York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by

Transcription

1 t - SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CELIA CLARK, -against- Plaint#, MORELLI RATNER PC, BENEDICT P. MORELLI, DAVID L. SOBILOFF, and DAVID S. RGTNER, YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and serve a copy of your answer within twenty (20) days after the service (or within hrty (30) days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial which is the county in which the acts and omissions giving rise to the allegations in the complaint occurred. Dated: New York, New York April 10,2008 THE HARMAN FIRM, P:C.-$ Attorney for Plaintag Broadway, Suite New York, NY W'"' Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 13

2 CELIA CLARK, Index No.: Plaintiff? Celia Clark, by her attorneys, The Harman Firm, P.C., as and for her co against Defendants alleges as follows: Y 1 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND NATURE OF ACT1 1. Plaintiff, Celia Clark, ( Clark ), is a citizen of the State of New ing in \ - a s Queens County, who was subjected to sexual harassment by defendants, and then dkfdly terminated Erom her employment by the defendants due to her race, as well as iation for complaining about the sexual harassment. 2. Upon information and belief, Morelli Ratner PC ( Morelli Ratner ), the defendant herein, at all times hereinafter mentioned, was a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, duly engaged in business in the State of New York, with offices located at 950 Third Avenue, New York, New York Upon information and belief, Benedict P. Morelli, ( Morelli ), the defendant herein, at all times hereinafter mentioned, was a partner of Morelli Ratner, as well as one of Plaintiff Clark s supervisors. Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 2 of 13

3 4. Upon information and belief, David S. Ratner, (,,Ratner ), the defendant herein, at all times hereinafter mentioned, was a partner of Morelli Ratner, as well as one of Plaintiff Clark s supervisors. 5. Upon information and belief, David L. Sobiloff, ( SobiIoff ), the defendant herein, at all times hereinafter mentioned, was of-counsel to Morelli Ratner, as well as Plaintiff Clark s direct supervisor. 6. Plaintiff Clark was unlawfully terminated on September 6, 2007 in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. 7. Plaintiff Clark was subsequently caused to feel severe emotional distress resulting from Defendants outrageous conduct. 8. This action seeks damages for Defendants violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (New York Executive Law 8 296, et. seq.), the New York City Human Rights Law (New York City Administrative Code $ 8-107, et. seq.). 9. Venue is properly laid in this Court in that the unlawful conduct giving rise to this Complaint occurred within the County of New York. BACKGROUND FACTS 10. Plaintiff Clark began working for Defendant Morelli Ratner as a paralegal in January 1998, earning $48, annually. 11. During Plaintiff Clark s tenwe with Defendant Morelli Ratner, she was appreciated as a diligent worker with an excellent performance history. 12. Plaintiff Clark was never reprimanded, and furthermore, never received any complaints with respect to her work performance. 2 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 3 of 13

4 13. During Plaintiff Clark s ten-year tenure with Defendant Morelli Ratner, due to her excellent performance, she received many salary increases, ultimately earning $72, annually. RACE DISCRIMINATION 14. Approximately two (2) years prior to her termination, Plaintiff Clark was assigned by Defendant Morelli Ratner to work as a paralegal for Defendant Sobiloff. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sobiloff did not like working with African American women. 16. The paralegal previously assigned to work for Defendant Sobiloff was an African American woman whom he had fired. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sobiloff believes African Americans in general are not intelligent. He believes and perceives that intelligent African American women, such as Plaintiff Clark, are a threat. 18. When the entire office was asked to gather for an office picture to be placed on the internet, Defendant Sobiloff suggested that Plaintiff Clark should change her makeup so that her eyes look more Chinese, rather than appear as the African American woman that she actually is. 19. Defendant Sobiloff would also give Plaintiff Clark an inordinate amount of work to do and ask her to complete all of the work in an impossible amount of time. This was all part of the plan to fabricate a pretextual excuse for termination, as he simply did not like having an African American paralegal. 3 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 4 of 13

