In the lawsuit against Kent Security Services Inc. over an alleged mace attack in Pembroke Pines, the parties are apparently in disagreement over the proper name of the defendant. Public records indicate that the defendant prefers being referred to as Kent Security of Palm Beach Inc., whereas the plaintiff prefers Kent Security Services Inc.
Either way, this case is clearly of public interest as physical encounters between private security officers and the public have become an increasingly hot topic, similar to physical encounters between law enforcement officers and the public. For the sake of public safety, this is a topic that needs to be discussed to lessen the number of unnecessary injuries or deaths.
Here is the document indicating that that there is a dispute over the proper name of the defendant. Regardless of the outcome, it is our hope that such horrific incidents will become less frequent in our society. Given the sensational nature of this alleged attack, all security companies in Florida should familiarize themselves with the case to brainstorm ways to prevent or defuse this type of incident.
Kent Security Services Inc. of Miami was sued by two salespeople within an 18 month span between 2013 and 2014. This is significant given the similarity of the complaints, and once again points to the Miami-based company being continually plagued by scandals.
Make no mistake: this is yet another explosive scandal that is sure to rock the entire state of Florida, as it comes to grips with the already shocking “Wall of Shame” scandal of Naples and the alleged mace attack by a Kent Security officer in Pembroke Pines, as well as the latest pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against Kent Security of Palm Beach Inc., to name a few.
It is not an easy task to compile all of these lawsuits that are clearly of public interest. However, the public interest requires this massive effort to make the company’s activities and history transparent for the public.
The more I delve into the company’s past, the more I realize how it continues to surpass itself in its brazen conduct. Obviously, while we cannot comment on the merits of these complaints not involving us, we are stunned that a company can have so many lawsuits in a short span of time. Here is the latest video on these two related lawsuits by former Kent Security salespeople. It appears at least one of these lawsuits was settled.
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.
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.
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.