• Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Document 1

•Filed 09/30/2002

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED
:'J:.ev:O· 9 ig;;;;~;,=~~~~~=:. 2 '5Pi1!25~ INCLeRK'SOFFICe v

Plaintiff,

1:1

v.
RAPPAPORT, HERTZ, CHERSON, AND ROSENTHAL, PC, Defendant.

,('
,I:)
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
LlNDSA

M.J.

---------------------------------------------------- l(

NATURE OF THE ACTION
!
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil !
Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful discrimination on the basis of sel(, constructive diS1harge,
and retaliation, and to make whole Rabbia Ashraf, Venturina Giampietro, Myra Corchado,land ,
other similarly situated individuals affected by sel(ual harassment, constructive discharge $d/or ,
retaliation by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC (and hereinafter referenced as;
"Defendant RHC & R"). These allegations will be described in greater detail in paragraph 7,

• Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Document 1

•Filed 09/30/2002

Page 2 of 6

below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

13~7' Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) an4 (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. ("Title VII:') and

Section 102 of theCivil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern Distridt of
I
New York.

PARTIES

,

I

3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission")J is an !

agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, amI

enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)~1), 42

U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(I).

I

4. At all relevant times, Defendant RHC & R has continuously been a professi?nal ,
corporation under the laws of New York, is now doing business in New York, and has con~inu-

ously had at least fifteen employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant RHC & R has continuously been an emPl+er

engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(b),(g), and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

• Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Document 1

•Filed 09/30/2002

Page 3 of 6

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, a former employee of Defendant RHC & R, Rabbia Ashraf, filed a charge of discrimination with the Commissio~

alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant RHC & R. All conditions precedent to the

institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. Since at least November 1998, Defendant RHC & R has engaged in unlawt¥l

employment practices at its Forest Hills, Kings County, New York, facility in violation of i

Sections 703(a) and 704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3. The practicet

include sexual harassment by Defendant RHC & R partners and associates toward female i

employees including, but not limited to, Rabbia Ashraf, Venturina Giampietro, and Myra i Corchado. The pervasive sexual harassment created a hostile work enviromnent because o~ sex

Examples of such conduct include, but are not limited to, the following practices:

(a) Defendant RHC & R has subjected female employees to a pattern of sexual;

harassment, which includes unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct, comments, eplthets,

and sexual propositions. The unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct includes, but liS not

limited to, touching or attempting to touch female employees in an offensive mann1r, and
subjecting female employees to lewd comments, looks and gestures on a daily basi~ and

to pornographic images maintained and displayed on computers in the office.
i
(b) After receiving employees' complaints about the discriminatory practices, I

including those described above, Defendant RHC & R took no remedial action, an1 instead, retaliated against the employees by taking adverse action against them, incl~ding

threatening them, increasing the level of harassment, and negatively affecting their terms

and conditions of employment.

I

(c) In violation of Title VII, Defendant RHC & R constructively discharged fe1ale

• Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Document 1

•Filed 09/30/2002

Page 4 of 6

i employees by taking actions that Defendant RHC & R knew or should have knownlwould

make the working conditions of such employees so intolerable that as a result such,

employees felt compelled to resign their employment. Defendant RHC & R created

intolerable and onerous working conditions and a hostile work environment, and fa led to
!
i
eliminate the hostile work environment, in order to coerce such employees to resign or

retire.

i

8.

t~ The effect ofthe practices complained of above in paragraph "7" has been

I
I
deprive Rabbia Ashraf, Venturina Giampietro, Myra Corchado, and other similarly situateq

;
individuals, and other similarly situated employees of equal employment opportunities, an4

otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir sex, female.
I
9. The aggrieved employees suffered physical and emotional pain, including bft not
!
limited to mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of enjoym~nt of ;
life as the result of the unlawful employment practices complained of above in paragraph '?".

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above in paragraphs "7"

through "9" were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above in paragraphs "7"i

through "9" were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rIghts

of Rabbia Ashraf, Venturina Giampietro, Myra Corchado, and other similarly situated

employees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant RHC & R, its officers,

• Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Document 1

•Filed 09/30/2002

Page 5 of 6

successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any

employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex or retaliation.

B. Order Defendant RHC & R to institute and carry out policies, practices and
i
programs which provide equal employment opportunities for female employees, including ~he

implementation of a mechanism to investigate and correct valid complaints of sexual harassment,
and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. i I C. Order Defendant RHC & R to make whole all those individuals adversely 4fected

by the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing appropriate backpay w. ith
prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to
eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rig~tfuI-

place reinstatement of the aggrieved individuals.

!

D. Order Defendant RHC & R to make whole all those individuals adversely affected

by the unlawful employment practices described above by providing compensation for past and

future pecuniary losses, including medical expenses in amounts to be determined at trial.

E. Order Defendant RHC & R to make whole all those individuals adversely affected

by the unlawful employment practices described above by providing compensation for non-

pecuniary losses, including pain and suffering and humiliation in amounts to be determined at

I

trial.
F.

ruI,,,,,' 1 oro" Dcf""""'t RIIC & R to P"Y ,II iliooo "",1"'do,'"

Yoff""',d th,

i

unlawful employment practices described above punitive damages for its malicious and/or:

reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

• Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Document 1

•Filed 09/30/2002

Page 6 of 6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

I

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its ComPlaiJt.
i

Dated: September 30, 2002 New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,

Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
;
1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20507
I
V,~~ f;l~4vU~?J+-
Katherine Bissell (KB 1831) Regional Attorney
~~~
Elizabeth Grossman (EG 2478) Supervisory Trial Attorney

Michele J.,Ij Moal-Gray (ML 8$'4J/)

Trial AttoM'ey

V

New York District Office 201 Varick St., Room 1009 (temporary addr~ss)
New York, N.Y. 10014 (212) 741-3181 (temporary phone)

 
 , ' Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 1 of 21

!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------x EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-5259 (ADS) (ARL)

RAPPAPORT, HERTZ, CHERSON, AND ROSENTHAL, PC, Defendant.
-----------------------------------------"------------ x

FIL F n
IN CLEFW'E\ C),TICI=. US DISTHICl COUin l:.D.NY
* * CEC 3 1 2003
LONG ISLAND OFFICE

CONSENT DECREE

The parties to this Consent Decree are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter "the EEOC"), an agency of the United States Government, and Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC (hereafter "Rappaport"), a professional corporation, incorporated in the State of New York and doing business in New York.
The EEOC brought this action on September 30, 2002 pursuantto Sections 706(£)(1) and (3) ofTide VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U,S.C. §2000e et seq.("Title VII"), and section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S,c, §198IA, alleging that Rappaport engaged in sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The EEOC and Rappaport (hereinafter "the Parties") desire to compromise and settle the differences embodied in this action, and intend that the terms and conditions ofthe settlement be set forth in this Consent Decree. The Parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve this matter fully without the costs, uncertainty, expense and

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 2 of 21
r l

I

delay of litigation. This agreement is not an admission of liability by Rappaport, nor shall it be

construed as such.

The Parties therefore do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final anu

binding between Rappaport and the EEOC, who are the signatories hereto, and their future

successors or assigns. This Decree resolves all matters related to Civil Action No.02-5259, filed in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York. The Parties have agreed that

this Decree is being entered into without Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw having been made

and entered by the Court. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree constitutes the complete

agreement between the EEOC and Rappaport. No waiver, modification or amendment of any

provision ofthis Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all Parties

to this Consent Decree, and approved or ordered by the Court.

In consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth by each Party to this

Decree, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows, the Court

finds appropriate, and it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS I. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Number 160-AI-OI66 and
in the Complaint filed by the EEOC in this case, but does not constitute an adjudication on the merits. The parties agree that the Complaint is amended to withdraw, with prejudice, all allegations pertaining to the class. The EEOC does not waive processing or litigating claims other than those set forth against Rappaport in the above-referenced Complaint. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to prohibit any entity or person other than the EEOC from pursuing any claims against the Defendant.

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 3 of 21
I
2. The Parties agree and the Court finds that this Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter of this action and of the Parties to this action, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met No Party shall contest the validity of this Decree, orth" jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Decree and its terms.
3. This Decree is being issued with the consent of the Parties and does not constitute an adjudication or finding by this Court on the merits of the allegations of the Complaint. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Rappaport.
B. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI-RETALIATION POLICY; . NOTICE AND ]>OSTING; WRITTEN POLICY
4. Rappaport and its managers, officers, agents and successors and assigns, agree that they will not discriminate against any individual because ofthe individual's sex, subject employees to differential treatment regarding the terms and conditions of employment because of sex, engage in sexual harassment toward any employee, or engage in retaliation against any individual for asserting her or his rights under Title VII.
5. Rappaport and its agents further agree not to retaliate against any individual for having participated in this matter in some way, given testimony in this matter or asserted her or his rights under Title VII.
6. No later than five (5) days after receiving notice ofthe Court's entry of this Consent Decree, Rappaport shall conspicuously post at its offices a copy of il remedial notice, printed on EEOC letterhead and signed by Steven Hertz, Partner, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 3 of 8

,

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 4 of 21

,

7. Rappaport shall revise its policy on discrimination by adopting the policy appended as

Exhibit B no later than ten (10) days of the entry of this decree. Within five (5) days of its

adoption, this policy will be distributed to all of Rappapon's employees, including

supervisory staff and attorneys, will be maintained in a publicly available manner accessible

to all employees, and shall be included in any relevant policy or employee manuals

maintained in Rappaport's course of business.

C. RELIEF FOR RABBIA ASHRAF 8. In settlement ofthis dispute, Rappaport shall pay fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.) to Rabbia
Ashraf as compensation for her claims arising out of EEOC Charge Number 160-AI-0166. Rappaport, through Rappaport's counsel, shall make such payments no later than ten (10) days from the date of the Court's entry of this Consent Decree by delivering to Rabbia Ashraf, in care ofher attorney, by United States Postal Service, certified mail/ return receipt, a check in the amount set forth above, accompanied by the appropriate 1099 form. Prior to the submission ofthis Consent Decree to the Court, Ms. Ashrafand Rappaport shall execute a settlement agreement which contains, inter alia, mutual general releases. 9. In consideration of this settlement, Rappaport will send a letter, in the form as attached at Exhibit C, to the NY Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department Grievance Committee, and will take no steps, unless specifically requested by the Grievance Committee, to pursue the pending grievance against Rabbia Ashraf. 10. In consideration of this settlement, Rappaport will withdraw its demand to the American Arbitration Association for arbitration of its dispute with Ms. Ashraf in this matter.
Page 4 of 8

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 5 of 21
D. REFERENCES II. All requests for an employment reference concerning Ms. Ashraf shall be directed to Ms.
Cathi Cullen, Office Manager, Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, &Rosenthal, PC, 118~35 Queens Boulevard, Forest Hills, NY 11375 or any successors in that position, who will provide a letter attached as Exhibit D, unless required by law or Court order or, with respect to attorneys, any ethical canons applicable to the practice oflaw in New York State, in which case Rappaport will complete such forms in a neutral manner and will provide a copy of any such responses to Ms. Ashraf. This provision does not apply to affirmative requests, if any, made by the Appellate Division Grievance Committee concerning the pending grievance against Rabbia Ashraf.
E. TRAINING
12. Within three (3) months of the entry of this decree, all Defendant's supervisory staff, attorneys, and employees shall be required to attend a training program of at least four (4) hours for supervisory staff and attorneys and two (2) hours for non-supervisory staff and employees, regarding equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, with a focus on Title VII and its provisions. Such training will be conducted by an appropriate trainer acceptable to the EEOC. Rappaport will forward to the EEOC a copy of the proposed training package, including the names and resumes of the proposed trainers, within one month from the date of the entry of this decree. Rappaport will forward a copy of the training package used, including a summary of the topics covered, and a copy of the signed attendance sheet of each session within ten (10) days of the completion of that training
