ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "ANSWER TO COMPLAINT"

Transcription

1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTERN DISTRICT CINDY WILD Plaintiff, v. HOOLIGANS, INC., et ai., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 04 C 1175 JURY DEMAND ANSWER OF HOOLIGAN'S, INC. TO COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Defendant, HOOLIGANS, INC., by and through its attorneys, and in answer to the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, states as follows: JURISDICTION 1. The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is invoked pursuant to Title VII, 42 USc et seq. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $50,000 exclusive ofinterest and costs. The Court also is requested to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear pendant state claims under the same action. I. Defendant admits only that plaintiff seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C et seq., and the Court's supplemental jurisdiction but denies any allegation that it violated Title VII and the remaining allegations

3 PARTIES 2. CINDY WILD (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'), a female, at all times relevant to this Complaint was an employee of Defendant, Hooligans, Inc." a resident ofthe State ofnew York, and a citizen ofthe United States ofamerica. Defendant admits these allegations upon information and belief. 3. HOOLIGANS INC. (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Hooligans") at all times relevant to this Complaint was a corporation licensed, to do business in the State ofnew York. Defendant admits these allegations. 4. WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Union") at all times was the exclusive bargaining representative for the kitchen staff and servers employed by Defendant Hooligans. Defendant admits these allegations. 5. At all relevant times, Defendants Hooligans and the Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that included a grievance and arbitration procedure and a provision that prohibited discrimination in violation ofthe law. Defendant admits these allegations

4 FACTS 6. Defendant Hooligans required all of its female servers to wear a uniform consisting ofshort, tight-fitting shorts, pantyhose, and a tight-fitting t-shirt. Defendant admits that it required all female servers to wear a uniform consisting of shorts, pantyhose and a t-shirt, but deny that the adjectives "short" and "tight fitting" conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e) and, further answering, are immaterial and impertinent and in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f). 7. The female servers are designated by Defendant and nationally advertised as "Hooligans Girls." Defendant admits that the female servers of Hooligans are designated as "Hooligans Girls" and that they nationally advertise same. 8. The policy of Defendant Hooligans dictates that the female servers change into their required uniforms on site, in a changing room provided by the company. Defendant admits that a changing room is provided for the female servers of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights electing to use it to change into their uniforms on site, but deny that female servers are required to change into their unifonns on site, or that Defendant has a policy dictating that female servers use the changing room

5 9. A changing room was provided for the Hooligans Girls to change into their tight fitting uniforms before commencing work and to change out ofthe uniforms at the completion oftheir respective tour ofduty. Defendant admits that a changing room was provided for the convenience of employees at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights, including Hooligans Girls electing to use it to change into their uniforms before the start of the start of their shifts and to change out of their uniforms at the end of their shifts, but deny that the adjective "tight fitting" conforms with F.R.C.P. 8(e), and, further answering, is immaterial and impertinent and in violation off.r.c.p. 12(f). 10. In or about May, 2002, a female employee of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights discovered a peephole in the changing room. Defendant does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 11. The female employee complained and informed Company management about the peephole. Defendant denies these allegations. 12. Defendant did nothing to timely repair the peepholes. Defendant denies these allegations. 13. On or about May 2, 2002, Plaintiffwas changing into her required uniform in the changing room when she heard people laughing

6 Defendant does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 14. The more clothing Plaintifftook off, the more the laughing increased. Defendant does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 15. Plaintiff sensed that she was being watched as she disrobed, but was unable to detennine from whence the laughter was emanating, Defendant does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 16. Eventually, Plaintiff noticed the peephole. As she approached the peephole and belli over to look through it, she heard someone scrambling to get up and saw that the peephole went from being dark to allowing light to pass through from the outside of the changing room. Plaintiff then heard more laughter and the sound of retreating footsteps. Defendant does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations

7 17. When Plaintiff had changed from her uniform and had gone to the kitchen to say goodbye to the other employees ofdefendant, she noticed that the male employees in the kitchen were leering at her and making unwelcome sexual comments to and about her as she left for the day. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 18. The wall into which the peephole had been placed was the common wall between the break room area and the female changing area of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights. Defendant admits only that in late June or July, 2002, a small hole was reported in the common wall between the break room area, used by many employees, and the changing room, but denies all remaining allegations. 19. Various unknown employees of Hooligans (all reasonably believed to be male employees of the company) made the peepholes and watched the Plaintiff and other female employees while they disrobed and got into or out of Defendant Hooligans' uniform. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations

8 20. On or about May 4, 2002, a female employee of Hooligans noticed another employee gaping at her through a peephole in the wall of the changing room while she was changing into her uniform. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 21. The female employee screamed out in protest of her discovery that she was being watched. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 22. The female employee again immediately complained and informed the managers at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about the peephole. Defendant admits only that on or about late June or July 2002, Mary O'Neil, General Manager, was informed by an as-yet unidentified female employee that a small hole existed in the wall of the changing room, but deny all remaining allegations. 23. The female employee advised other female employees of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about the peephole

9 Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 24. Plaintiff was violated and humiliated as other employees watching her undress while she changed into and out ofdefendant Hooligans' uniform. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 25. Plaintiff and other female employees complained to management of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights and demanded that the walls of the changing room be repaired and the peepholes be destroyed. Defendant denies that either plaintiff or any other female employee informed Defendant about the one or two small holes that were discovered in or about late spring and/or early summer, 2002 at any other time than noted above, and denies that the plaintiff and other female employees demanded that the walls of the changing room be repaired and the holes be destroyed. 26. Despite the protestations of Plaintiff and other female employees to Defendant Hooligans upon their discovery that they were being watched through the peephole in the changing room wall, the peepholes remained unrepaired and uncovered. Defendant denies these allegations and m further answering, states that the small hole discovered in or about late June or July, 2002, was repaired in July,

