MIAMI – A Florida reporter has filed a lawsuit against his former employer, alleging the news company discriminated against him, and ultimately terminated his employment, due to his age and medical condition.
Plaintiff Emilio Jesus Lopez filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.
EFE News Services Inc., a for-profit corporation in Miami and subsidiary of the North American headquarters of Agencia EFE SA, is the sole named defendant in the 17-page federal complaint.
Lopez, who was 65 at the time his employment was terminated, claims EFE violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
He contends that since his employment began in 2005, he has performed his work to EFE’s “satisfaction.”
In his filing, Lopez points to a visit by the president of Agencia EFE SA, Miguel Angel Oliver, to the defendant’s Miami offices.
“During that visit, the president complained that staff members were not working hard enough,” the lawsuit states. “The president asked Plaintiff how old he was before guessing that he must be 60 or older.
“The context of his remarks, taken together, conveyed his belief that Plaintiff was too old to work diligently.”
Later, Lopez requested, and EFE approved, vacation leave from Nov. 28, 2024 to Dec. 18, 2024.
Prior to the start of his vacation, Lopez claims he experienced “significant and unexplained” weight loss. His Florida gastroenterologist recommended he obtain a diagnostic MRI.
In turn, he decided to obtain an MRI during his vacation in Spain. According to the complaint, his Spanish health coverage made the procedure more affordable.
Lopez claims he believed the MRI would be completed on Dec. 17, 2024 and he would return to work after his scheduled vacation ended.
However, because of an equipment malfunction, the MRI could not be completed as scheduled, the complaint states.
But before his vacation ended, Lopez alleges he notified EFE that he needed to extend his leave to complete an MRI.
“Plaintiff had ample leave time remaining when he made that request,” he notes.
EFE granted his request to extend his leave. Lopez assumed it would not jeopardize his employment.
Lopez completed an MRI on Dec. 27, 2024 and learned he was suffering from severe mesenteric panniculitis, a serious health condition that causes intense inflammation and scarring of bodily tissues.
At this time, the physician treating him recommended he also obtain a CT chest scan, colonoscopy, endoscopy, a cardiology exam, and a neurological exam. He also was advised not to travel by air.
Lopez notified EFE and provided the company with medical evidence of his condition, requesting his leave be extended again. EFE agreed, asking him to return to work Jan. 27, 2025.
“Plaintiff completed as many recommended diagnostic procedures as he could and planned to return to work on January 27, 2025 as Defendant requested,” his lawsuit states. “He learned that an important medical examination could not be completed within that time frame and therefore asked Defendant to extend his leave to January 29, 2025, as an accommodation of his disability.”
Lopez notes he did not refuse to return to work Jan. 27, 2025, but claims EFE did not tell him it was denying the requested two-day leave extension.
“Instead, the next communication that Plaintiff received from Defendant, dated January 24, 2025, notified him that his employment had been terminated effective January 24, 2025,” the complaint states.
“By terminating Plaintiff’s employment on January 24, 2025, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to return to work on January 27, 2025, the date on which Defendant asked Plaintiff to return to work.”
The termination notice acknowledged Lopez’s medical condition, but claims his termination was based on the same condition.
Also, the termination notice made the false representation that Lopez’s leave time was “exhausted” on Jan. 24, 2025. However, he argues he had additional leave time available that the company was contractually obligated to provide.
Lopez claims he spoke to EFE’s CEO on Jan. 25, 2025 as he was leaving the hospital emergency room, asking him to reconsider his employment.
EFE’s CEO allegedly instructed Lopez to apply for a three-to-four month leave of absence, thus allowing the company to hire a temporary replacement.
“It was Plaintiff’s understanding that Defendant’s CEO had agreed to withdraw the termination, to extend his return-to-work date to January 29, and to process a request for a longer leave that Plaintiff would make formally after returning to the United States,” the filing states.
“Notwithstanding his belief that Defendant was extending his return-to-work date, Plaintiff flew back to the United States on January 27, 2025, so that he could return to work earlier if necessary.”
However, EFE’s CEO allegedly responded – by email – they were expecting Lopez at work on Jan. 27, 2025, not Jan. 29, 2025, and that “the company cannot change its mind.”
According to his complaint, the CEO denied Lopez’s requested accommodation of a two-day extension of his return-to-work date and reaffirmed that his termination took effect on Jan. 24, 2025 – while Lopez was still taking an approved leave and before he missed any scheduled work days.
“Defendant replaced Plaintiff with, or reassigned his duties to, an employee or employees who were not disabled and who were substantially younger than Plaintiff,” the filing states.
Lopez seeks an award of lost wages and benefits; compensatory damages; punitive damages; reinstatement or an award of future wages and benefits; and attorney fees.
Carpe Diem Law Firm PLLC in Miami is representing Lopez in the lawsuit.