Page 5 of 8

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 6 of 21
program. 13. In each calendar year thereafter, supervisory staff and attorneys will receive one hour of
refresher training on the implementation of the employment discrimination policy and procedures; all new employees shall receive this training within thirty (30) days of hire or promotion, during initial orientation or otherwise. Such refresher and new employee training may be conducted through appropriate electronic, video, or other means.
F. MONITORING 14. The EEOC has the right to monitor and review compliance with this Consent Decree.
Accordingly, within one month from each activity and on or before one year from the date of the Court's entry of this decree, Defendant shall submit written proof via affidavit to EEOC that it has complied with the requirements set forth in paragraphs four through thirteen (~~ 4-13) above. Such proof shall include, but not be limited to, a sign-in sheet, certificate, or other proof of course completion, and an affidavit stating that the policies and notices were distributed and conspicuously posted in the Rappaport offices by the required dates. 15. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from bringing proceedings to enforce this Consent Decree in the event that Rappaport fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein. Breach of any term ofthis Consent Decree shall be deemed a substantive breach of this Consent Decree.
G. COSTS AND FEES 16. The Parties agree to pay their own costs and attorneys fees associated with this action.
Page 6 of 8

,

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 7 of 21

H. DURATION 17. This Decree will remain in effect until two (2) years from the date ofthe Court's entry ofthis
Consent Decree. 18. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree constitutes the complete agreement between
EEOC and Rappaport. The training paragraphs twelve and thirteen (~~ 12-13) can be modified upon written agreement between the parties. No waiver, modification or amendment of any other paragraph or provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all Parties to this Consent Decree, and approved or ordered by the Court.

SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

,
1L Signed this day of Pt:=( , 2003

- - ARTHURD.'SPA1/::"--.~

JVV

U.S. DISTRICT CUT JUDGE

EASTERN DIST OF NEW YO

__' //;": (,Iw,)....
APPROVED IN FORM AND CONTENT: RMCOl@iPICY'Vi'Al.OrWlF.3,.meIi'1S11'!<O7.R~ErIJ:Z!n\~O•!N)IRAELCL'TT:~...T...~lT'OIJ:;S>E.iRUpV.EQ.wA_

By Plaintiff, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT O P P O R T U N I T Y " COMMISSION:

, -.. .. ',"",a.M/I

Regional Attorney Page 7 of 8

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 8 of 21
t
, •
Elizabeth Grossman Supervisory Trial Attorney
Michele J. Lc Moal-Gl'ay Trial Attorney (MLG-8541)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004-2112 (212) 336-3700
By Defendant., RAPPAPORT, HERTZ, CHERSON, AND ROSENTHAL, PC,
,

.:fa M. ilbride

b~2>~

ufman Borgeest & RyanL

99 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016

Attorney for Defendant

RAPPAPORT, HERTZ,CHERSON,AND

ROSENTHAL, PC

Page 8 of 8

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 9 of 21

f

i

A

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 10 of 21
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF RAPPAPORT. HERTZ. CHERSON. AND ROSENTHAL. PC
This notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC ("Rappaport") and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), in resolution ofCase No. ClV. 025259 filed by the EEOC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York. In that lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Rappaport violated Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by engaging in sexual harassment and in retaliatory behavior against some cooperating parties.
Title VII gives employees the right to work in an environment free from discrimination, intimidation, ridicule, and insult based on sex. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is prohibited by federal law. Conduct which is considered sexual harassment includes inappropriate comments or touching of a sexual nature, unwelcome sexual advances, and situations where responses to a sexual advance by an individual affects an individual's employment or employment decisions relating to that person, interferes with the individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Federal law also prohibits retaliation against any individual by an employer because the individual formally or informally complains ofdiscrimination, cooperates with the government's investigation of a charge of discrimination, participates as a witness or potential witness in litigation, or otherwise exercises his or her rights under the law. Retaliation occurs when the employer takes a negative or adverse employment action against the employee because of his or her complaint, protest, or opposition.
Should you have any complaints of discrimination, you may contact the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 336-3721 Or National Toll Free: 800-222-0364
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND SHALL NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This notice must remain posted for two (2) years from the date of posting and may not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
DATED:

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 11 of 21
B

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 12 of 21

\

APPENDIX B

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: From: Date: Re:

ALL ATTORNEYS AND STAFF Personnel Policy Manual

Attached is a revised Personnel Policy Manual.

Kindly read the Manual carefully. If you have any questions, contact the Office Manager, Catherine Cullen or your Office Coordinator, Yolanda Ciuro.

Please acknowledge that you have received the Manual, have read it and understand it, by printing and signing your name, as well as, dating the bottom portion of this memorandum. Thank you.

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal,

Personnel Policy Manual dated

. I understand that this manual is not a contract of

employment between me and Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, and I should not

view it as such. No employee is guaranteed employment for any specific duration. I also

understand that no one from Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal,_has any authority

to represent to me, orally or in writing, that this manual or any particular personnel

policy or procedure contained in it is or may be viewed as an agreement or as a

commitment to me, and no such representation shall be binding upon Rappaport, Hertz,

Cherson &Rosenthal, I further understand that Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson &Rosenthal,

reserves the right to unilaterally modify, amend, or eliminate policies, procedures,

and/or benefits at any time, or to require and/or increase contributions toward these

benefits with or without notice to me.

I also understand that the information in this manual is confidential and for the use of our employees only: It will, at all times, remain the property of Rappaport, Hertz,
Cherson & Rosenthal, Should employment be terminated for any reason, I will return
this handbook to Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal. This basically means that at any time during my employment I may resign, if it is in my best interest, Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, has a commensurate right to protect its interest. By signing this statement, I acknowledge that I have received and read, not necessarily agree with, our employee manual and this statement.

Date

Employee Name (Print)

Employee Signature

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 13 of 21
,
POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT
FIRM STATEMENT OF POLICY
The Firm is committed to a collegial work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity. Each individual has the right to work in a professional atmosphere that promotes equal opportunities and prohibits discriminatory practices, including sexual harassment. Therefore, the Firm expects that all relationships among persons in the office will be business-like and free of bias, prejudice and harassment. This kind of behavior based on bias, prejudice and/or harassment is unacceptable at the workplace and in any work-related setting outside the workplace such as during business trips, court appearances and business-related social events. The Firm will not tolerate discrimination or harassment of its employees and will take appropriate action to investigate all complaints and remediate any harassment or other discrimination.