10 27. Finally, in an attempt to protect their privacy and modesty, Plaintiff and other female employees of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights were forced to change into their uniforms in the public women's restroom at the restaurant. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations and, on that basis denies such allegations. In further answering, defendant, on information and belief, states that on various occasions, both before and after the small hole was discovered on or about late spring and/or early summer, 2002 and repaired in July, 2002, plaintiff and other female employees of Hooligans elected to change into their uniforms in the public women's restroom. 28. Female customers of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights who entered the public women's restroom while Plaintiff and other female employees were in a state of disrobe while changing into or out of their Hooligans uniform gave such disapproving looks causing Plaintiff additional humiliation and embarrassment. Defendant denies these allegations. 29. In or about August, 2002, Plaintiff again spoke to the management at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about covering up the peepholes in the changing room wall. Defendant denies these allegations. 30. The General Manager of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights told Plaintiff to "leave a note" for the maintenance technician to make the repairs

11 Defendant denies these allegations. 31. Four days later the maintenance technician covered the peepholes, commenting to Plaintiff that this was not the first time he had covered such peepholes in the walls ofthe female changing area. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 32. In February 2003, Plaintiff noticed new peepholes in the changing room wall as she was undressing. Defendant admits only that in or about February, 2003, one of its employees, other than Plaintiff, observed one small hole in the changing room wall, but is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations. 33. Plaintiff immediately complained to the General Manager at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about the peepholes. Defendant does not have sufficient information to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 34. Plaintiff demanded that something be done about the repeated recurrence ofthe peepholes in the female changing room walls

12 Defendant denies these allegations. a month later. 35. Despite Plaintiffs protests, these new peepholes were not covered up until Defendant admits only that the small hole discovered on or about February, 2003, as well as the entire changing room wall, was permanently I, I i repaired on or about March 6, 2003, at which time paneling was installed, after which no hole appeared, and denies all remaining allegations. 36. After the peepholes were discovered, Plaintiff and other female servers were regularly and repeatedly subjected to degrading sexual comments and inappropriate touching by and from male employees ofdefendant. Defendant denies these allegations. 37. Despite repeated complaints from the female servers, Defendant Hooligans' management failed to properly investigate the incidents, to prevent further peepholes from reappearing and/or to discipline the male employees responsible for the sexually inappropriate activities. Defendant denies these allegations. 38. Management employees also subjected Plaintiff to harassing comments and conducted on a continuous basis

13 Defendant makes no answer to these allegations for the reason that Defendant has filed a Motion to Strike these allegations. 1 comments. 39. Plaintiff requested that the Union file a grievance over these harassing Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 40. The Union refused to file a grievance. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 41. On March 8, 2003, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based on sexual harassment and breach of the duty of fair representation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The Charge of Discrimination is attached hereto and made a part hereto as Exhibit "A"). Defendant admits these allegations. 1 The motion to strike was denied by the Court based on the view that the discrimination charge alleged harassment, and harassment by supervisors was viewed as "like or related" to the underlying claim

14 42. Right-to-Sue letters were issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Plaintiff on June 18, (The Right-to-Sue letters are attached hereto and made a part hereofas Exhibit "B"). Defendant admits these allegations. COUNT I: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (AGAINST DEFENDANT HOOLIGANS) 43. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-42 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 42 ofcount I as though fully set forth herein. Defendant repeats and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 42 ofthis Complaint as its answer to Paragraph 43, as though fully set forth herein. 44. Defendant Hooligans has discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis ofher sex in violation oftitle VII. Defendant denies these allegations. 45. The sexual harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment by giving preferential treatment to employees who succumbed to the manager's requests to see them socially and by creating an abusive work environment that has affected the Plaintiffs psychological and physical well-being. Defendant denies these allegations. 46. Because of the sexual harassment, the Plaintiff has been subjected to psychological injury so severe, that no reasonable person would be able to endure it

15 Defendant denies these allegations. 47. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment unless and until the Court grants relief. Defendant denies these allegations and in further answering denies that the plaintiffwas damaged or injured to the extent alleged. COUNT II: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW 296 (AGAINST DEFENDANT HOOLIGANS) 48. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-47 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 47 ofcount II as though fully set forth herein. Defendant repeats and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint as its answer to Paragraph 48, as though fully set forth herein. 49. Defendant Hooligans has discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis ofher sex in violation ofn.y. Exec. Law 296. Defendant denies these allegations. 50. The sexual harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment by giving preferential treatment to employees who succumbed to the manager's requests to see them socially and by creating an abusive work environment that has affected the Plaintiffs psychological and physical well-being. Defendant denies these allegations

16 51. Because of the sexual harassment, the Plaintiff has been subjected to psychological injury so severe, that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. Defendant denies these allegations. 52. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result ofthe Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment unless and until the Court grants relief. Defendant denies these allegations and in further answering denies that the plaintiffwas damaged or injured to the extent alleged. COUNT III: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY ADMIN. CODE (AGAINST DEFENDANT HOOLIGANS) 53. The Plaintiffrepeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-52 ofthis Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 52 ofcount III as though fully set forth herein. Defendant repeats and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 52 ofthis Complaint as its answer to Paragraph 53, as though fully set forth herein. 54. Defendant Hooligans has discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis ofher sex in violation ofn.y. Admin. Code Defendant denies these allegations. 55. The sexual harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment by giving preferential treatment to employees who succumbed to the manager's requests to see them socially and by creating an abusive work environment that has affected the Plaintiffs psychological and physical well-being. Defendant denies these allegations

17 56. Because of the sexual harassment, the Plaintiff has been subjected to psychological injury so severe, that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. Defendant denies these allegations. 57. Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment of the Plaintiff was not only intentional, and done with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs protected rights, but was also done with knowledge of the perceived risk that its actions were prohibited by law. Defendant denies these allegations. 58. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result ofthe Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment unless and until the Court grants relief. Defendant denies these allegations and in further answering denies that the plaintiff was damaged or injured to the extent alleged. COUNT IV: BREACH OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION DUTY IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION) 59. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-58 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 58 ofcount IV as though fully set forth herein. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 60. Plaintiff requested but the Union refused to file a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement

18 As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 61. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a gnevance over the harassing conduct violated Title VII. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 62. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Union's refusal to represent her unless and until the Court grants relief. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. COUNT V: BREACH OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION DUTY IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. EXEC. LAW 296 (AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION) 63. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-63 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 63 of Count V as though fully set forth herein. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted

19 64. Plaintiff requested but the Union refused to file a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 65. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance over the harassing conduct violated N.Y. Exec. Law 296. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 66. The Plaintiffis now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Union's refusal to represent her unless and until the Court grants relief. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. COUNT VI: BREACH OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION DUTY IN VIOLATION OFN.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE (AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION) 67. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-66 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 66 ofcount VI as though fully set forth herein. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted

20 68. Plaintiff requested but the Union refused to file a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 69. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance over the harassing conduct violated N.Y.C. Admin. Code As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 70. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance was not only intentional, and done with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs protected rights, but was also done with knowledge ofthe perceived risk that its actions were prohibited by law. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted. 71. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Union's refusal to represent her unless and until the Court grants relief. As paragraphs involve no claim against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Hooligans offers no response. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, Defendant Hooligans denies all allegations not specifically admitted

21 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 72. Plaintiff did not take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Defendant or to otherwise avoid her alleged harm, injuries or damages. 73. Plaintiffhas failed to diligently mitigate her alleged damages and injuries. 74. Defendant took prompt and appropriate remedial and corrective action after being informed ofthe presence of any hole. 75. Assuming that the hole or holes were created by an employee of Defendant, Defendant did not authorize or acquiesce in such action, was not responsible for those actions, and cannot be held accountable for them. 76. Punitive damages are unwarranted because Defendant did not engage in intentional discrimination or act with malice or with reckless indifference to plaintiffs legally protected rights. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Hooligans, Inc., denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, including but not limited to the recovery of compensatory or any other damages, denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover any legal fees or costs from these Defendant, and prays that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, and for all other relief as this Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, HOOLIGANS, INC

22 O'Brien & O'Brien One Park Avenue New York, NY By: ~==:-:~--;-: One ofits Attorneys - 40-

23 DEFENDANT UNION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTERN DISTRICT CINDY WILD v. Plaintiff, HOOLIGANS, INC. and WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 04 C 1175 JURY DEMAND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Defendant WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA., by and through its attorneys, and in answer to the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, states as follows: JURISDICTION 1. The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is invoked pursuant to Title VII, 42 USC et seq. Defendant Union admits only that plaintiff seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.c et seq., but denies any allegation that it violated Title VII. 2. CINDY WILD (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff'), a female, at all times relevant to this Complaint was an employee ofdefendant, Hooligans, a resident ofthe State ofillinois, and a citizen ofthe United States ofamerica. Defendant Union admits these allegations upon information and belief

25 3. HOOLIGANS INC. (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Hooligans") at all times relevant to this Complaint was a corporation licensed, to do business in the State ofnew York. Defendant Union admits these allegations. 4. WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Union") at all times was the exclusive bargaining representative for the kitchen staff and servers employed by Defendant Hooligans. Defendant Union admits these allegations. 5. At all relevant times, Defendants Hooligans and the Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that included a grievance and arbitration procedure and a provision that prohibited discrimination in violation of the law. Defendant Union admits these allegations. FACTS 6. Defendant Hooligans required all ofits female servers to wear a uniform consisting of short, tight-fitting shorts, pantyhose, and a tight-fitting t-shirt. Defendant Union admits that the servers were required to wear uniforms selected by Defendant Hooligans but otherwise denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 6. The female servers are designated by Defendant and nationally advertised as "Hooligans Girls."

26 7. The female servers are designated by Defendant and nationally advertised as "Hooligans Girls." Defendant Union admits that Defendant Hooligans has designated the female servers ofhooligans as "Hooligans Girls" and that they nationally advertise the same. 8. The policy of Defendant Hooligans dictates that the female servers change into their required uniforms on site, in a changing room provided by the company. Defendant Union admits that Defendant Hooligans provides a changing room for the female servers of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights electing to use it to change into their uniforms on site, but otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph A changing room was provided for the Hooligans Girls to change into their tight fitting uniforms before commencing work and to change out of the uniforms at the completion oftheir respective tour ofduty. Defendant Union admits there was a changing room provided by Defendant Hooligans and otherwise neither admits nor denies these allegations as it does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations and on that basis denies the allegations. 10. In or early May, 2002, a female employee of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights discovered a peephole in the Hooligan Girls [sic] changing room. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations

27 11. The female employee complained and informed Company management about the peephole in early May, Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 12. Defendant did nothing to timely repair the peepholes. Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 13. On or about May 1, 2002, Plaintiff was changing into her required uniform in the changing room when she heard people laughing. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 14. The more clothing Plaintifftook off, the more the laughing increased. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to fonn a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 15. Plaintiff sensed that she was being watched as she disrobed, but was unable to determine from whence the laughter was emanating, Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to fonn a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations

28 16. Eventually, Plaintiff noticed the peephole. As she approached the peephole and bent over to look through it, she heard someone scrambling to get up and saw that the peephole went from being dark to allowing light to pass through from the outside of the changing room. Plaintiff then heard more laughter and the sound of retreating footsteps. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 17. When Plaintiff had changed from her uniform and had gone to the kitchen to say goodbye to the other employees ofdefendant, she noticed that the male employees in the kitchen were leering at her and making unwelcome sexual comments to and about her as she left for the day. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 18. The wall into which the peephole had been placed was the common wall between the break room area and the female changing area of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 19. Various unknown employees of Hooligans (all reasonably believed to be male employees of the company) made the peepholes and watched the Plaintiff and other female employees while they disrobed and got into or out ofdefendant's uniform

