Lowe’s
PALM BEACH, Fla. – A project manager at a Lowe’s home improvement store in Florida claims he was scrutinized and discriminated against after requesting and taking paternity leave following the birth of his child.
Plaintiff Maximo Plasencia filed his lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division.
In his 20-page complaint, he claims defendant Lowe’s Home Center LLC’s unlawful employment practices violated federal and Florida laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
“Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, including disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful termination, based on Plaintiff’s sex, including sex-based discrimination arising from gender stereotypes and unequal treatment of fathers taking paternity leave, as well as retaliation for engaging in protected activity, including requesting and taking leave protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act,” his filing states.
Plasencia, a Palm Beach County resident, worked as a project manager from December 2021 until he was terminated by the retailer in July 2025.
In 2024, Plasencia claims he informed his employer of the upcoming birth of his child and his intention to take paternity leave following his wife’s maternity leave.
According to his complaint, Lowe’s policy permits paternity leave to be taken intermittently during the 12 months following a child’s birth.
On June 5, 2024, he alleges he formally requested to take 50 percent of his allotted paternity leave beginning July 1, 2024.
About two weeks later, he claims he received his first ever verbal performance warning.
“The reasons given were vague and nonspecific and consisted primarily of generalized comments regarding communication style, without reference to any concrete deficiencies or examples,” his complaint states.
Then, in November 2024, he alleges he verbally informed his direct supervisor, Aaron Minton, of his intent to request the remaining half of his paternity leave to begin in late December 2024 or early January 2025.
Soon after, on Dec. 5, 2024, Plasencia alleges he received another performance warning.
“The stated reasons again focused on alleged communication style issues and an alleged inaccurate calendar timeline presented during a meeting that had occurred nearly three weeks earlier, on November 14, 2024,” his complaint states.
After taking his approved paternity leave from Dec. 26, 2024 to Jan. 12, 2025, Plasencia claims he observed a “marked change” in how he was treated at work, including increased micromanagement and scrutiny that had not existed prior to his leave.
“Upon his return from paternity leave, Plaintiff was criticized and disciplined for trivial and inconsequential matters, including a two-second transition in a PowerPoint presentation, an accidental misstatement of a date, and alleged project deficiencies where no work had yet begun,” his filing states. “No legitimate performance-based justification was provided for these actions.”
Plasencia contends he was subjected to almost daily “excessive monitoring,” “baseless” disciplinary write-ups, and “escalating criticism” that was not imposed on others.
He argues other similarly situated project managers – who had not taken family leave – “routinely” made more serious mistakes without receiving discipline.
In response, Plasencia claims he filed a formal internal complaint with human resources in June 2025.
Immediately after, he alleges he informed Minton, his supervisor, that he would be taking seven to 10 days of accrued vacation during the first week of July 2025.
Plasencia claims that while he was on vacation, he was terminated during a Microsoft Teams call with Minton and a human resources representative. They informed him his termination was based on a failure to implement feedback related to a Care Connect project.
“The stated reason for Plaintiff’s termination was false and pretextual. Plaintiff had not received any feedback requiring implementation and had been expressly instructed to delay work on the Care Connect project,” he alleges in his complaint. “Plaintiff fully complied with all instructions and directives provided to him.”
Plasencia filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami district office, and the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue on Nov. 26, 2025.
Plasencia seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, emotional distress damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, reinstatement or front pay in lieu of, restoration of benefits and seniority, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.
The Law Offices of T. Walls Blye PLLC in Miami is representing Plasencia in the lawsuit.
