A man in Miami filed a lawsuit against Kent Security Services claiming he was terminated for reporting someone who supposedly was unlicensed and still hired to do security work by the company. He claimed in the lawsuit that he worked as a supervisor for the company and expressed disagreement over the hiring of this officer in July of 2014. In the same month, he was terminated from his job. In this lawsuit, the man claimed damages that exceeded $15,000. Also in this lawsuit, he claimed there was a violation of Florida’s Whistle-blowers Act. Notably, the Department of Agriculture requires security officers to be properly trained and licensed for reasons of public safety.
This lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2014, just one month before the alleged mace attack by a Kent Security officer in Pembroke Pines that reportedly left a person permanently injured with vision loss. This person is claiming negligence by Kent Security in his or her lawsuit in Broward County (Update: An Amendment by Interlineation was filed, to change the name of the defendant to Kent Security Services instead of Kent Security of Palm Beach).
Additionally, in a case that was highly embarrassing to the company, a road supervisor in Naples alleged to the Labor Board that he was retaliated against for expressing public safety concerns to the company’s corporate headquarters in February of 2015. In this case, which attracted significant media coverage due to the lack of professionalism he reported, he won pro se. As a result of the informal settlement, Kent of Naples was required to post notices informing employees of their rights at gatehouses.
What concerns us about these three cases is that they may show a pattern of misconduct, since all three involve seemingly explosive allegations. Disturbingly, the case in Naples occurred on the heels of serious public safety accusations against the company elsewhere a short period before it. Each one is inexcusable for a company of most likely less than 2,000 employees, comparable to the size of an average high school. However, it gets even more disturbing if two out of the three cases are true, and it justifiably should raise alarm bells for state investigators if all three are true. It just boggles the mind that a small family-owned business would be accused of these public safety breaches in such a short period of time — and a security company at that!
We aren’t saying that the other two cases besides the Naples case, decided favorably for the plaintiff by the Labor Board, have merit, but we believe state investigators should be looking at the company, as there is that famous saying “where there’s smoke there’s fire” that may turn out to be applicable here.