29 Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 20. On or about May 4, 2002, a female employee of Hooligans noticed another employee gaping at her through a peephole in the wall of the changing room while she was changing into her unifonn. Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 21. The female employee screamed out in protest of her discovery that she was being watched. Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 22. The female employee again immediately complained and infonned the managers at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about the peephole. Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 23. The female employee advised other female employees of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about the peephole. Defendant Union does not have sufficient infonnation to fonn a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations

30 24. Plaintiff was violated and humiliated as other employees watching her undress while she changed into and out of Defendant Hooligans' uniform. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 25. Plaintiff and other female employees complained to management of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights and demanded that the walls of the changing room be repaired and the peepholes be destroyed. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 26. Despite the protestations of Plaintiff and other female employees to Defendant Hooligans upon their discovery that they were being watched through the peephole in the changing room wall, the peepholes remained unrepaired and uncovered. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 27. Finally, in an attempt to protect their privacy and modesty, Plaintiff and other female employees of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights were forced to change into their uniforms in the public women's restroom at the restaurant. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations and, on that basis denies such allegations

31 28. Female customers ofhooligans in Brooklyn Heights who entered the public women's restroom while Plaintiff and other female employees were in a state of disrobe while changing into or out oftheir Hooligans uniform gave such disapproving looks causing Plaintiff additional humiliation and embarrassment. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 29. In or about August, 2002, Plaintiff again spoke to the management at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about covering up the peepholes in the changing room wall. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 30. The General Manager of Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights told Plaintiff to "leave a note" for the maintenance technician to make the repairs. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 31. Four days later the maintenance technician covered the peepholes, commenting to Plaintiff that this was not the first time he had covered such peepholes in the walls of the female changing area. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations

32 32. In February 2003, Plaintiff noticed new peepholes in the changing room wall as she was undressing. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 33. Plaintiff immediately complained to the General Manager at Hooligans in Brooklyn Heights about the peepholes. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 34. Plaintiff demanded that something be done about the repeated recurrence of the peepholes in the female changing room walls. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 35. Despite Plaintiffs protests, these new peepholes were not covered up until a month later. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and belief as to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 36. After the peepholes were discovered, Plaintiff and other female servers were regularly and repeatedly subjected to degrading sexual comments and inappropriate touching by and from male employees ofdefendant

33 Defendant Union denies these allegations. 37. Despite repeated complaints from the female servers, Defendant Hooligans' management failed to properly investigate the incidents, to prevent further peepholes from reappearing and/or to discipline the male employees responsible for the sexually inappropriate activities. Defendant Union does not have sufficient information and beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthese allegations, and on that basis denies such allegations. 38. Plaintiffrequested that the Union file a grievance over these harassing comments. The Union admits that Plaintiff requested that the Union file a gnevance alleging that the conduct of fellow workers violated the collective bargaining agreement. 39. The Union refused to file a grievance. The Union admits that it did not file and pursue a gnevance because, based on its good faith beliet~ it could not allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. 40. Management employees also subjected Plaintiff to harassing comments and conducted on a continuous basis

34 Defendant Union makes no answer to these allegations for the reason that they have joined in Defendant Hooligans' Motion to Strike these allegations.~ 41. On March 8, 2003, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based on sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The Charge of Discrimination is attached hereto and made a part hereto as Exhibit "A"). Defendant Union admits these allegations. 42. A Right-to-Sue letter was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Plaintiff on June 18, (The Right-to-Sue letter See is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). Defendant Union admits these allegations. COUNT I: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (AGAINST DEFENDANT HOOLIGANS) 43. The Plaintiffrepeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-42 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 42 ofcount I as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Union repeats and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint as its answer to Paragraph 43, as though fully set forth herein. 44. The Defendant Hooligans has discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis ofher sex in violation oftitle VII. 2. The motion to strike was denied by the Court based on the view that the discrimination charge alleged harassment, and harassment by supervisors was viewed as "like or related" to the underlying claim

35 As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 45. The sexual harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment by giving preferential treatment to employees who succumbed to the manager's requests to see them socially and by creating an abusive work environment that has affected the Plaintiffs psychological and physical well-being. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 46. Because of the sexual harassment, the Plaintiff has been subjected to psychological injury so severe, that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 47. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment unless and until the Court grants relief. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. COUNT II: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. EXEC. LAW 296 (AGAINST DEFENDANT HOOLIGANS) 48. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-47 of this Complaint as Paragraphs through 47 ofcount II as though fully set forth herein

36 Defendant Union repeats and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 47 ofthis Complaint as its answer to Paragraph 48, as though fully set forth herein. 49. Defendant Hooligans has discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis of her sex in violation ofn.y. Exec. Law 296. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 50. The sexual harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment by giving preferential treatment to employees who succumbed to the manager's requests to see them socially and by creating an abusive work environment that has affected the Plaintiff's psychological and physical well-being. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 51. Because ofthe sexual harassment, the Plaintiffhas been subjected to psychological injury so severe, that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 52. The Plaintiffis now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary L damages as a result ofthe Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment unless and until the Court grants relief. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph

37 COUNT III: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY ADMIN. CODE (AGAINST DEFENDANT HOOLIGANS) 53. The Plaintiffrepeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-52 ofthis Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 52 ofcount I as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Union repeats and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 52 ofthis Complaint as its answer to Paragraph 53, as though fully set forth herein. I L 54. Defendant Hooligans has discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff on the basis of her sex in violation ofn.y. Admin. Code As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 55. The sexual harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment by giving preferential treatment to employees who succumbed to the manager's requests to see them socially and by creating an abusive work environment that has affected the Plaintiffs psychological and physical well-being. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 56. Because ofthe sexual harassment, the Plaintiffhas been subjected to psychological injury i.. ~.- so severe, that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 57. Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment of the Plaintiff was not only intentional, and done with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs protected rights, but was also done with knowledge ofthe perceived risk that its actions were prohibited by law

