Kent Security Sued by Pregnant Former Employee

Kent Security of Palm Beach is being sued by a pregnant former employee who is claiming she was discriminated against by the company due to her pregnancy. She claims she was moved from the corporate building to an unfinished home lacking a restroom, according to her complaint. She also claims she was verbally abused in an effort to make her quit, which she eventually did. The plaintiff is represented by Richard Celler Legal PA, a firm that previously has sued the company for pregnancy discrimination and reportedly attained a settlement. The lawsuit was filed in Miami on August 31, 2016.

Here is the video with documentation on the lawsuit. Here is the lawsuit on Slideshare.

 

Kent Security Services Inc. of Miami Received Court Sanction

Kent Security Services Inc. of Miami received a court sanction in 2010 for not complying with a court order. This occurred less than a year before Kent Security made the news for allegedly engaging in wage theft and not complying with Miami’s “living wage” ordinance.

In this case, brought by Leslie Langbein, who previously represented Kent Security Services of Miami against Ms. Greenfield in a pregnancy discrimination case, according to a 32BJ SEIU press release, there appears to have been a dispute over billing.

This is yet another example of the troubled history of the Miami-based company. The company made the news in Miami due to allegations of severe and reckless workplace bullying in a Naples guardhouse. The corporate headquarters refused to answer the phone calls of Fox 4 of Cape Coral when they sought answers from the company.

Here is a video with documentation on the court sanction against the company in 2010:

Kent Security Services Manipulates Online Reviews

[Note: While it’s possible in theory for someone to create a fake account and impersonate someone else online, this appears to be a genuine posting given that it has been left up for two weeks with no reporting or flagging. It would also make no sense for someone to make a fake account to post a positive review in order to attack that person. Furthermore, as shown in this post, Kent Security Services has an average rating of 1.8 out of 5 stars, showing that the company already has a negative reputation online, in addition to the negative news coverage documented here and elsewhere.]

Kent Security Services, based in North Miami, has been busted posting a fake review nakedly. The CEO of the company, Gil Neuman, violated Google’s TOS by giving his own company a review. It is considered a conflict of interest and is dubbed “astroturfing.” In New York and elsewhere, it is also considered false advertising and is punishable if done repeatedly. Of course, given that the CEO of Kent Security used his own name, the violation was done out of ignorance, but regardless reviewing one’s own company is widely regarded as unethical.

Here is the evidence:

Kent Security Services fake review.

Notice the CEO’s review is surrounded by very negative reviews: out of five possible stars, the company averages 1.8 with a total of 30 reviews. The most likely reason for this desperate move by the CEO is concern about negative reviews by former employees. Instead of nakedly posting a fake review, Mr. Neuman would have been better off trying to figure out why there is so much hostility from employees and former employees towards the company, and thus work on preventing such reviews in the first place. Posting a fake review so nakedly only exposes the company to ridicule and makes the situation worse.

Here is Google’s rule against posting reviews for one’s own company (“astroturfing”):

Conflict of interest Google TOS.

Here are other reviews of Kent Security, including my own which mentions the newsworthy “Wall of Shame” scandal covered by the Miami New Times and Fox 4 of Cape Coral, that has sent shockwaves throughout South Florida:

Kent Security Services bad reviews.

Notably, the company recently settled a complaint to the Labor Board from a former employee in Naples and has been issued another hearing notice from the same agency based on a complaint that appears to originate from Marco Island.

Again, instead of resorting to posting fake reviews, the company may want to look within on why it’s getting so many complaints from people.

Lawsuit Against Kent Security Services Inc.

There is currently a lawsuit pending against Kent Security Services Inc., alleging negligence due to a mace attack in Pembroke Pines, a city between Miami and Fort Lauderdale. The motion to amend by interlineation more recently filed aims to substitute Kent Security Services Inc. for Kent Security of Palm Beach Inc.

This video which provides documentation on the pending legal case aims to promote public safety by stimulating thought and discussion about physical encounters between security officers and the public. While we take no stance on the merits of the case, we believe the public has a right to know about these incidents.

