FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/16/ :56 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/16/2017

Transcription

1 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/16/ :56 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/16/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No. COUNTY OF RICHMOND Date purchased: X UMARU TURAY, Plaintiff designates: RICHMOND County as the Plaintiff, place of trial. -against- The basis of the venue is Plaintiff s Residence A VERY SPECIAL PLACE, INC. and SUMMONS NICOLE BASS, in her individual capacity, Plaintiff resides at: 141 Park Hill Avenue, Apt. 1H Defendants. Staten Island, NY X To the above named Defendants: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: January 16, 2017 New York, New York Akin Law Group PLLC /s/ Robert D. Salaman Robert D. Salaman Zafer A. Akin 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) rob@akinlaws.com zafer@akinlaws.com Counsel for Plaintiff 1 of 16

2 Defendants' Addresses: A VERY SPECIAL PLACE, INC. (via Secretary of State) 49 Cedar Grove Avenue Staten Island, NY NICOLE BASS (Via Place of Employment) 634 New Dorp Lane Staten Island, NY of 16

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND X UMARU TURAY, Plaintiff, Index No. VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- A VERY SPECIAL PLACE, INC. and NICOLE BASS, in her individual capacity, Jury Trial Demanded Defendants X Plaintiff Umaru Turay, by his attorneys, Akin Law Group PLLC, upon information and belief, complains of the Defendants as follows: 1. Plaintiff Umaru Turay complains pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, seeking damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being of being harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against on the basis of his national origin. Additionally, the Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation with further discrimination and hostilities resulting in his wrongful termination. 2. Contemporaneously with the commencement of this action, a copy of this Complaint was served both on the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, thereby satisfying the notice requirements of the New York City Administrative Code. PARTIES 3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff UMARU TURAY ( Plaintiff TURAY or Plaintiff ) was and is a resident of the County of Richmond, State of New York. 4. Plaintiff TURAY is originally from Sierra Leone, Africa. 3 of 16

4 5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant A VERY SPECIAL PLACE, INC. ( AVSP ) was and is a domestic not-for-profit corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant AVSP was and is a domestic not-forprofit corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant AVSP provides programs and services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant AVSP was and is located at 49 Cedar Grove Avenue, Staten Island NY That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant AVSP was and is located at 634 New Dorp Lane, Staten Island NY That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant AVSP was and is located at 1041 Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island NY That at all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Defendant NICOLE BASS ( Defendant BASS) was and is a resident of the State of New York. 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant BASS was and is employed by AVSP. 13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant BASS was and is an AVSP Assistant Supervisor. 14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant BASS worked for AVSP at 634 New Dorp Lane, Staten Island NY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15. On or about November 1, 2015, Plaintiff TURAY commenced his employment with Defendant AVSP. 4 of 16

5 16. Plaintiff TURAY was employed by Defendant AVSP as a Habilitation Assistant. 17. Plaintiff TURAY earned $11.00 per hour during his employment with Defendant AVSP. 18. Upon his hire, Plaintiff TURAY worked for Defendant AVSP at 634 New Dorp Lane, Staten Island NY During the course of Plaintiff TURAY s employment, he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, unlawful retaliation and unlawful employment practices because of his national origin. 20. On or about January 5, 2016, Keysha (last name currently unknown AVSP Assistant Supervisor) told Plaintiff TURAY, I will never date any men from Africa anymore. 21. Defendant BASS then said that, She will never date an African because Africans are disease. 22. Plaintiff TURAY was highly offended by the discriminatory remarks. 23. Later that same day (January 5, 2016), Plaintiff TURAY complained about the discriminatory comments to Jennifer Bernius (Plaintiff TURAY s immediate supervisor), both verbally and in writing. 24. On or about January 6, 2016, a meeting was held with Plaintiff TURAY, Defendant BASS, Ms. Bernius and Scott Springstead (AVSP Director of Program Services). 25. In the meeting, Plaintiff TURAY again explained the discrimination that had occurred the day before. 26. Ms. Bernius told Defendant BASS that what she said was wrong and therefore she should apologize. 27. Defendant BASS admitted making the discriminatory remark, but refused to apologize or shake Plaintiff TURAY s hand at the end of the meeting. 5 of 16