38 As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. 58. The Plaintiffis now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result ofthe Defendant Hooligans' sexual harassment unless and until the Court grants relief. As these allegations are only against Defendant Hooligans, Defendant Union does not respond to the allegations in this paragraph. COUNT IV: BREACH OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION DUTY IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION) 59. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-58 of this Complaint as Paragraphs through 58 ofcount IV as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Union repeats and realleges its answers to paragraph 1-59 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 60. Plaintiff requested but the Union refused to file a gnevance under the collective bargaining agreement. Defendant Union admits that Plaintiffrequested but for non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory and good faith reasons, Defendant Union decided not to pursue the grievance. 61. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance over the harassing conduct violated Title VII. Defendant Union denies this allegation. 62. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Union's refusal to represent her unless and until the Court grants relief

39 Defendant Union denies these allegations. COUNT V: BREACH OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION DUTY IN VIOLATION OF N.Y. EXEC. LAW 296 (AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION) 63. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-62 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 62 ofcount V as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Union repeats and realleges its answers to paragraphs 1-62 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 64. Plaintiff requested but the Union refused to file a gnevance under the collective bargaining agreement. Defendant Union admits that Plaintiffrequested but for non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory and good faith reasons, Defendant Union decided not to pursue the grievance. 65. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance over the harassing conduct violated N.Y. Exec. Law 296. Defendant Union denies this allegation. 66. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Union's refusal to represent her unless and until the Court grants relief. Defendant Union denies these allegations. COUNT VI: BREACH OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION DUTY IN VIOLATION OF N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE (AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION) 67. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-66 of this Complaint as Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Count VI as though fully set forth herein

40 Defendant Union repeats and realleges its answers to paragraphs 1-66 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 68. Plaintiff requested but the Union refused to file a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement. Defendant Union admits that Plaintiffrequested but for non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory and good faith reasons, Defendant Union decided not to pursue the grievance. 69. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance over the harassing conduct violated NY.C. Admin. Code Defendant Union denies this allegation. 70. Defendant Union's refusal to pursue a grievance was not only intentional, and done with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs protected rights, but was also done with knowledge ofthe perceived risk that its actions were prohibited by law. Defendant Union denies this allegation. 71. The Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of the Defendant Union's refusal to represent her unless and until the Court grants relief. Defendant Union denies this allegation

41 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintifffailed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 2. Defendant Union's decision not to pursue a grievance was not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. 3. Plaintiffhas failed to diligently mitigate her alleged damages and injuries. 4. Punitive damages are unwarranted because Defendant did not engage in intentional discrimination or act with malice or with reckless indifference to plaintiffs legally protected rights. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Workers Union of America denies that the Plaintiffis entitled to any relief, including but not limited to the recovery ofcompensatory or any other damages, denies that the Plaintiffis entitled to recover any legal fees or costs from this Defendant, and prays that judgment be entered in favor ofthe Defendant and against the Plaintiff, and for all other relief as this Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA Smart and Able LLC One Broadway New York, NY By: One ofits Attorneys _

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 11. Deadline

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 11. Deadline Case 1:18-cv-00674 Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SANDEEP REHAL, Plaintiff, - against - HARVEY WEINSTEIN, THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY LLC, THE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 01-3144-ODS ) NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a/ PRIME, INC. ) Serve Registered

More information

CASE NO. 5:00-CV COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF JACKQULINE STOKES

CASE NO. 5:00-CV COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF JACKQULINE STOKES ~~~~~~~SAS DEC 1 5 ZOOO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT R EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES1P~COR~ CLE WESTERN DIVISION BY:~ bep CCEF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO.

More information

10/18/ :38 AM 18CV47218 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT.

10/18/ :38 AM 18CV47218 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. COMPLAINT. // : AM CV 1 1 1 SHANNON TANDBERG, v. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Plaintiff, PORTLAND CREMATION CENTER, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, Defendant. FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

More information

Case 2:15-cv LFR Document 1 Filed 11/11/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:15-cv LFR Document 1 Filed 11/11/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:15-cv-06077-LFR Document 1 Filed 11/11/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SAM MELRATH, 50 Jarrett Avenue Rockledge, PA 19046 v. Plaintiff

More information

Case 2:10-cv WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:10-cv WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6 Case 210-cv-00097-WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON TAMMY BROCK Case No. 382 Keegan Court Burlington,

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service 0 0 PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 0 JESHAWNA R. HARRELL, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. PRICE AND ASSOCIATES A Professional Law Corporation Telegraph Avenue, Ste. 0 Oakland, CA Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0

More information

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION Case 1:16-cv-00628 Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 KIMBERLY PERREAULT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. C.A. HARMONY FIRE DISTRICT and STUART D. PEARSON, Chief Individually

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/ :57 AM INDEX NO /2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/ :57 AM INDEX NO /2015 INDEX NO. 151068/2015 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2015 01: 01 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2018 02/13/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

Case 2:09-cv BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:09-cv BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6 Case 2:09-cv-10601-BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6 Case 2:09-cv-10601-BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant

More information

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:17-cv-05070 Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff

More information

~D la'ls DISTRIC;iO~e 2

~D la'ls DISTRIC;iO~e 2 Case 1:14-cv-04982-JBW-JMA Document 1 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 ~D la'ls DISTRIC;iO~e 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ' '',.,,11,.f' ----------------- ------ t:.: :.:{..J. ~1~ f~'~ :.

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE, -against- Plaintiff, COUNTY OF ULSTER, ULSTER COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT,

More information

)(

)( Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------)( LUMUMBA BANDELE, DJIBRIL

More information

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand) Document Number Case Number Case: 1:07-cv-02339 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 04/26/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:7 002 06 C- 05 16-C United States Oistnct Court. "' ~ _\ Q Wes1ern District of Wiscons.n r\ (j (,,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FILED 2014 Nov-10 PM 04:31 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ROBIN LITAKER, vs. Plaintiff, HOOVER BOARD OF EDUCATION,

More information

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION Case 1:16-cv-00629 Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 LINDA FERRAGAMO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. C.A. HARMONY FIRE DISTRICT and STUART D. PEARSON, Chief Individually

More information

Case 4:16-cv JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 13

Case 4:16-cv JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 13 Case 4:16-cv-00648-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION COURTNEY GRAHAM CASE NO. Plaintiff v. DRAKE UNIVERSITY/KNAPP

More information

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 Case: 1:14-cv-00899 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION EDMUND MICHALOWSKI ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

More information

Case 3:08-cv CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:08-cv CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12 Case 3:08-cv-00141-CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA-DAVENPORT DIVISION MELISSA ROSE WALDING MILLIGAN, Plaintiff, No.

