Kent Security of Naples Sues Former Client

We made a video of Kent Security of Naples suing a former client. Honestly, given that the “Wall of Shame” occurred under the nose of this client, and given that the idiot who was mistreating the guards in the scandal kept her job, we feel neutral in this squabble. It appears that Kent Security is upset that the former client retained guards after terminating the contract with the company.

Naples is a small town though, so Kent Security had better be careful about suing too many former clients — word gets around quick. However, should Kent Security prevail in this lawsuit, one can hardly say the defendant is a victim of Kent Security’s legal aggressiveness, given its own questionable conduct.

This is entertaining in a similar way to a WorldStarHipHop.com video of two proles fighting each other. It is a bizarre spectacle of stupidity through and through.

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.

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:

The Labor Board vs. Kent Security of Naples

This post aims to clarify the legal consequences to Kent of Naples d/b/a Kent Security’s unprofessional conduct as reported by the Miami New Times.

Notably, Gil Neuman, the CEO of the family-owned business — I emphasize this because I wonder what would be the outcome if he were the CEO of a business owned by non-relatives and goofed up like this — reportedly described the paddles as a “tasteless joke,” in effect at least partially justifying this misconduct at the gatehouse, refusing to even condemn the behavior.

After months of investigation, the National Labor Relations Board felt that Kent Security behaved unlawfully and had the company agree to post up notices at gatehouses in and around Naples to inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Here is the notice so it can remain on the public record:

Kent Security of Naples Notice of NLRA Rights.
Kent Security of Naples Notice of NLRA Rights

I’m posting this notice up to provide the truth to the public and to prevent Kent Security of North Miami (where the company is headquartered) from brushing this embarrassing situation under the carpet. In particular, this provides the public with a glimpse of the conduct of Kent Security’s executives when they are not in the public eye. It’s important for the community of South Florida — and communities in other parts of the country — to see how this company treats employees so that it can make better choices as to which companies it will reward lucrative contracts. The fact of the matter is that the humane and dignified treatment of employees is a bedrock principle from which a happy and prosperous community is built. This is also a basic free-market principle.

I should add, as a matter of opinion, that by justifying the misconduct at the gatehouse and inflaming an already tense situation involving negative press coverage, the CEO Gil Neuman gave a black mark to his family business in a display of wanton recklessness.

Miami Man Sued Kent Security Alleging He Was Whistleblower

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.

Person Alleges Kent Security Officer Maced and Partially Blinded Them

A person has alleged in a Broward County, Florida lawsuit that he or she was maced and suffered permanent vision loss as a result by a Kent Security officer in Pembroke Pines, which is a suburb that lies between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami.

Reportedly, this incident occurred in a residential community, and the plaintiff in this lawsuit is claiming negligence by Kent Security. While we neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the allegation, it raises serious concerns about security officers carrying weapons and the possibility of them using excessive force while carrying them.

There has been a spate of high-profile cases of accusations of excessive force involving law enforcement in recent years leading to nationwide protests, such as in Ferguson and Baltimore, and concerns have also been raised about excessive use of force by private security guards and bouncers.

As an update, an amendment by interlineation was filed in the Broward case, to change the name of the defendant from Kent Security Services to Kent Security of Palm Beach. This suggests that Kent Security of Palm Beach runs Broward and Palm Beach counties for the company.

Notably, the National Labor Relations Board expressed concern about Kent Security’s disregard for public safety in the famous “Wall of Shame” case in Naples, FL that made the news in 2015. In this case, the former road supervisor of the district won pro se against the company. This was embarrassing for the company, and, soon after, the district manager involved in the scandal reportedly quit or left the company.