.00 for its

services. The City Commission did not authorize the retention or payment of

the invoices. The City Commission likely never knew the outside vendor was

even used or retained.

28. There were other irregularities in the way the City terminated Miro.

29. The City Manager has exclusive authority under the City Code to

terminate employees. Carollo requested the City Manager terminate Miro, but

the City Manager refused.

30. The City’s human resources department was not involved in Miro’s

termination either, despite the termination being attributed to (albeit after the

fact) complaints of improper workplace conduct made by members of Carollo’s

staff.

31. The human resources department never conducted any interviews

of the people who allegedly complained about Miro. Indeed, the City’s human

resources has no file of any kind concerning the circumstances of Miro’s

termination or the alleged acts that caused it.

7
 32. The City never conducted any investigation. The City did not

advise Miro of any of the allegations against him. The City never interviewed

Miro to ask for his version of events. The City deprived Miro, a public

employee, of basic due process.

33. Days after Miro’s termination and after Miro’s termination became

a front page news story, Carollo’s office requested four administrative

employees write up complaints about Miro. There is no documentation of any

complaint that pre-dates Miro’s termination. The complaints were hastily

prepared and were never saved electronically. Drafts were never saved and

emails transmitting the drafts were never saved.

34. In another attempt to re-write history, City employees told the

Miami Herald after Miro was terminated that his termination was due to a

sexually inappropriate comment to a female employee. This was a lie.

35. He was also falsely accused of giving himself a $1,500 pay raise.

This was a lie.

Count I – Wrongful Termination in Violation of the Act

36. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1- 35.

37. Plaintiff was a covered employee under the Act.

38. Defendant was a covered employer under the Act.

39. Defendant was engaged in criminal and fraudulent activity when

public funds and resources were used to support the campaign of Alex Diaz de

la Portilla for a seat on the Miami-Dade County Commission.

8
 40. Plaintiff disclosed to law enforcement the theft and misuse of

public funds.

41. Miro disclosed information about violation or suspected violation of

federal, state or local law committed by a City employee (Carollo and unknown

conspirators) which created and presented a substantial and specific danger to

the public’s health, safety, or welfare.

42. Miro disclosed information about acts or suspected acts of gross

mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, or

gross neglect of duty committed by a City employee.

43. The information was disclosed to City management and to law

enforcement.

44. Miro disclosed to City management and to law enforcement in

detail the fraudulent and illegal use of public funds by Commissioner Carollo.

45. Miro was requested to participate in an investigation and inquiry

being conducted by the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office.

46. Miro’s complaint to City management and to law enforcement

constitutes protected activity under the Act.

47. Miro was terminated in whole or in part to his (i) complaints to City

management and/or law enforcement and/or (ii) participation in an

investigation by the City management and/or law enforcement.

48. But for Miro’s complaints and cooperation, Miro would not have

been terminated by the City.

49. Miro has suffered damages as a result of his termination.

9
 50. Miro has suffered loss of income, loss of reputation, loss of

seniority and lost fringe benefits.

Request for Jury Trial

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Prayer for Relief

Plaintiff Steven Miro requests judgment entered in his favor and against

the City of Miami, award compensation for back and future pay, order

reinstatement with retention of seniority and priority rights, reasonable

attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and any further relief this Court deems

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew Sarelson

Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.
Florida Bar 888281
MATTHEW SETH SARELSON, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Miro
255 Giralda Avenue, Suite 500
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
305.773.1952
msarelson@sarelson.com

10
Via email csb@miamigov.com, fax (305) 416-2025 & U.S. Mail

July 23, 2018

City of Miami Civil Service Board

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130

Re: Steven Miro adv. City of Miami

New Complaint Pursuant to Section 112.3187 of the Florida Statutes

Dear City of Miami:

I represent Steven Miro. Mr. Miro was terminated by the City illegally on June 4, 2018 due to his
participation in a pending criminal investigation by the Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s
Office into widespread malfeasance and public corruption by Commissioner Joe Carollo.

Attached to this letter is Mr. Miro’s whistleblower complaint filed pursuant to Section 112.3187
of the Florida Statutes. The City has 30 days to conduct an evidentiary hearing under the Statute.
Please feel free to call or email to discuss.

Very truly yours,

KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL-PARRÓN

/s/ Matt Sarelson

Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.

Cc: Office of the City Attorney, via facsimile (305) 416-1801

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B