More information

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 13

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 13 Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 MICHELLE P. CHUN FOOK; and YOLANDA C. COOPER, v. Plaintiffs, CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington

More information

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1 Case: 1:13-cv-05315 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN BUENO, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, )

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 3:08-cv-00052-KRG 3:05-mc-02025 Document 23 1 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 1 of of 9 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA DOHNER, Civil Action vs. Plaintiff,

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/20/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/20/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------x SARA TIRSCHWELL, : : Index No.: 150777/2018 Plaintiff : : ANSWER ON BEHALF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NO. } 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NO. } 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES ~~ ~J Lichelle Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE 1) S D,C Atlanta M AY 16 2008 JAMES NATT EN, C lerk By. AU-I~ Plaintiff,

More information

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF WILLIAMSBURG ) C/A NO CP-45-

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF WILLIAMSBURG ) C/A NO CP-45- STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF WILLIAMSBURG ) C/A NO. 2018-CP-45- ANDRE L. WEATHERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) SUMMONS ) WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY SCHOOL

More information

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

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/16/ :56 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/16/2017 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/16/2017 09:56 AM INDEX NO. 150126/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/16/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No. COUNTY OF RICHMOND Date purchased:

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JILRIALE LYLE, Plaintiff, v. No. THE CATO CORPORATION, Defendant. COMPLAINT Comes now the Plaintiff, Jilriale Lyle,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1 1 1 Darrell J. York, Esq. (SBN 1 Sarah L. Garvey, Esq. (SBN 1 Law Offices of York & Garvey 1 N. Larchmont Blvd., #0 Los Angeles, CA 000 Telephone: ( 0- Facsimile: ( -0 Email: djylaw@gmail.com Email:

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Plaintiff Sharolynn L. Griffiths, by and through her undersigned counsel, by way of JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Plaintiff Sharolynn L. Griffiths, by and through her undersigned counsel, by way of JURISDICTION Case :-cv-000-ckj Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Jenne S. Forbes PCC #; SB#00 0 0 LAW OFFICES WATERFALL, ECONOMIDIS, CALDWELL HANSHAW & VILLAMANA, P.C. Williams Center, Eighth Floor 0 E. Williams Circle Tucson,

More information

9:12-cv PMD-BHH Date Filed 09/17/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

9:12-cv PMD-BHH Date Filed 09/17/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8 9:12-cv-02672-PMD-BHH Date Filed 09/17/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION JULIE BANGERT, ) Civil Action #: ) PLAINTIFF,

More information

9:12-cv CWH-BM Date Filed 09/18/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 BEAUFORT DIVISION

9:12-cv CWH-BM Date Filed 09/18/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 BEAUFORT DIVISION 9:12-cv-02690-CWH-BM Date Filed 09/18/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Antonia DeNicola, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, v. Town of Ridgeland,

More information

Case 1:18-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 20

Case 1:18-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:18-cv-02279-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X SARAH BICKRAM,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION KESEANDA BROOKS, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) Hon. v. ) Magistrate ) MEDICAL FACILITIES OF ) AMERICA, INC., d/b/a HANOVER ) HEALTH

More information

Complaint, Kristofek v. Richard Yanz, et al, Docket No. 1:12-cv (Northern District of Illinois Oct 17, 2012)

Complaint, Kristofek v. Richard Yanz, et al, Docket No. 1:12-cv (Northern District of Illinois Oct 17, 2012) The John Marshall Law School The John Marshall Institutional Repository Court Documents and Proposed Legislation 2012 Complaint, Kristofek v. Richard Yanz, et al, Docket No. 1:12-cv-08340 (Northern District

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :09 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :09 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PATRICIA RYBNIK, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. 158679/2016 MW 303 Corp. d/b/a MANHATTAN WEST HOTEL CORP., CYMO TRADING CORP., DANIEL DANSO, YOUNG

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1186 ) v. ) ) COMPLAINT HUFCOR, INC., d/b/a Total Quality

More information

2:18-cv CSB-EIL # 1 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION COMPLAINT

2:18-cv CSB-EIL # 1 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION COMPLAINT 2:18-cv-02186-CSB-EIL # 1 Page 1 of 11 E-FILED Friday, 06 July, 2018 11:28:40 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION

More information

Case 5:19-cv HNJ Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 20

Case 5:19-cv HNJ Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 20 Case 5:19-cv-00070-HNJ Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 20 FILED 2019 Jan-14 AM 08:02 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/15/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/15/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2015 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/15/2015 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 155631/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7 Case 3:11-cv-00041-CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF low A DAVENPORT DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT Case 1:18-cv-00382 Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND PAULA BORRELLI v. C.A. No. 18- PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT II, LLC, D/B/A NEWPORT GRAND

More information

Case 1:14-cv KAM-JO Document 8 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 36

Case 1:14-cv KAM-JO Document 8 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 36 Case 1:14-cv-03673-KAM-JO Document 8 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 36 ANTHONY G. MANGO (AM-4962) MANGO & IACOVIELLO, LLP 14 Penn Plaza, Suite 1919 New York, New York 10122 212-695-5454 212-695-0797

More information

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Case 1:13-cv-00295 Document 1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-295

More information

they are so related in this action within such original jurisdiction that they form part (212) (212) (fax)

they are so related in this action within such original jurisdiction that they form part (212) (212) (fax) Case 1:17-cv-05260 Document 1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 15 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Lucas C. Buzzard JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax)