HARASSMENT DEFINED
The Firm's policy against discrimination and harassment prohibits all types of harassment or other discrimination involving a protected category under Federal, State or local law (for example, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age and/or disability). The procedures for reporting any type of prohibited harassment or discrimination, including sexual harassment, are set forth below.
Harassment is a form of discrimination based on any protected basis (race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age 40 or older, disability or retaliation under the antidiscrimination statutes).
Harassment of an individual based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age 40 or older, disability or retaliation is unlawful if submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is made the basis for an employment decision affecting the individual; orsuch conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
Sexual harassment may include a range of subtle and not so subtle behaviors and may involve individuals of the same or different gender. Depending on the circumstances, these behaviors may include, but are not limited to: unwanted sexual advances; subtle or overt requests for sexual favors; sexual jokes; innuendoes, advances or propositions; verbal abuse of a sexual nature; graphic commentary about an individual's body, sexual prowess or sexual deficiencies; leering, whistling, touching, pinching, assault, coerced sexual acts, or suggestive, insulting, or obscene comments or gestures; display in the workplace of sexually suggestive objects or pictures; and other physical, verbal or visual conduct of a sexual nature.
It is also essential to understand that consenting romantic and sexual relationships

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 14 of 21

\

between partners, counselor associates or between co-workers may lead to

unforeseen complications. Therefore, each partner, associate and employee should be

aware of the possible risks of even a consensual sexual relationship. With this in mind,

if allegations of a consensual sexual relationship are brought to the Firm's attention, the

Firm may reassign or rearrange reporting functions or other roles of parties engaged in

such a consenting relationship to avoid potential problems in this regard.

This policy should not, and may not, be used as a basis for excluding or separating individuals of a particular gender from participating in business or work-related social activities or discussions. In other words, no one should make the mistake of engaging in sexual discrimination or exclusion, in order to avoid allegations of sexual harassment. The law and the policies of the Firm prohibit disparate treatment on the basis of sex, with regard to terms, conditions, privileges and perquisites of employment. The proscription of sexual harassment is intended to complement and further that policy, not to form the basis of an exception to it.

The Complaint Procedure is described below.

INDIVIDUALS COVERED UNDER THE POLICY

This policy applies to all employees (of counsel, associates, summer associates, paralegals, support staff) and partners, whether related to conduct engaged in by fellow employees, supervisors, associates, partners, or someone not directly connected to the Firm (e.g., an outside vendor, expert, client, opposing counsel).

REPORTING AN INCIDENT OF HARASSMENT OR OTHER DISCRIMINATION

The Firm encourages reporting of all perceived incidents of sexual harassment, other harassment, or other discrimination, regardless of the accused's identity or position. Individuals who believe they have been the victim of such behavior are encouraged to discuss their concern as follows:

1. with Catherine Cullen, Office Manager 2. with Yolanda Ciuro, Office Coordinator 3. with any member of the Sexual Harassmentl Discrimination Committee.

Petal V. Scott Jeffrey M. Goldstein Rosemarie Almanzar

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 15 of 21
,,",

\

COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

The Firm encourages individuals who believe they are being harassed or otherwise discriminated against, to promptly notify the offender that his or her behavior is unwelcome. If for any reason an individual does not wish to confront the offender directly, or if such a confrontation does not successfully end the harassment or discrimination, the individual should notify any of the following: the Office Manager; the Office Coordinator; or any member of the Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Committee (as listed on the attachment) who may, if the individual so requests, talk to the alleged harasser on the individual's behalf, or arrange for mediation between the individual and the alleged harasser, with a third person acceptable to both. In addition, there may be instances in which an individual seeks only to discuss matters with a Committee member or anyone of the other designated Firm representatives. Such discussion is encouraged.

An individual reporting sexual harassment should be aware, however, that the Firm may decide it is necessary to take action to address the harassment or discrimination complaint beyond an informal discussion. This decision will be discussed beforehand, if possible, with the individual who brought the Complaint. The best course of action in any case will depend on many factors and, therefore, the informal procedure is not a required first step for the reporting individual.

Notification of Appropriate Staff

As noted above, individuals who believe they have been the victims of sexual harassment or other discrimination or believe they have witnessed such behavior should discuss their concerns with the Office Manager; the Office Coordinator; or with any member of the Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Committee. Anyone who receives information regarding such behavior is obliged to report it immediately to a member of the Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Committee.

Timeliness in Reporting Harassment

The Firm encourages the prompt reporting of complaints or concerns so that rapid and constructive action can be taken before relationships become irreparably strained. Therefore, while no fixed reporting period has been established, .early reporting and intervention has proven to be the most effective method of resolving actual or perceived incidents of sexual harassment and other types of discrimination and we encourage employees to speak up as soon as possible.

Investigatory Process

All reported allegations of discrimination or illegal harassment will be investigated promptly. The investigation may include individual interviews with the parties involved and, where necessary, with individuals who may have observed the alleged conduct or may have other relevant knowledge.

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 16 of 21

«

Confidentiality

The complaint and investigation will be handled with sensitivity and confidentiality will be maintained throughout the investigatory process, to the extent practical and appropriate under the circumstances, in light of the privacy interests of all concerned.

Protection Against Retaliation

Retaliation against an individual for reporting sexual harassment or discrimination, or assisting in providing information relevant to a claim of sexual harassment or discrimination, is a serious violation of this policy and will be treated with the same strict discipline, as would the harassment or discrimination itself. Acts of retaliation should be reported immediately and will be promptly investigated.

Responsive Action

Misconduct constituting sexual harassment or other discrimination will be dealt with appropriately. Responsive action may include, for example, training, referral to counseling and disciplinary action such as warnings, reprimands, withholding a promotion or pay increase, reassignment, temporary suspension without pay, compensation adjustments, or termination, as the Firm may believe appropriate under the circumstances. Absent special circumstances, the reassignment of the complainant is generally not an acceptable corrective action unless the complainant so requests or consents.

Records of Complaint and Investigation

The Firm will maintain a written record of each formal complaint and how it was investigated and resolved. Written records will be maintained in confidence to the extent practical and appropriate. The keeper of the records will be a designee on the Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Committee. Written records will be maintained for at least the same period as other personnel records are maintained.