6 28. On or about January 13, 2016, a number of AVSP employees participated in the $1.5 Billion Powerball lottery that night. Plaintiff TURAY was asked what he would do with the money if he won the lottery. Plaintiff TURAY said that he would create a charity organization that would cure disease in Africa. 29. Defendant BASS responded in a mocking tone, I know you are saying that because of me. You should not be saying that that s rude. 30. Later that day (January 13, 2016), a second meeting with Plaintiff TURAY, Defendant BASS, Ms. Bernius and Mr. Springstead was held in Mr. Springstead s office. In the meeting, Mr. Springstead told Plaintiff TURAY that he should not have said the words disease in Africa in Defendant BASS s presence. 31. Plaintiff TURAY argued that his freedom of speech should not be restricted solely to placate Defendant BASS s inherent prejudices. Displeased, Mr. Springstead threatened to fire Plaintiff TURAY, saying, Ok, I have a letter for you. I am going to fire you. 32. While Plaintiff TURAY was not actually terminated at the January 13, 2016 meeting, his days at Defendant AVSP were short-lived and he faced severe retaliation which escalated with time. 33. The discrimination and lack of remedial action at AVSP caused Plaintiff TURAY severe emotional distress, requiring that he take 3 to 5 days off of work in February 2016 to mentally recover. 34. On or about February 29, 2016, Plaintiff TURAY had a conversation with an AVSP coworker (name currently unknown) about the time off he had taken in February Mr. Springstead overhead Plaintiff TURAY s conversation and angrily told Plaintiff TURAY to leave. 6 of 16

7 35. On or about March 2, 2016, Diane Buglioli AVSP Deputy Executive Director issued a written response to Plaintiff TURAY s complaint of discrimination. 36. In part, Ms. Buglioli wrote, We have concluded that your co-worker s comment was inappropriate and is not acceptable behavior for an AVSP employee. 37. Despite this conclusion, AVSP also admonished Plaintiff TURAY for mustering the courage to complain, writing Although you (Plaintiff TURAY) are a short term employee, it is our hope that you have a better understanding of the zero tolerance philosophy [of AVSP], as if Plaintiff TURAY violated the zero tolerance policy. 38. Upon sincere information and belief, Defendant BASS still remains employed by AVSP despite violating AVSP s zero-tolerance policy. 39. In March 2016, Plaintiff TURAY was transferred to work at another AVSP location 1041 Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island NY Despite the transfer, Plaintiff TURAY was still required to interact with Mr. Springstead on a daily basis. 41. Further, Defendant BASS posted on Facebook that some people at her job are crybabies (implying Plaintiff TURAY for complaining of discrimination). 42. On or about May 25, 2016, Plaintiff TURAY told Mr. Springstead that he should not treat him differently because he is from Africa. Mr. Springstead refused to change his behavior or apologize for any earlier remarks. 43. On or about May 26, 2016, Defendant AVSP terminated Plaintiff TURAY. 44. Plaintiff TURAY was terminated in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination. 45. Defendants unlawfully harassed, discriminated against and retaliated against Plaintiff. 46. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently because of his national origin. 7 of 16

8 47. Plaintiff s position at his job was intolerable as a result of the discrimination by the Defendants to which he was subjected, and no reasonable person in Plaintiff s position could be expected to continue working under those conditions. 48. Defendants unwanted hostile actions created a hostile work environment which no reasonable person could be expected to tolerate. 49. Throughout Plaintiff s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff would protest and complain to Defendants about this unlawful conduct. 50. Despite said complaints and protests, Defendants continued to unlawfully discriminate against and harass the Plaintiff. 51. During Plaintiff s employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff was and continued to be regularly exposed to a discriminatory, offensive, and hostile work environment. 52. Defendants actions and conduct were intentional and intended to harm the Plaintiff. 53. After Plaintiff protested to the Defendants, Plaintiff became the subject of retaliation by the Defendants. 54. The Plaintiff has been unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against, was humiliated, and has been degraded and belittled; and as a result, suffers the loss of rights, emotional distress, loss of income, earnings and sustained personal injuries. 55. As a result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiff felt extremely humiliated, degraded, victimized, embarrassed and emotionally distressed. 56. As a result of the Defendants discriminatory and intolerable treatment, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. 57. As a result of the acts and conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of income, the loss of a salary, bonuses, benefits, and other 8 of 16

9 compensation which such employment entails, and Plaintiff has also suffered future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. Plaintiff has further experienced severe emotional and physical distress. 58. As a result of the above, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. 59. As Defendants conduct has been willful, reckless, outrageous, intentional, and/or malicious, Plaintiff also demands punitive damages in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of New York State Human Rights Law) 60. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 61. New York State Executive Law 296 provides that it shall be unlawful (a) For an employer or licensing agency, because of the age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or marital status of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 62. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York Executive Law by terminating the Plaintiff, creating and maintaining discriminatory working conditions and discriminating against the Plaintiff because of his national origin. 63. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of lower Courts. 9 of 16