More information

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiff proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and proposed Class

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiff proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and proposed Class Case 1:17-cv-06413 Document 1 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 17 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Josef Nussbaum JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneysfor

More information

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiffand the proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs

(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiffand the proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs Case 1:17-cv-00287 Document 1 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 14 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneysfor Named

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16 Case 1:18-cv-03879 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWIN ZAYAS, Individually and on Behalf of 18 Civ. 3879 All Others Similarly Situated,

More information

Case 5:02-cv WTH Document 12 Filed 10/23/2002 Page 1 of 14

Case 5:02-cv WTH Document 12 Filed 10/23/2002 Page 1 of 14 Case 5:02-cv-00169-WTH Document 12 Filed 10/23/2002 Page 1 of 14 FILED vf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION 2302 OCT 23 AM JI: 14 UNITED STATES EQUAL

More information

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 15 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:28

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 15 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:28 Case: 1:14-cv-10444 Document #: 15 Filed: 02/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION HOSSEIN ISBITAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. )

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND STEFANIE HOROWITZ, Plaintiffs VS BENNI'S, LLC, d/b/a BENNIGAN'S Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO 3:06-CV-01287

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO.: COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO.: COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ERICA N. STEWART PLAINTIFF V. CAUSE NO.: TAROLD DURHAM and BELHAVEN UNIVERSITY DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT (JURY

More information

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 119 Filed: 03/08/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:708

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 119 Filed: 03/08/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:708 Case: 1:14-cv-00899 Document #: 119 Filed: 03/08/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:708 EDMUND MICHALOWSKI, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:12-cv-02422-JNE-AJB Document 1 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Gretchen E. Cooper; Barbara M. Herold; and Lisa E. Boutelle; Plaintiffs, Case File No.

More information

Case 4:11-cv GAF Document 1 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 13

Case 4:11-cv GAF Document 1 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION Jane Doe 173, by and through her parents and guardians, Mother Doe 173 and Father Doe 173, Case No. vs. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT Shawn

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Deanna Richert, Civil File No. 09-cv-00763 (ADM/JJK) Plaintiff, v. ANSWER National Arbitration Forum, LLC, and Dispute Management Services, LLC, d/b/a

More information

wellbeing and success in the workplace,and society depends on compassion and accountability.

wellbeing and success in the workplace,and society depends on compassion and accountability. Case 1:18-cv-00626 Document 1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 17 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Denise Schulman JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 Attorneys.for Plaintiff

More information

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION YOLANDA M. BOSWELL, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:07-cv-135 ) JAMARLO K. GUMBAYTAY, ) DBA/THE ELITE REAL

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018 LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC C.K. Lee (2903557) Anne Seelig (4192803) 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel.: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPREME COURT OF THE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Kenneth J. Montgomery, Esq. (KJM-8622) KENNETH J. MONTGOMERY, PLLC 55 Washington Street, Suite 451 Brooklyn, New York 11201 718.403.9261 Telephone 718.403.9593 Facsimile UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN

More information

FILED. , #, Case 5:05-cv WRF Document 29 Filed 06/06/2006Page 1 of 9 JUN COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICIA MANSEL, Civil Action No.

FILED. , #, Case 5:05-cv WRF Document 29 Filed 06/06/2006Page 1 of 9 JUN COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICIA MANSEL, Civil Action No. , #, Case 5:05-cv-00965-WRF Document 29 Filed 06/06/2006Page 1 of 9 FILED JUN - 6 2006 CLERK~~k~Iu, COURT COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ~ D~PUTY CLERK ALICIA MANSEL, VS. Plaintiff-Intervenor, Civil Action No.

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 1:18-cv-01903 Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KENNETH TRAVERS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff,

More information

the Sheriff, Contra Costa County and DOES 1-20 seized his medical marijuana and destroyed it

the Sheriff, Contra Costa County and DOES 1-20 seized his medical marijuana and destroyed it 0 0 the Sheriff, Contra Costa County and DOES -0 seized his medical marijuana and destroyed it without notice or a hearing, as Michael Lee first learned at the hearing on his motion for the return of his

More information

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-04642 Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, proceeding

More information

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff S.P., a fictitious name

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff S.P., a fictitious name POMPELIO, FOREMAN & GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff S.P., a fictitious name S. P., a fictitious name, vs. Plaintiff,

More information

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10 Case :-cv-00-gmn-vcf Document Filed 0// Page of JOSEPH A. GUTIERREZ, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 COLLIN M. JAYNE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. MAIER GUTIERREZ AYON 00 South Seventh Street, Suite 00 Las Vegas, Nevada

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, THERESA CHASE, Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Intervenor, CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-CV-1091 (GLS/RFT) Vo WHITE HOUSE

More information

Case 8:11-cv PJM Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 8:11-cv PJM Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 8:11-cv-01195-PJM Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND RUTH JOHNSON 9727 MOUNT PISGAH ROAD, APT #611 SILVER SPRING, MD 20903, Plaintiff,

More information

Case 5:09-cv JMH Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 10

Case 5:09-cv JMH Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 10 Case 5:09-cv-00349-JMH Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV- REBECCA LEACH, ) ) Complaint

More information

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION MONICA DANIEL HUTCHISON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No.: 09-3018-CV-S-RED vs. ) ) Jury Trial Demanded TEXAS COUNTY,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 1:18-cv-11507-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 05/11/18 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN KATHLEEN A. LORENTZEN, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT AND

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION CHARLES TAYLOR ) 1524 NOVA AVENUE ) CAPITOL HEIGHTS, MD 20743 ) ) ) ) Individually and as ) Class Representative ) ) PLAINTIFF )

More information

2:18-cv PDB-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 03/06/18 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO.