Kent Security is no stranger to controversy: the company is currently embroiled in the “Wall of Shame” scandal that has sent shock waves throughout the state of Florida and stimulated discussion on workplace bullying. This story was covered by the Miami New Times and Fox 4 of Cape Coral.

Kent Security Services Sued Twice over Alleged FLSA Violations

Kent Security has been sued twice over Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases, both in 2009. Given that the two suits occurred at about the same time, this implies a potential pattern of conduct. We made videos about these cases, and encourage others who feel their rights may have been violated similarly to contact the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Notably, in Casadonte v. Kent Security Services and Kent of Naples, the CEO Gil Neuman, who is no stranger to litigation and media coverage, is named individually as a defendant as well.

Ortiz v. Kent Security Services was filed in Miami, while Casadonte v. Kent Security Services and Kent of Naples was filed in Ft. Myers. Ft. Myers is a city just north of Naples, an affluent city where Kent has repeatedly been found to engage in unlawful conduct.

Here is Ortiz v. Kent Security Services:

Here is Casadonte v. Kent Security Services and Kent of Naples:

Dana Schwartz vs. the Machine

Recently Dana Schwartz, a Jewish writer for the Observer, wrote a sharp critique of Donald Trump’s pandering to White supremacists and anti-Semites, following his gauche tweet featuring an image of Hillary Clinton with a pile of money and the Star of David — a Jewish symbol — superimposed. After being called out by the mass media and Anti-Defamation League (ADL), rather than admit he had made a mistake, Trump went on the offensive claiming his tweet had nothing to do with Jews and that the media was to blame for dishonestly portraying the meaning of the tweet.

According to the New York Times, though, the image first appeared on a White supremacist website. Trump proceeded to delete the original message with the Star of David and replace it with a circle containing the words originally in the offensive image: “Most corrupt candidate ever!”

From the moment Ms. Schwartz saw that message, she began issuing blistering tweets towards Trump, rightly pointing out its offensiveness as well as Trump’s unwillingness to admit wrongdoing or fault. She concluded, based on that and other behavior, that Trump lacked leadership skills and should not be considered a legitimate presidential candidate. Then the nastiness began.

Anti-Semites on Twitter began coming out of the woodwork and flooding Ms. Schwartz with anti-Semitic insults, mocking her supposed Jewish nose, the Holocaust, and the Jewish people as a whole (as a matter of opinion, she’s cute and smart, but that’s neither here nor there). The very worst of humanity — or rather sub-humanity — reared itself to engage in collective attacks against this writer simply because she correctly pointed out the anti-Semitic subtext within the tweet, which many of the attackers themselves acknowledged.

Adding to the hurt for Ms. Schwartz is that one of her bosses high up in the chain, Jared Kushner, who owns the New York Observer, happens to be Trump’s son-in-law and Jewish, as well as an adviser of his. She has chided him for his silence on the matter, pointing out that, as an employee of his, her letter could be interpreted as insubordination. However, as a matter of principle and in defense of her people from such blatant and overt attacks, she has defied the corporate status quo and taken a stance that could potentially undermine her career at the Observer.

Ms. Schwartz’s situation is a reminder of her vulnerability, in contrast to the belief of many anti-Semites that she (and those like her) is a master string-puller who, using verbal trickery, manipulates society to control or negatively influence it in concert with other Jews. She is left as the recipient of vicious attacks on Twitter while her boss high up in the chain enjoys the political rise of his father-in-law, who is clearly appealing to these anti-Semites who would, if given the chance, strip Ms. Schwartz and even Mr. Kushner of their titles and cart them off to a place they would rather not be. Mr. Kushner, I assume, believes this to be a very low probability outcome, and seemingly believes he has something to gain from this situation given his family ties to Trump. Mr. Kushner is gambling that Trump will keep the situation under control. I believe we’ve been here before in history, with outcomes that were unexpected to all.

In conclusion, Ms. Schwartz is handling this situation nobly and deserves to be commended for following principle over playing politics with her employer. She is an independent thinker who is much-needed in our nation’s media. We all should therefore support her and make sure she is not retaliated against in any way for simply doing her job and defending herself and her people.