Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
PIMntifI

Civil Action No. COMPLAINT

WILLIAM 0. BENENSON REHABILITATION: PAVILION & FLUSHING MANOR GERIATRIC CENTER, INC.

GFRSHON, J

Defendants.

x

A

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VU of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race

(Black), national origin (Caribbean), and1or retaliation and to provide relief for Marie Cilus,

Frederick Hylton, Petrona Simms and Tanya Weir ("Charging Parties') and a class of other

similarly situated individuals (collectively, "claimants"). This lawsuit is also brought on behalf

of Defendants' employees, regardless of race or national origin, who were subject to retaliation

for opposing or refusing to participate in the discriminatoiy practices, alleged herein, which are

described with greater specificity in paragraph seven (7) below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invokedpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(0(1) and (3)

and Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-

0 Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 2 of 5

5(0(1) and (3) and § 2000e-6 ('Title VII"), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil 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 District of

New York.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "the Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration,

interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by

Sections 706W(l) and (3) and Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(fX1) and (3) and §

2000e-6.
4. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been New York corporations doing business in the State of New York and have had at least fifteen employees during the

relevant time period.

5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been an employer 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

6, More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Charging Parties filed Charges of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

2

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 1

.Filed 09/29/2005

Page 3 of 5

7. Since at least October 2001, Defendants, through its Director of Nursing and other Supervisors and Managers, have engaged in unlawfiul employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. These practices include, but are not limited to,

the following: (a)

Defendants subjected claimants to harassment based on their race andlor national origin by making offensive comments such as, "All the Haitians are the same, they kill one another and do voodoo," "You're not in a Jamaican fish market,' Go back on the Banana Boat where you came

from," and "Are you all smoking weed?" (b) Defendants also discriminatorily forbid claimants to speak in Creole while
permitting other employees to speak in their native languages. (c) Defendants also permitted their residents to make egregious comments to
the claimants such as calling them 'Black Nigger" and "Monkey." (d) Defendants also subjected claimants to stricter supervisor and harsher
discipline, even for minor offenses, as compared to other employees who

were not Black and/or Caribbean.

(e) Although claimants continually complained about the discrimination, Defendants did not prevent the continuing offensive behavior.

(1) Defendants retaliated against claimants and other individuals who complained of harassment or who refused to participate in the

discriminatory work atmosphere by thrther harassing them, terminating them andor taking other adverse action against them.

3

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 4 of 5

8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive claimants and other individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race, national origin and/or refusal to participate in discriminatory

practices.
9.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

10. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted with malice or reckless indifference

to the federally protected rights of claimants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any

employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race or national origin;

B. Order Defendants to institute and cany out policies, practices and programs that

provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, regardless of race or national origin, and that eradicate the effects of Defendants' past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendants to make whole all those individuals affected by the unlawful

employment practices described above, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses in amounts to be determined at trial;
D. Order Defendants to make whole all those individuals affected by the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including pain, suffering and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

4

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 5 of 5

F. Order Defendants to provide punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless

conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial;

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper;
0. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Dated: September 29, 2005

Respectfully submitted,
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW.
Wa ington, D.C. 507

r0C c/c Elizabe Grossman (EG -2478)
Acting egional Attorney
Nora B. Curtin (NC - 5223)
Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

Sunu P. Chandy (SC - 35B
Senior Trial Attorney US EEOC - New York District Off ice 33 Whitehall Street, 51h Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone: 212-336-3706
Fax: 212-336-3623

5

 
 Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 of 38

LAURA A. WATANABE (LW 7953) WILLIAM KEITH WATANABE (WW 4532) THE WATANABE LAW FIRM, LLC 100 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NY 10017 (212) 984-0660 (Telephone) (646) 390-5226 (Facsimile)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:

...............................................................

X

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

PETRONA SIMMS, FREDERICK HYLTON, MARIE CILUS, AND TANYA WEIR,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Civil Action No.: 05-4601 (NG) (RM)

WILLIAM 0.BENENSON REHABILITATION PAVILION & FLUSHING MANOR GERIATRIC CENTER, JNC.,
Defendants.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs-Intervenors Petrona Simms, Frederick Hylton, Marie Cilus, and Tanya Weir seek as set forth herein declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated and punitive damages, litigation costs and attorneys' fees for, inter alia, racial

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 2 of 38
andlor national origin discrimination and retaliation suffered by them during their employment by Defendants in violation of and pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended by Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. $$ 2000e-et seq. ("Title VII"); New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law $290, et seq. ("NYSHRL"),
and New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code $ 5 8-101, et
seq. and 107 ("NYCHRL"). THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Petrona Simms is a Black female of Caribbean descent (Jamaican) who resides at 118-28 2 Street, Cambria Heights, NY 11411.
2. Plaintiff-Intervenor Frederick Hylton is a Black male of Caribbean descent (Jamaican) who resides at 652 Watkins Street, Brooklyn, NY 11212.
3. Plaintiff-lntervenor Marie Cilus is a Black female of Caribbean descent (Haitian) who resides at 596 East ~ 4St're~et, Brooklyn, New York 11236.
4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Tanya Weir is a Black female of Caribbean descent (Jamaican) who resides at 29 Linden Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11226.
5 . Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended by Civil Rights Act of 1991, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-S(f)(I).
6 . Defendants William 0. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion and Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. ("Defendants" or "the Facilities") are domestic corporations organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York and