Appeals Process

If a party to a complaint does not agree with its resolution that party may file written
comments with William J. Rappaport, Steven M. Hertz or Eliot Cherson who will review
the situation and respond to the complaint within a reasonable period of time. If any of those individuals is involved in the complaint, the appeal can be made to either of the other two individuals.

False and Malicious Accusations

False and malicious complaints of sexual harassment or other discrimination, as opposed to complaints that, even if erroneous, are made in good faith, will be treated as unethical employee behavior.

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 17 of 21

,

l

CONCLUSION

We want all employees to know that they are not required to endure insulting, degrading or exploitative treatment. The Firm requires that each person will exhibit, in his or her conduct and communications, sound judgment and respect for the feelings and sensibilities of every other employee in the Firm.

The Firm has developed this policy to ensure that all of its associates, employees and partners can work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination. The Firm will make every reasonable effort to ensure that all partners, associates, and employees are familiar with this policy and are aware that any complaint received will be investigated and resolved appropriately.

Any partner, associate or employee who has any questions or concerns about this policy should talk with the Office Manager, Office Coordinator, any member of the Sexual Harassment Discrimination Committee or William J. Rappaport, Steven M. Hertz or Eliot Cherson.

COMMITTEE

The presently acting members of the Sexual HarassmenUDiscrimination Committee are:

PETAL V. SCOTT

JEFFREY M. GOLDSTEIN

ROSEMARIE ALMANZAR

, ,

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 18 of 21

c

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 19 of 21

p.e. RAPPAPORT, HERTZ, CHERSON & ROSENrIiAL.

STEVltN.M. BKfITI EuciT J. ClII<IUION WU.IJAM J. Itvw.PoAT MICIMIII. C. R"".N'J'HAL RooIIIT J. MILLER MKlIMIII. A. STEINER KaHNICTII 1: B.uiANY
HAI"Un THOMPSON,SHAND
November 12, 2003

ATI'ORNEYS AT l.;.w 118-35. QUEENS BoULEVARD
Sum: 1250
FoREST H!u.s, NEW YORK 11375_
718-261-7700 FAX 718-261-7336
E·MAIL "'I'IIEF!RM@RHCRLA\Y.COM"
REAL ESTATE CLosINO DEPT.
718·269-7777

DAVID I. PAUL JEPI'llEY M. GoLDsTEIN ROBERT S. ROSMAN F'RANKG. BUGLIONE MILANDEY,CliAo KERRY S. GLASGoLn GREGORY T. SMI'I1I H.wtHAlmour
0, CoUNHL, .

Andml N. Bralton, Esq.

JII'PRn M. STIINrI'Z

Deputy Chief Counsel

Disciplinary Commiltee 61 Broadway

New York, N.Y. 10006

Dear Mr. Bratton:

Re: Rabbia Ashraf, Esq.

We are thefonner employers ofRabbia Ashraf. We write to advise the Disciplinary Committee that we have resolved our differences with Ms. Ashrafand no. l()nger wish to pursue the pending grievance.

Very truly yours,

Eliot J. Cherson
ce: Howllrd ao",lII'niII, Esq. He1unmln Brotmnll &. Maltz, LLP
Joan Gilbride, Esq. Kaufman, Borgheest & Ryan

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 20 of 21 D

Case 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL Document 44 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 21 of 21

" ,

RAPPAPORT, HERTZ, CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C.

STEVEN M, HERTZ
EIJOTJ. CIlERSON WILLIAM J. RAPPAPORT MICHAEL C. ROSENTHAL ROBERT I. MILLER
MICHAELA. STEINER KENNETH T. BARANy fiARruEt THOMPSON-SHAND

ATroRNEYS AT LAw 118-35 QUEENS BoULEVARD
SUTlE 1250 FOREST HIUS, NEW YORK 11375
718-261-7700 FAX 718-261-7336 E-MAIL "TIlEFIRM@RHCRLAw.COM"
REAL EsTATE CLOSING DEPT.
718-269-7777

DAVID 1. PAUL
JEFFREY M. GoLDSTEIN
ROBERT S. ROSMAN
FRANK G. BUGLIONE MILAN DEy-CHAo KERRY S. GLASGOLD GREGORY T. SMITH IiALEH AHooUT

OF CoUNSEL, JEFFREY M.STEINITZ

November 12, 2003 To Whom It May Concern

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Rabbia Ashraf, Esq.

Rabbia Ashrafwas an.associate at this firm from November 1998 until Dec. 31, 2000. At the time that she voluntarily)efi the firm, she was earning $50,000.00.

 
 273 F.Supp.2d 260 (2003)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
RAPPAPORT, HERTZ, CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C., Defendant. Rabbia Ashraf, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Defendant.
No. CV 02-5299(ADS)(ARL).
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
July 29, 2003.
2612 *261 *262 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington D.C., by Gwendolyn Reams, Katherine Bissell, Elizabeth Grossman, Of Counsel, New York City, by Michelle J. Le Moal-Gray, Of Counsel, for Plaintiff.
Berke-Weiss & Pechman, LLP, New York City, by Louis Pechman, Of Counsel, for the Plaintiff-Intervenor.
Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, New York City, by Joan Gilbride, Of Counsel, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
SPATT, District Judge.
This case involves allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or the "plaintiff") of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. ("RHCR" or the "defendant") pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). Presently before the Court are the following motions: (1) a motion by Rabbia Ashraf ("Ashraf") to intervene in this case pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ.P."); and (2) a crossmotion by the defendant to compel Ashraf to arbitrate her state and local claims pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2000, Ashraf filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against the law firm RHCR, where she worked as an associate attorney. In the charge, Ashraf claimed that since November 1998, the law firm had subjected female employees to a pattern of sexual harassment which involved sexually offensive conduct, comments, epithets, and sexual propositions. Shortly thereafter, RHCR received notice of the complaint from the EEOC, but Ashraf claims that the defendant made no attempt to stop the harassment. Instead, the defendant retaliated against the female employees by making threats and increasing the harassment. As a result, Ashraf claims that some female employees resigned.
On July 19, 2002, the EEOC issued a determination that there was "reasonable cause" to believe that RHCR had subjected female employees, including Ashraf, to sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge, in violation of Title VII. On September 30, 2002, the EEOC commenced this action against RHCR in its own name, both in the public interest and on behalf of Ashraf, Venturina Giampietro, and Myra Corchado. On November 18, 2002, Ashraf filed a motion to intervene in this action and annexed a complaint against RHCR. Ashraf's complaint contains Title VII claims of sex discrimination and retaliation against RHCR, in addition to claims of discrimination pursuant to the New York Executive Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her complaint also states a claim against the defendant to remedy its failure to pay Ashraf

equal pay under New York State Labor Law. Ashraf requests that the Court exercise supplement jurisdiction over her state and local claims.
Subsequently, the defendant filed its opposition to Ashraf's motion to intervene, as well as a cross-motion to 263 compel Ashraf to arbitrate her local and state claims pursuant *263 to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, on
the ground that Ashraf signed a "Compulsory Arbitration Agreement" as a condition of her employment with the defendant to resolve all employment disputes in arbitration. The EEOC filed papers in support of Ashraf's motion to intervene and opposes the defendant's cross-motion to compel Ashraf to arbitrate her claims.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Intervene
Ashraf moves to intervene in this civil action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(1). The defendant argues that because Ashraf signed a "Compulsory Arbitration Agreement" as a condition of her employment with RHCR, she does not have an unconditional right to intervene in this action. The Court disagrees.