2:18-cv PDB-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 03/06/18 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO. 2:18-cv-10735-PDB-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 03/06/18 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 1 TARA EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. SCRIPPS MEDIA, INC., d/b/a WXYZ-TV,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT! WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN! SOUTHERN DIVISION!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT! WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN! SOUTHERN DIVISION! Case 1:13-cv-01294-PLM Doc #1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JILL CRANE, PLAINTIFF, v. MARY FREE BED REHABILITATION HOSPITAL,

More information

Case: 1:14-cv SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Case: 1:14-cv SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Case: 1:14-cv-00566-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ERICA N. JACKSON and NIKKIEA R. BERRY, v. Plaintiffs, BUFFALO

More information

(212) (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly

(212) (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs), individually and on behalf of all others similarly Case 2:17-cv-01490-JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 17 PagelD: 1 ROBERT WISNIEWSKI ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. Attorneys 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 for Plaintiff New York, NY 10007 (212) 267-2101 UNITED

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service Case 3:14-cv-01961-KI Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 17 Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 78385 dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com Carl Post, OSB No. 06105 carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com Cynthia Gaddis,

More information

Case 4:11-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 13

Case 4:11-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 13 Case 4:11-cv-00635-BLW Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 13 DeAnne Casperson, Esq. (ISB No. 6698) dcasperson@holdenlegal.com Amanda E. Ulrich, Esq. (ISB No. 7986) aulrich@holdenlegal.com HOLDEN KIDWELL

More information

3:17-cv MGL Date Filed 08/29/18 Entry Number 88 Page 1 of 10

3:17-cv MGL Date Filed 08/29/18 Entry Number 88 Page 1 of 10 3:17-cv-02281-MGL Date Filed 08/29/18 Entry Number 88 Page 1 of 10 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Amanda Santos, Deryck Santos, ) and Aidan McKenna. ) ) FOURTH

More information

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7 Case 0:10-cv-61437-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. BRADLEY SEFF, COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION Plaintiff, vs.

More information

2:16-cv DCN-MGB Date Filed 06/06/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13

2:16-cv DCN-MGB Date Filed 06/06/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13 2:16-cv-01822-DCN-MGB Date Filed 06/06/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION SHANNON E. DILDINE, ) Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-01822-DCN-MGB

More information

)

) Case 3:00-cv-01084-HES Document 66 Filed 01/07/2002 Page 1 of 9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. THOMPSON & WARD LEASING CO., INC, and IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

More information

Amended Complaint, Gassman v. Frischholtz et al, Docket No. 1:05-cv (Northern District of Illinois 2005)

Amended Complaint, Gassman v. Frischholtz et al, Docket No. 1:05-cv (Northern District of Illinois 2005) The John Marshall Law School The John Marshall Institutional Repository Court Documents and Proposed Legislation 2005 Amended Complaint, Gassman v. Frischholtz et al, Docket No. 1:05-cv-05377 (Northern

More information

\~~\r,>~~~~>:~<~,~:<~ J,,~:~\

\~~\r,>~~~~>:~<~,~:<~ J,,~:~\ D. Maimon Kirschenbaum (DK 2448) Charles E. Joseph (CJ-9442) JOSEPH & HERZFELD LLP 757 Third Avenue zs" Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiffs and the

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:10-cv-02411-JDW-EAJ Document 1 Filed 10/27/10 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION BELINDA BROADERS, AS PARENT, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FOR AND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 1:13-cv-02425-AT Document 1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JACK LOWE and DENNIS REYNOLDS, v. Plaintiffs, ATLAS

More information

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220 Case: 1:06-cv-02337-JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CIVIL ACTION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND NATURE OF ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND NATURE OF ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Civil Action No: 8:03CV165 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY and/or OMAHA

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. REGISTERED AGENT

More information

Case 2:07-cv JFB-WDW Document 15-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 10 CIVIL ACTION INTRODUCTION

Case 2:07-cv JFB-WDW Document 15-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 10 CIVIL ACTION INTRODUCTION Case 2:07-cv-02507-JFB-WDW Document 15-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and SUKHBIR KAUR, Plaintiffs,

More information

JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 2. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331

JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 2. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Denise A. Schulman Charles E. Joseph JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 757 Third Avenue 25 th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneys for

More information

2. One of the defendant in the case is Parker & Gould (P&G). What is exactly P&G?

2. One of the defendant in the case is Parker & Gould (P&G). What is exactly P&G? Civil Litigation A complaint and a answer of defendant may be found below. These are U.S. documents, adapted here for educational purposes. As you will notice, they are rather different from the complaints

More information

Plaintiff, Defendant , for her Complaint against Defendant Harvey Tam states and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Defendant , for her Complaint against Defendant Harvey Tam states and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court 12/10/2014 3:01:48 PM Hennepin County Civil, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Kimberly Malchow, vs. Harvey Tam, Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT Case 1:17-cv-02488 Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

Filing # E-Filed 06/13/ :25:39 PM

Filing # E-Filed 06/13/ :25:39 PM Filing # 57707415 E-Filed 06/13/2017 04:25:39 PM FEDERICO GARCIA and TYLER KING, v. Plaintiffs, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:11-cv-00799-LEK-BMK Document 61 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 750 ANNA Y. PARK, CA SBN 164242 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 E. Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, California

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 1) Americans for Safe Access Webster St., Suite 0 Oakland, CA Telephone: () - Fax: () 1-0 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NO. Mr. Cooper, by and through his attorneys, now alleges:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NO. Mr. Cooper, by and through his attorneys, now alleges: Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// 0 MATTHEW Z. CROTTY Crotty & Son Law Firm, PLLC 0 West Riverside, Suite 0 Spokane, WA -000 Telephone: 0.0.0 Facsimile: 0.0. THOMAS G. JARRARD Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 999-cv-99999-MSK-XXX JANE ROE, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger v. Plaintiff, SMITH CORP., and JACK SMITH, Defendants. SAMPLE SUMMARY

More information

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class. Case 1:17-cv-07009 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 18 PagelD 1 Darren P.B. Rumack (DR-2642) THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-344-9022 Fax: 212-344-0301 Attorneys

More information