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

Transcription

1 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 and answers that are typically drafted in the context of Italian civil litigation. Please read them, discuss them with your colleague and answer the following questions: 1. This is an employment case. What is the profession of Ms Polisi? 2. One of the defendant in the case is Parker & Gould (P&G). What is exactly P&G? 3. What is the profession of Mr Simon Clark and its relation with Ms Polisi? 4. Ms Polisi worked for P&G for a number of years. Why is now Ms Polisi suing P& G? 5. The application for partnership of Ms Polisi was rejected by P& G. What is Ms Polisi s explanation on why she was fired? 6. If you were an Italian civil lawyer, would you be satisfied with the answer #6?

2 MARGARET POLISI Plaintiff v. SIMON CLARK and PARTIES Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NITA COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION No. YR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Plaintiff; Margaret Polisi, is a female individual who is a citizen of Nita and of the United States. She resides in Nita City, Nita. 2(a). Defendant, Parker & Gould, is a partnership organized under the laws of the State of Nita, engaged in the practice of law in Nita, with its offices at Four Independence Square, Nita City, Nita. 2(b). Defendant, Parker & Gould. is an employer within the meaning of Section 701(b) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U;S.C. 2000e(b), and is thus covered by and subject to Title VII. 3(a). Defendant, Simon Clark, is a male, adult individual who is a citizen of Nita and the United States. He resides in Nita City, Nita. 3(b). Defendant, Simon Clark, at all times material to this lawsuit, was and continues to be, a partner in the Defendant, Parker & Gould, and an agent of Parker & Gould within the meaning af 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b) JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Plaintiff invokes this court s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) (3) and invokes Supplemental Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C This action arises pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 5. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied in that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States issued its Right to Sue notice on December 28, YR Venue is appropriate in the District of Nita because the defendants both reside in the State of Nita, the claim arose there and the defendants may both be served with process there. CLAIM Violation of the Civil Rights Act of Plaintiff graduated from Nita University Law School and passed the Nita bar examination in YR-9.

3 8. In YR-9, Defendant, Parker & Gould hired Plaintiff as a litigation associate in the law firm, where Plaintiff worked for seven years prior to her being fired as a result of being rejected for partnership. 9. Although Plaintiff received excellent evaluations of her work over the period of her employment with Defendant, Parker & Gould, Plaintiff was rejected for partnership in the firm in YR Plaintiff was rejected for partnership in the Defendant firm after she terminated a sexual relationship with her supervisor, Defendant, Simon Clark, in violation of Plaintiff s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seg. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will: A. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that the actions of Defendant. Parker & Gould, and Clark, as set forth in this Complaint, violated Plaintiff s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seg. B. Enjoin and restrain Defendant Parker & Gould and Clark and all other persons acting on behalf of, or in concert with, them from engaging in such unlawful practices. C. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendants, Parker & Gould, and Clark, for back pay in the amount of wages an fringe benefits it is determined that Plaintiff lost as a result of Defendants unlawful conduct, together with interest. D. Enter judgement in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Parker & Gould and Clark. reinstating plaintiff in the position she would have had absent Defendants unlawful conduct. In the alternative, award Plaintiff front pay in the amount of wages and benefits it is determined that Plaintiff is likely to lose because of Defendants unlawful conduct. E. Enter judgement in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages, including but not limited to damages for mental anguish and humiliation, together with interest. F. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys fees together with the costs of this action. G. Award Plaintiff such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate to redress fully the deprivation of Plaintiff s rights, to prevent their recurrence in the future and to protect other Parker & Gould employees from such unlawful behavior. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all claims triable by a jury. Respectfully submitted, David Darrow, Esquire,1500 Main Street 1,Nita Street, Nita Dated: January 5, YR-1

4 IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NITA MARGARET POLISI Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION No. v. YR SIMON CLARK and Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS SIMON CLARK AND By way of answer, Defendants, Simon Clark and Parker & Gould respond to Plaintiffs allegations as follows: 1. 2(a). 2(b). 3(a). 3(b). 4. Deny the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims. 5. Denied. 6. Deny that venue is proper Admit the Defendant law firm hired Plaintiff as an associate in YR-9 and that Plaintiff worked at the firm for seven years before resigning her position. 9. Admit that Plaintiff was rejected for partnership but deny that Plaintiff received excellent evaluation over the period of her employment with the Defendant law firm.

5 10. Admits that Plaintiff Polisi was rejected for partnership after she terminated a sexual relationship with Defendant Clark, but denies that the term of the relationship in any way caused Plaintiffs rejection for partnership of any violation of Title VII. 11. Deny all allegations incorporated by reference which were denied, and admit those allegations already admitted. 12. Denied. 13. Denied 14. Denied. 15. Deny all allegations incorporated by reference which were heretofore denied, and admit 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Deny all allegations incorporated by reference which were heretofore denied. and admit 21. Deny all allegations incorporated by reference which were heretofore denied, and admit 22. Denied. 23. Denied. For the Defendants, Simon Clark and Parker & Gould Jane Jackson, Esq