Miller v. Roche Surety And Casualty Co., Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER ATTACHED denying 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 10/13/2011. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DANIELLE MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO: 8:10-cv-2475-T-26TBM

ROCHE SURETY AND CASUALTY CO.,
INC., ROCHE BAIL BONDS, INC., and
SHANNON ROCHE,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of
Undisputed Facts (Dkts. 19 & 20) with various deposition transcripts, affidavits, and
exhibits (Dkts. 22-33), and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition and Statement of
Disputed Facts with exhibits and deposition transcripts. (Dkts. 35 & 36). After careful
consideration of the submissions of the parties and the entire file, the Court concludes that
the motion should be denied.
In this action, Plaintiff seeks damages for violations and retaliation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§207 and 215(a)(3), claiming that she was
denied privacy and adequate breaks for the purpose of expressing her breast milk at work
for her infant son. The evidence reflects that both parties’ versions of what transpired in
a few days in September 2010 are vastly different. Specifically, the time and content of

the alleged complaints made by Plaintiff to her supervisor Melissa Martin and to
Defendant Shannon Roche, the owner of Roche Surety, Inc., and director of Roche
Surety, Inc., Roche Surety and Casualty, and Roche Bail Bonds, are contested.
Defendants claim that private rooms other than the bathroom were available to take
breaks in the double-wide trailer housing the bail bond office. However, Plaintiff
contends that the only room available was a bathroom, which is insufficient under the
Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA), 29 U.S.C. §207(r)(1), effective March 23, 2010.
The number of breaks Plaintiff was allowed to take are contested by each side. Whether
Plaintiff voiced her objections about her lack of privacy and inability to pump and
whether Plaintiff posted various negative comments about her employer on Facebook are
also disputed. Finally, neither side agrees about the sequence and circumstances leading
up to Plaintiff’s signing of resignation and termination letters.
Based on the myriad of disputed facts in this case, summary judgment is
inappropriate. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 19) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 13, 2011.

s/Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-2-