Aspire Health Partners, a Central Florida nonprofit behavioral healthcare provider, has been named in three notable federal lawsuits in recent years: a 2020 EEOC disability discrimination case it settled for $115,000, a 2024 Fair Labor Standards Act overtime case brought by a former employee, and a 2024 trademark infringement suit that Aspire itself filed and won, ending in a permanent injunction in April 2025 against a nursing home operator using the “Aspire” name.
The 2020 EEOC Disability Discrimination Case
In September 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Aspire in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging the organization violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to rehire a former employee because of medical records in her workers’ compensation file.1EEOC. Aspire Health Partners Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
The employee had worked at Aspire for more than 20 years and had developed and managed the organization’s “Village House” program before being terminated after a workplace injury and exhausting her medical leave. Once her doctor cleared her to return without restrictions, she applied for a position in the same program she had run. Hours before her scheduled interview, she was told she was “ineligible for rehire” because of her prior workers’ compensation file. She contacted the chief operating officer but was still denied an interview.1EEOC. Aspire Health Partners Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
The EEOC framed the case as disability discrimination rather than retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, arguing that treating a prior injury file as grounds for denying employment amounts to discrimination under the ADA.2HR Dive. EEOC: Non-Profit Refused to Hire Former Employee Due to Prior Workplace Injury
The case resolved quickly. On November 6, 2020, U.S. District Judge Wendy W. Berger signed a consent decree under which Aspire agreed to pay $115,000 in damages. The two-and-a-half-year decree also required Aspire to adopt and distribute an updated anti-discrimination policy, train its human resources staff on disability discrimination, and post a notice about the settlement.3EEOC. Aspire Health Partners to Pay $115,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Robert E. Weisberg, the EEOC’s regional attorney for the Miami District, said “it is unfair, and against the law, for an employer to deny an employee a position because of a prior disability.”1EEOC. Aspire Health Partners Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
The FLSA Overtime Settlement
A former employee named William Harp sued Aspire under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging unpaid overtime. The case, Harp v. Aspire Health Partners (Case No. 6:23-cv-1983), was filed in the Middle District of Florida, and two additional plaintiffs, Aaron Brown and Phoebe Barnes, opted in.4Casemine. Harp v. Aspire Health Partners On March 8, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price approved a settlement in which Aspire agreed to pay the plaintiffs in full for their wage claims. The case was dismissed with prejudice and closed.
The Trademark Case Aspire Brought Against Aspire Health Group
In July 2024, Aspire Health Partners filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Aspire MGT LLC, a Florida company incorporated in July 2023 that operates as “Aspire Health Group.”5vLex. Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC The case was filed in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida as case number 6:24-cv-1578.
The dispute followed Aspire MGT’s acquisition of dozens of Florida skilled nursing facilities, roughly $1.2 billion in deals, which it rebranded under the “Aspire” and “Aspire Health Group” names.5vLex. Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC Much of that activity was backed by Welltower Inc., a real estate investment trust.6Skilled Nursing News. Welltower Execs Discuss REIT’s $1.2B Nursing Home Investments, Detail Aspire Health Deal Aspire Health Partners alleged the defendant’s branding was confusingly similar to its own registered marks, pointing to a shared turquoise color scheme, similar typography, and a “strikingly similar” website. The complaint included counts of trademark infringement under Florida law, common law unfair competition, and federal unfair competition and cybersquatting claims under the Lanham Act.
Preliminary Injunction
After a November 6, 2024 evidentiary hearing, Judge Julie S. Sneed granted the preliminary injunction motion in part, finding “significant evidence of actual and ongoing confusion among the consuming public,” including misdirected emails and phone calls between the two organizations.7Casemine. Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC, Consent Judgment Aspire MGT was ordered to stop using the “Aspire” branding and to report compliance within 30 days. The defendant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit and sought a stay; both efforts failed.8GrayRobinson. GrayRobinson IP and Litigation Attorneys Secure Permanent Injunction for Aspire Health Partners in Federal Trademark Case
Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction
On April 9, 2025, the court entered a consent judgment and permanent injunction resolving the case through a negotiated settlement.7Casemine. Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC, Consent Judgment Aspire MGT LLC and its affiliates are permanently barred from using the marks “Aspire,” “Aspire Health,” and “Aspire Health Group” in Florida and Georgia in connection with healthcare or business registration. Compliance runs on a staggered schedule:
- By May 27, 2025, all use of the marks on websites directing business to Florida or Georgia must cease, including domain names, metadata, and search engine optimization based on the marks.
- By August 2, 2025, all use of the marks must end for facilities operating in seven Central Florida counties: Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, Polk, and Volusia.
- By October 2, 2025, all mark usage in Florida and Georgia must cease completely and permanently, including signage, advertising, directories, and entity names.
The defendant is also required to prominently display a designated phone number on all its websites through October 2, 2026, presumably to redirect confused consumers.7Casemine. Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC, Consent Judgment The order carved out a narrow exception allowing a New Jersey-based entity, Aspire Health Group, LLC, to keep “Aspire Health” in its corporate name, but only if it does not operate a website using the marks that is accessible in Florida or Georgia for at least 12 months and does not conduct business in those states.