Rule 24 provides, in part, that "[u]pon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene." Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(1). Title VII provides that "the person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the [EEOC] ...." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); EEOC v. Die Fliedermaus, L.L.C., 77 F.Supp.2d 460, 469 (S.D.N.Y.1999) ("where the EEOC has elected to bring suit, [the aggrieved person has] the statutory right to intervene."). Under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), an aggrieved person is defined as a person who has filed a charge with the EEOC. See Spirt v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assoc., 93 F.R.D. 627, 640-41 (S.D.N.Y.1982), rev'd in part on other grounds, 691 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1982) ("The Court's view that the statutory language strongly indicates that Congress, in drafting the intervention provision contained in 24 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1), must have used the term `person aggrieved' to refer to a person who filed a charge with the EEOC is fully supported by the legislative history of that section.").
It is undisputed that Ashraf filed a charge with the EECO and that she is a person aggrieved under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Accordingly, Ashraf has an unconditional right to intervene in this action with regard to her Title VII claims and her motion to intervene in this action is therefore granted. In addition, because it is further undisputed that Ashraf's state and local claims derive from the same operative facts that form the basis of this action, the Court grants Ashraf's request to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state and local claims.
B. Motion to Compel Arbitration
The defendant moves to compel Ashraf to arbitrate her state and local claims on the ground that Ashraf signed a "Compulsory Arbitration Agreement" as a condition of her employment to resolve all employment related disputes in arbitration. Ashraf argues that compelling arbitration would waste resources and create a result inconsistent with the policies of the Federal Arbitration Act. In support of Ashraf's opposition to the defendant's motion to compel, the EEOC argues that requiring Ashraf to arbitrate her claims interferes with the EEOC's right to enforce the law.
The Federal Arbitration Act (the "Act") creates a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, and any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 25, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991); Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Body Lines, Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 369 (2d Cir.2003). The Act provides that arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and 264 enforceable, save upon such *264 grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. Indeed, the Act "`leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by the district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.'" WorldCrisa Corp. v. Armstrong, 129 F.3d 71, (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985)).

In determining whether to compel arbitration, a court must decide: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; (2) the scope of the agreement; and (3) whether Congress intended the plaintiff's claims to be nonarbitrable. See Bird v. Shearson Lehman/American Express, Inc., 926 F.2d 116, 118 (2d Cir.1991). Here, Ashraf does not dispute that these three factors have been satisfied. Neither she nor the EEOC contests that Ashraf signed a "Compulsory Arbitration Agreement" and that her claims are within the scope of the agreement. Furthermore, Ashraf does not challenge the validity of the agreement, which states:
in the event of a dispute regarding the Employee's [as defined by the agreement] employment at the Firm; and/or the Employee's separation from employment with the Firm, any dispute(s), claim (s), allegation(s), etc. thereto shall be resolved by compulsory arbitration. ...
In the Court's view, the language of the agreement clearly subjects Ashraf to arbitration.
In addition, the Court is mindful that "[the] strong presumption of arbitrability applies with even greater force when the arbitration provision is a broad one," Rajjak v. McFrank and Williams, No. 01 Civ. 0493, 2001 WL 799766, at *2, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9764, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), like the agreement here which covers "any dispute(s), claim(s), allegation(s)." Although RHCR does not specifically move to compel Ashraf to arbitrate her Title VII claims, because the defendant argues that Ashraf has no unconditional right to intervene with regard to her Title VII claims because of the arbitration agreement, the Court construes the defendant's motion as being a motion to compel arbitration of all of Ashraf's claims, including her Title VII claims. It is well-established that Title VII claims are arbitrable, Desiderio v. NASD, 191 F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir.1999), and that "the provisions of the [Act] are controlling even though the dispute itself may arise under state law," Fletcher v. Kidder Peabody & Co., 81 N.Y.2d 623, 630-31, 619 N.E.2d 998, 601 N.Y.S.2d 686 (1993), or local law, Rice v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., No. 96 Civ. 6326, 1997 WL 129396, at *1, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3628, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 1997).
Here, because the language under the Compulsory Arbitration Agreement makes clear that all of Ashraf's claims fall within the scope of the agreement, Ashraf must arbitrate her Title VII, state, and local claims. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to compel Ashraf to arbitrate her claims is granted. In addition, the action by Ashraf against the defendant is stayed pending the resolution of arbitration proceeding. See In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 265 F.Supp.2d 385, 400 (S.D.N.Y.2003) ("Section 3 of the FAA provides that the court must stay any suit or proceeding until arbitration has been completed if the action concerns any issue referable to arbitration under a written agreement for such arbitration.").
The Court notes that because the EEOC is not a party to the arbitration agreement between Ashraf and RHCR, 265 the plaintiff is not compelled to arbitrate its case against RHCR. EEOC v. Waffle *265 House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279,
294, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002) ("No one asserts that the EEOC is a party to the contract, or that it agreed to arbitrate its claims ... Accordingly, the proarbitration policy goals of the FAA do not require the agency to relinquish its statutory authority if it has not agreed to do so."). An arbitration agreement between an employer and its employee does not prevent the EEOC from vindicating the public interest. Id. at 296, 122 S.Ct. 754. Therefore, the Court will not stay the EEOC's action against the defendant, but will stay Ashraf's proceedings against the defendant pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Ashraf's motion to intervene in this action is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Ashraf's request that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state and local claims is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Ashraf's Title VII, state, and local claims is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Ashraf's proceedings against the defendant is stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. SO ORDERED.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...
CLOSED, MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. Assigned to: Senior-Judge Arthur D. Spatt Referred to: Magistrate-Judge Arlene R. Lindsay Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/30/2002 Date Terminated: 09/24/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Michele J. Le Moal-Gray Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3700 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: michele.lemoal-gray@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Elizabeth Anne Grossman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3696 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov

Intervenor Plaintiff Rabbia Ashraf

Katherine E. Bissell Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3700
represented by Louis Pechman Berke-Weiss & Pechman LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 212-583-9500 Fax: 212-208-8582 Email: pechman@bwp-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...

V. Defendant Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.
Interested Party Rabbia Ashraf

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joan M. Gilbride Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan 200 Summit Lake Drive Valhalla, NY 10595 914-741-6100 Fax: 914-741-0025 Email: jgilbride@kbrny.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Louis Pechman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/21/2002

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint filed and summons issued as to defendant(s) Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.. Jury trial demanded.. Filed by Michele J. Le Moal-Gray on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Basile, Antonietta) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