5 20. Although Defendant Sobiloff desired to terminate Plaintiff Clark, his final decision to do so came after he learned that Plaintiff Clark s salary was in excess of his other paralegal s salary, who was Caucasian and a family member. 21. Even after almost ten (10) years of employment with Defendant Morelli Ratner, during which Plaintiff Clark received salary increases and bonuses for her excellent work performance, Defendant Sobiloff did not believe that an African American employee should be making more than a Caucasian employee, and as such, requested to Defendant Morelli that he terminate her employment, and Defendant Morelli did terminate her employment. SEXUAL HARASSMENT & RETALIATION 22. In or about mid 2005, a disgruntled client of the Defendant Morelli Ratner and a family friend of Defendant Ratner, Tracey Auyeung, began to call and Plaintiff Clark at work and make threatening and inappropriate comments of a sexual nature These phone calls and s continued to occur on a regular basis. Ms. Auyeung would call Plaintiff Clark a fucking black bitch, a fucking whore, and a low life fucking bitch. 25. Even more disturbing was that Ms. Auyeung began to threaten Plaintiff Clark s life, telling her Eucking bitch, I will kill you and I hope you die, you fucking black bitch - rot in hell. 26. Ms. Auyeung would even continually make comments about Plaintiff Clark s deceased mother and young son. 27. The sexual harassment and violent threats continued on a daily basis and even began to get more threatening up until the time of her termination. 4 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 5 of 13

6 28. Plaintiff Clark complained, in person and through interoffice s, on a regular basis, to her superiors, Defendant Morelli, Defendant Ratner and Mrs. Arlene Morelli (Defendant. Morelli s wife, who was also the Office Manager) about Ms. Auyeung s egregious conduct. 29. Each time Plaintiff Clark complaint, she explained that she felt personally threatened and asked that Defendant Morelli Ratner take immediate action to stop this harassment. 30. One of the most threatening and harassing s was sent by Ms. Auyeung on or about August 21, 2007, which Plaintiff Clark then forwarded to Defendant Morelli and Mr. Ratner as an example of the harassment that she was enduring. 31. This contained foul language, threatening comments, lies concerning Plaintiff Clark s private life, and lies of a sexual nature. The s subject line was, Steven Gershowitz [an attorney at the firm]and Celia Clark fuckh each other and suck dicks. 32. Plaintiff Clark forwarded this to both Defendant Morelli and Defendant Rawer, requesting that they once again do something to stop this harassment. 33. However, neither Defendant Morelli nor Defendant Ratner did anything at all that responded to her request or make any attempts that addressed andor stopped the harassment, While Defendants did tell Plaintiff Clark to go to the police, the Defendants made no efforts to prevent Plaintiff Clark from being exposed to the harassment, such as changing her phone extension, giving her a new address, or having a computer technician monitor incoming e- mails and telephone calls. 5 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 6 of 13

7 34. In fact, from on or about August 21, 2007, the day Plaintiff Clark made her last complaint, until September 6,2007, Defendant Morelli and Defendant Ratner were conveniently away from the office. 35. Upon both Defendants return to the office on or about September 6, 2007, very unexpectedly, after nearly ten (10) years of continuous employment, Defendant Morelli called Plaintiff Clark into his office and terminated her because Plaintiff Clark no longer fits into the fm. 36. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Clark s complaints were ignored, nothing of any significance was ever done regarding Plaintiff Clark s complaints, and Defendant Morelli and Defendant Ratner began a campaign against Plaintiff Clark in direct retaliation for her numerous complaints, ultimately resulting in her termination approximately two (2) weeks after she made her last complaint. 37. Defendant Morelli Ratner s illegal termination has humiliated Plaintiff Clark, causing her much emotional distress, including severe anxiety and the loss of her hair. 38. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that their actions violated New York State and City civil rights laws. 39. Upon information and belief, Defendants actions were done maliciously and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs civil rights. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [New York State Executive Law 0 294(1)(a)] 40. Plaintiff Clark repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 with the same force and affect as if separately alleged and reiterated herein. 6 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 7 of 13