10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Hostile Work Environment in Violation of New York State Human Rights Law) 64. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 65. Executive Law 296 provides for a hostile work environment claim where Plaintiff shows that his work environment involved serious or pervasive harassment of such quality or quantity that a reasonable employee would find the conditions of his employment altered for the worse. 66. Plaintiff found his work environment to involve serious or pervasive harassment based on his national origin. 67. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of New York State Human Rights Law) 68. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 69. New York State Executive Law 296(7) provides that is shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: For any person engaged in any activity to which this section applies to retaliate or discriminate against any person because he has opposed practices forbidden under this article. 70. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by retaliating, continuing and escalating the discrimination and hostile work environment to which the Plaintiff was subjected, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of Plaintiff s opposition to the unlawful employment practices of Defendants. 10 of 16

11 71. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by retaliating against the Plaintiff for complaining about Defendants violation of the New York State Executive Law. 72. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law) 73. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 74. The Administrative Code of the City of New York [1] provides that, It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 75. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, 8-107(a) by terminating the Plaintiff, creating and maintaining discriminatory working conditions and discriminating against the Plaintiff because of his national origin. 76. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. 11 of 16

12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Hostile Work Environment in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law) 77. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 78. Pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code, a Plaintiff can establish a hostile work environment claim if he can show that was treated less well than other employees because of his protected class. 79. Plaintiff was treated less well by the Defendants because of his national origin. 80. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law) 81. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 82. The New York City Administrative Code Title 8, 8-107(1)(e) provides that it shall be an unlawful retaliatory practice: For an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any person because such person has opposed any practices forbidden under this chapter 83. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, 8-107(1)(e) by retaliating, continuing and escalating the national origin discrimination and hostile work environment to which the Plaintiff was subjected, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of Plaintiff s opposition to the unlawful employment practices of Defendants. 12 of 16

13 84. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by retaliating against the Plaintiff for making a complaint regarding Defendants violation of the New York City Administrative Code. 85. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. INJURY AND DAMAGES 86. As a result of the acts and conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer the loss and/or partial loss of a career and the loss and/or partial loss of a salary, bonuses, benefits and other compensation which such employment entails, outof-pocket medical expenses and Plaintiff has also suffered future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, injury to reputation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. Plaintiff has further experienced severe emotional and physical distress. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants for the following relief: A. Declaring that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by the State Common Law and New York State Executive Law 296 et seq., and awarding Plaintiff a recovery for damages sustained; B. Declaring that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, et seq., and awarding Plaintiff a recovery for damages sustained; 13 of 16

14 C. Declaring that the Defendants harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against and terminated the Plaintiff on the basis of his national origin and awarding Plaintiff a recovery for damages sustained; D. Awarding damages to the Plaintiff, retroactive to the date of his termination, for all lost wages and benefits resulting from the Defendants unlawful employment practices in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower courts; E. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for his mental and emotional injuries in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower courts; F. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages; G. Awarding Plaintiff attorney s fees, costs and expenses; and H. Awarding Plaintiff such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper; JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein. Dated: January 16, 2017 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, Akin Law Group PLLC By: /s/ Robert D. Salaman Robert D. Salaman Zafer A. Akin 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) rob@akinlaws.com zafer@akinlaws.com Counsel for Plaintiff 14 of 16

15 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND X UMARU TURAY, Index No. Plaintiff, VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT -against- A VERY SPECIAL PLACE, INC. and NICOLE BASS, in her individual capacity, Defendants X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Robert D. Salaman, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury, that: 1. I am an Associate at Akin Law Group PLLC, attorneys for Plaintiff in the abovecaptioned matter. 2. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof to be true of my own knowledge and/or based upon information that has been provided to me through conversations with Plaintiff Umaru Turay. 3. This Verification is made by me and not by Plaintiff because my office is in New York County and Plaintiff resides in Richmond County, New York. Dated: January 16, 2017 New York, New York By: /s/ Robert D. Salaman Robert D. Salaman 15 of 16

16 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND X UMARU TURAY, Index No. Plaintiff, -against- A VERY SPECIAL PLACE, INC. and NICOLE BASS, in her individual capacity, Defendants X SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT Akin Law Group PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY (212) Counsel for Plaintiff 16 of 16