3 MOTION by Rabbia Ashraf for an Order 1) permitting Ashraf to intervene as a party pltff in this case and accept for filing her Complaint against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. 2) exercising the Court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1367 over Ashraf's Complaint and her claims contained therein. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
4 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: In support of [3] Motion to Intervene by Rabbia Ashraf. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
5 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARARTION OF Louis Pechman Re: In support of [3] Motion to Intervene filed on behalf of Rabbia Ashraf (interested-pty). (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
2 Letter from Louis Pechman to Judge Spatt, dated 11/20/02 re: because of an error in our copying, the complaint, attached as Exhibit A tothe Declaration in Support of Rannia Ashraf's motion to Intervene, submitted on 11/18/02, may have been missing pages 8-10. Enclosed are supplementary pages to be inserted into the complaint. We apologize for any inconvenience. (Harper, Karene) (Entered: 12/09/2002)

2 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...

11/22/2002
12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/26/2002 01/02/2003 01/02/2003 01/08/2003 01/08/2003 01/21/2003

9 NOTICE of Change of Address; Pltff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has moved to a new, permanent address. The address and telephone numbers for EEOC Counsel are: Michaele J. LeMoal-Gray, Esq., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004, telephone: 212-336-3700, facsimile: 212-336-3623, email: michele.lemoal-gray@eeoc.gov, filed by Michele J. Le Moal-Gray (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
6 CROSS-MOTION by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. Re: To compel Rabbia Ashraf to arbitrate her Complaint against dfts and honor the terms of her employment agreement; And in opposition to Ashraf's motion to Intervene as an unconditional right. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
7 AFFIDAVIT of Joan M. Gilbride on behalf of Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, P.C. Re: In support of dft's [6] MOTION to Compel Arbitration; And in opposition to pltff's [3] Motion to Intervene. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
8 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, P.C. Re: In support of dft's [6] MOTION to Compel Arbitration; and in opposition to the [3] Motion of Rabbia Ashraf to Intervene as an unconditional right. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
10 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: In opposition to dft's [6] Cross-Motion to compel arbitration; and in further support of pltff-intervenor's [3] Motion to Intervene by Rabbia Ashraf. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by E.E.O.C. Re: In opposition to dft/cross-movant Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.'s [6] cross-motion to compel arbitration; and in opposition to the [3] motion of Rabbia Ashraf for leave to intervent as an unconditional right.(Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
12 AFFIRMATION of Michele J. Le Moal-Gray on behalf of the E.E.O.C. Re: In opposition to dft/cross-movant Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.'s [6] cross-motion to compel arbitration; and in opposition to the [3] motion of Rabbia Ashraf for leave to intervent as an unconditional right.(Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
13 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: In further support of dft/cross-movant's [6] motion to compel Arbitration filed by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. (Entitled: Memorandum of Law in Support of dft/cross-movant's reply to Rabbia Ashraf's and pltff's opposition to dft's cross-motion to Compel Arbitration). (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
14 AFFIDAVIT of Joan M. Gilbride on behalf of dft/cross-movant Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. Re: In further support of dft's [6] motion to compel arbitration. Ashraf's motion to intervene should be denied in its entirety and Ashraf should be compelled to arbitrate her state and local claims against the dft. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
15 ANSWER to Complaint by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.(Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

3 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...

01/21/2003 03/19/2003 03/19/2003
03/19/2003 03/19/2003 04/04/2003 04/04/2003 04/07/2003 04/07/2003
04/07/2003

16 DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
17 MOTION to Dismiss all claims seeking class-wide relief for a putative Class of aggrieved female employees that does not exist and, MOTION to Strike all claims pertaining to Individuals other than Rabbia Ashraf, pursuant to FRCP 12(f) by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
18 AFFIDAVIT of Joan M. Gilbride on behalf of Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, P.C. Re: In Support of dfts' [17] MOTION to Dismiss all claims seeking class-wide relief for a putative Class of aggrieved female employees that does not exist and MOTION to Strike all claims pertaining to Individuals other than Rabbia Ashraf, pursuant to FRCP 12(f). (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Re: In Support of dfts' [17] MOTION to Dismiss all claims seeking class-wide relief for a putative Class of aggrieved female employees that does not exist and MOTION to Strike all claims pertaining to Individuals other than Rabbia Ashraf, pursuant to FRCP 12(f) by by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
20 DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC..(Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Re: In Opposition to the dft's [17] MOTION to Dismiss Class Claims and to Strike Certain Individual Claims. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
22 DECLARATION of Michelle J. Le Moal-Gray on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Re: In Opposition to dft's [17] MOTION to Dismiss all claims seeking class-wide relief and to Strike all claims pertaining to individuals other than Rabbia Ashraf. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
23 MOTION for Protective Order , pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(2), precluding dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with the current or former employees, who are or will be identified as claimants in this action, regarding the allegations raised in this law suit, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
24 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Re: In Support of their [23] MOTION for Protective Order , pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(2), precluding dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with the current or former employees, who are or will be identified as claimants in this action, regarding the allegations raised in this lawsuit. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
25 DECLARATION (April 3, 2003) of Michelle J. LeMoal-Gray Re: In Support of pltff's [23] MOTION for a Protective Order , pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(2), precluding dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with the current or former employees, who are or will be identified as claimants in this action, regarding the allegations raised in this lawsuit. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/10/2003)

4 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...

04/16/2003 04/17/2003 04/22/2003
04/22/2003 04/24/2003 04/24/2003 04/29/2003 04/29/2003 05/12/2003
05/12/2003

26 LETTER MOTION from Joan M. Gilbride to Judge Spatt Re: To request an extension of time to serve the dft's reply in further support of its Motion to Dismiss Class Claims and Strike Certain Individual Claims. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [26] letter request for an extension of time until 4/22/03 to serve the dft's reply in further support of its Motion to Dismiss Class Claims and to Strike Certain Individual Claims. EOD #26. C/M (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion re [17] MOTION to Dismiss all claims seeking class-wide relief for a putative Class of aggrieved female employees that does not exist and MOTION to Strike all claims pertaining to Individuals other than Rabbia Ashraf, pursuant to FRCP 12(f) MOTION to Strike all claims pertaining to Individuals other than Rabbia Ashraf, pursuant to FRCP 12(f) filed by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.. (Gilbride, Joan) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