8 L.. f 41. New York State Executive Law f 296(l)(a) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: For an employer,. because of... sex (sexual harassment)... of any individual... to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in,,. terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 42. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice prohibited by New York State Executive Law $296(1)(u) by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex (sexual harassment). 43. As a result, Plaintiff suffered economic damages and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION [New York State Executive Law 9 296(1)(e)) 44. Plaintiff Clark repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 with the same force and affect as if separately alleged and reiterated herein. 45. New York State Executive Law 296(1)(e) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: For an employer...to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because he has opposed any practices forbidden under this article or because he has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this article. 46. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by discriminating against Plaintiff in violation of New York State Executive Law 296(1)(e) because she opposed Defendants unlawful employment practices and because she complained about the discriminatory behavior to Defendants. 7 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 8 of 13

9 47. As a result, Plaintiff suffered economic damages and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION [New York City Administrative Code (l)(a)] 48. Plaintiff Clark repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 with the same force and affect as if separately alleged and reiterated herein. 49. The New York City Administrative Code 9 8-I07(l)(u) provides that it shall be an unlawfd discriminatory practice: For an employer... because of... sex (sexual harassment)... of any person... to... discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person... in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 50. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of New York City Administrative Code 8-107(l)(u) by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex (sexual harassment). 51. As a result, Plaintiff suffered economic damages and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION [New York City Administrative Code (l)(e)] 52. Plaintiff Clark repeats and =-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 with the same force and affect as if separately alleged and reiterated herein. 8 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 9 of 13

10 Y 53. The New York City Administrative Code 8-107(1)(e) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: "For my employer... to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because such person has opposed any practices forbidden under this chapter or because such person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter." 54. Defendants engaged in an unlawfid discriminatory practice in violation of New York City Administrative Code J 8-107(1)(e) by discriminating against Plaintiff because she opposed practices forbidden under this chapter and because she complained about the discriminatory behavior to Defendants. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION [New York State Executive Law 8 296(1)(a)] 55. Plaintiff Clark repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1 " through "39" with the same force and affect as if separately alleged and reiterated herein. 56. New York State Executive Law J 296(1)(u) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: "For an employer.,. because of.., race... of any individual... to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in... terms, conditions or privileges of employment." 57. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice prohibited by New York State Executive Law 296()(a) by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her race. 58. As a result, Plaintiff suffered economic damages and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial. 9 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 10 of 13

11 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION [New York City Administrative Code (l)(a)] 59. Plaintiff Clark repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 with the same force and affect as if separately alleged and reiterated herein, 60. The New York City Administrative Code J 8-107(1)(a) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: For an employer... because of.., race... of any person.,. to,.. discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person... in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 61. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of New York City Administrative Code 8-107(l)(a) by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her race. 62. As a result, Plaintiff suffered economic damages and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: (0 On the First Cause of Action, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00; (ii) On the Second Cause of Action, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00; (iii) On the Third Cause of Action, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00; (iv) On the Fourth Cause of Action, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00; 10 Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 11 of 13

12 On the Fifth Cause of Action, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00; On the Sixth Cause of Action, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $500,000.00; Disbursements and other costs; Attorneys fees; and For such other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRZAL, Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. Dated: New York, New York April 10,2008 Walker G. Harman, Jry Esq. THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C. Attorney for Plaintin 1350 Broadway, Suite 1510 New York, NY Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 12 of 13

13 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. INDEX NO. COUNTY OF NEW YORK CELL4 CLARK, Plaintiff, -Against- MORELLI RATNER PC, BENEDICT P. MORELLI, DAVID L. SOBILOFF, and DAVID S. RATNER, Defendants. SUMMONS & COMPLAINT Walker G. Harman, Jr. THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Broadway, Suite New York, NY (fax) To Signature (rule la) Benedict P. Morelli Morelli Ratner PC 950 Third Avenue New York, NY David L. Sobiloff Morelli Ratner PC 950 Third Avenue New York, NY David S. Ratner Morelli Ratner PC 950 Third Avenue New York, NY Walker G. Harm4 Jr., Esq. Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 13 of 13