28 ORDER - A conference will be held in this case on 5/22/03 @ 2:00 p.m. before USMJ Lindsay. All counsel must be present. Pltff's counsel is directed to ensure that a copy of this Order be served upon all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, on 4/22/03). C/M (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re [23] MOTION for Protective Order , pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(2), precluding dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with the current or former employees, who are or will be identified as claimants in this action, regarding the allegations raised in t filed by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC.. (Gilbride, Joan) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
30 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. Re: In further support of dfts' [17] MOTION to Dismiss Class Claims and to Strike Certain Individual Claims; and in reply to the EEOC's Memorandum of Law opposing the dft's motion. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
31 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. Re: In Opposition to pltff's [23] MOTION for a Protective Order.(Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
32 AFFIDAVIT of Joan M. Gilbride on behalf of dfts Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson, and Rosenthal, PC. Re: In opposition to pltff's [23] MOTION for a Protective Order. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
33 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Re: In further support of pltff's [23] MOTION for Protective Order , pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(2), precluding dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with the current or former employees, who are or will be identified as claimants in this action, regarding the allegations raised in this lawsuit. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
34 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION of Michelle J. Le Moal-Grey (May 7, 2003) on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Re: In further support of pltff's [23] MOTION for Protective Order , pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(2), precluding dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with the current or

5 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...

05/15/2003 05/15/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 07/16/2003
07/16/2003
07/16/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/29/2003
09/24/2003

former employees, who are or will be identified as claimants in this action, regarding the allegations raised in this lawsuit. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
35 LETTER MOTION from Louis Pechman to Judge Lindsay Re: Request for an adjournment of the 5/22/03 conference. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [35] Letter Application for an adjournment of the 5/22/03 conference. The 5/22/03 conference is rescheduled for 7/14/03 @ 2:00 p.m. before USMJ Lindsay. (Signed by Magistrate-Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, on 5/15/03). EOD #35. C/F (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
36 Letter from Louis Pechman to The Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, dated 6/19/03 re: To confirm that the conference in the above-referenced matter will be rescheduled to 7/16/03 at 2:00 p.m. (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
Endorsed ORDER on [36] Letter; So Ordered; Status Conference reset for 7/16/03 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate-Judge Arlene R. Lindsay.( Signed by Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 6/20/03. ) c/f eod #36(Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
38 MINUTE ENTRY; Case called before USMJ Lindsay on 7/16/03 @ 2:00 p.m., for Civil Cause for Initial Conference. Counsel for all sides present. Intervenor Mr. Beckman. Parties to provide joint status letter by 9/29/03 as to the status of mediation. Ms. LeMaol-Gray directed to serve a copy of this order on all parties upon receipt. So Ordered. C/F (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
39 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation - The parties stipulate, through counsel, that they seek to have the above-captioned case designated for inclusion in the court-annexed mediation program of the USDC/EDNY, at the Court's earliest convenience. Mediation to be scheduled for date after 8/15/03. (Signed by Magistrate-Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, on 7/16/03). C/G(Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
Case referred to mediation.. Signed by Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 07/16/2003. (Lepp, Gerald)(dcstat) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
40 LETTER MOTION from Joan Gilbride to Judge Spatt Re: All parties agreed that oral argument is not necessary and, therefore, we request that the scheduled oral argument be cancelled. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [40] Letter Application requesting that oral argument scheduled for 7/25/03 be cancelled. (Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt, on 7/18/03). EOD #40. C/M (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
37 ORDER granting [3] Motion to Intervene; Ashraf's request that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state and local claims is granted; granting [6] Motion to Compel arbitration of Ashraf's Title VII, state, and local claims; and that Ashraf's proceedings agains the deft. is stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitation proceeding. Signed by JudgeArthur D. Spatt on 7/29/03. c/m. (Dachille, Patty) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
42 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM/E-MAIL dated 9/24/03 from Gerald P. Lepp to Judge Spatt/Judge Lindsay Re: This case has settled following mediation. Counsel will forward you a stipulation of discontinuance. (Coleman, Laurie)

6 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?383960188733981-L_3...

09/24/2003 09/26/2003 12/31/2003
12/31/2003

Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2003 (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 09/30/2003)
ENDORSEMENT of 42 Interoffice Memorandum/Email Re: This case has settled following mediation. Case Closed. (Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/24/03). (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
43 LETTER dated 9/24/03 from Joan Gilbride counsel for dft/Michele Le Moal-Gray counsel for pltff to Judge Lindsay Re: In response to the Court's request, the parties to this action submit this status report. As per the Court's order, the parties engaged in mediation on 9/16/03, which resulted in an agreement that the case would be resolved through the entry of a Consent Decree by the Court. The parties have reached agreement on the amount of the financial consideration. The parties request that the Court await the submission of the Consent Decree and take no further action on this case at this time. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
44 CONSENT DECREE - The EEOC and Rappaport desire to compromise and settle the differences embodied in this action, and intend that the terms and conditions of the settlement be set forth in this Consent Decree. The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve this matter fully without the costs, uncertainty, expense and delay of litigation. This agreement is not an admission of liability by Rapaport, nor shall it be construed as such. The parties consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between Rapaport and the EEOC, who are the signatories hereto, and their future successors or assigns. This Decree will remain in effect until two (2) years from the date of the Court's entry of this Consent Decree. (See Consent Decree for further details). (Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/31/03). C/M(Coleman, Laurie) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2004 (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 02/05/2004)
45 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL - Pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), the above entitled actions is dismissed with prejudice as to all dfts and without costs or attorney's fees to either party. Case Closed. (Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/31/03). C/M(Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 02/05/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/05/2007 12:00:06

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:02-cv-05259-ADS-ARL

5

Cost:

0.40

7 of 7

6/5/2007 11:00 AM