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 3 of 38
the United States and conduct business at 36-17 Parsons Boulevard, Flushing, New York 11354, operating as rehabilitation and geriatric care health facilities.
7. At all relevant times, Defendants have employed at least fifteen (15) employees during the relevant time period.
8. Defendants have continuously been an "employer" engaged in an
industry affecting commerce and are "employers" within the meaning of $ 5 701(b),
(g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-(b), (g), and (h); $290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law, and $ 8-107, et. seq. of the New York City Administrative Code.
JURTSDICTION 9. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-5(f); 28
U.S.C. $ 5 1331, 1343(a)(4), 2201, and 2202. Jurisdiction over state and city law claims is
invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367. 10. Venue is found in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $
1391(b). PROCEDURAL HISTORY
11. Plaintiffs-Intervenors dually filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC in a timely manner, and otherwise complied with all jurisdictional prerequisites for filing claims under Title VII and the NYCHRL.
12. Following an investigation, on or about July 29, 2005, the EEOC issued a probable cause determination finding that Defendants had, inter alia, discriminated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black and/or Caribbean employees by engaging in discriminatory practices on the basis of race andlor national origin, and subjecting them to

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 4 of 38
retaliation for complaining of, opposing, and/or refusing to participate in the discriminatory
practices. See Notice of Determination, annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
13. After a failed conciliation process, the matter was recommended for enforcement by the EEOC.
14. On or about September 29, 2005, the EEOC commenced the instant action against Defendants pursuant to Sections 706(f)(l) and (3) and Section 707 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) and 9 2000e-6 (Title VII), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 8 198la.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 15. Plaintiffs-Intervenors are Certified Nurse Aides ("CNA's") licensed by the New York State Department of Health. CNA's in New York State pass both a New York Stateapproved Clinical Skills Performance Examination and a New York State Nurse Aide Competency Examination before receiving certification. All Plaintiffs-Intervenors have been at all times fully qualified CNA's and have performed their job duties in a satisfactory manner. 16. Plaintiffs-Intervenors are andlor were formerly employed by Defendants at Defendants' Facilities. 17. In or around October 2001, Defendants, by and through their owner Dr. Esther Benenson ("Benenson"), hired Grace Barbiere ("Barbiere"), a Caucasian American, as Director of Nursing Services ("DNS"). As DNS, Barbiere was and is authorized by Defendants and Benenson to direct, manage, supervise, oversee all nursing care in the Facilities and had and has actual and/or implicit authority to recommend, impose, and effect disciplinary actions against nursing staff, including CNA's, and to suspend and terminate employment, and in this regard had authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 5 of 38
employees andlor direct the daily work activities of employees, including PlaintiffsIntervenors.
18. Since October 2001, as part of a continuing violation, Defendants, Benenson, Barbiere, and other supervisors and managers, have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of, inter alia, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e, et seq. As part of the unlawful employment practices, Black employees andor those of Caribbean descent working at or employed by the Facilities have been subjected to discrimination on a continuing basis because of race andor national origin by, among other things, being denied equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment; subjected to a raciallylethnically abusive and hostile work environment; subjected to adverse employment actions which include being suspended without pay and termination of employment; and retaliated against for complaining of the unfair and discriminatory treatment to which they have been subjected. This discriminatory treatment is not suffered by non-Black andor non-Caribbean employees.
19. Since at least the time of Benenson's hiring of Barbiere, Barbiere, supervisors under her direction, as well as other management, have continuously discriminated against Black andlor Caribbean employees and subjected them to discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment on the basis of their race andor national origin, and retaliated against them for complaining of the discriminatory treatment in violation of federal, state, and local laws.
Racial Epithets and Remarks and Tauntinao fBlack and/or Caribbean Emplottees 20. While performing their jobs, Barbiere, supervisors, and others with the knowledge and consent of Benenson, subjected Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black andlor Caribbean employees to a continuous stream of raciallethnic epithets and taunts directed at

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 6 of 38
them, made by Barbiere, supervisory staff, andlor residents at the Defendants' Facilities, which
included:
"Black Nigger; " "Monkey; " "Go back on the Banana Boat where you came@om;" "You talk like you 're at afish market; " "Haiti is no good; you should be glad you have ajob at all;"
"That's what you're herefor ...to clean up the shit;"
"Are you all smoking weed?" (a remark directed at Jamaicans); "Your.face looks like the back of a bus;" "What were you, raised by wolves?"; "You look like you just got 0 f f 4 2 S~tr~eet."; "You're nothing but u CNA with a stethoscope;" "We have too many Blacks and Haitians working in this Facility,." "You know how those Haitians are;"
"You are garbage ...you are nothing!"
"All the Haitians are the same, they kill one another and do voodoo. " "Here comes thefish market. "; "Allyou Niggers are goodfor is raping and sex. "
21. The raciallethnic epithets and derogatory remarks were made and directed at
Black andlor Caribbean employees on a continuing basis and have persisted for a number of
years, and certainly since at least the time of Barbiere's hiring, and were made to discriminate
against, intimidate, harass, demean, and insult Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black and/or
Caribbean employees.
22. As further evidence of Defendants' discriminatory animus, Barbiere and those
under her supervision and control have reprimanded Black andlor Caribbean CNA's for their
Caribbean accents and have threatened to terminate employment on account of their accents, a
threat not made to non-Black andlor Caribbean employees who speak their native language(s)
at work.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 7 of 38
Selective Discrimination, Harassment, and Discipline Suffered bv Black andlor Caribbean Emplovees 23. Defendants, their management, Barbiere, and those supervisorsunder Barbiere's direction, with Benenson's knowledge and consent, fostered, condoned, encouraged, and perpetuated a racially/ethnically hostile environment at the Facilities that was intended to and did in fact deprive Plaintiffs-Intervenorsand other Black andlor Caribbean employees of equal employment opportunities and adversely affected their status as employees because of their race, national origin, andlor complaint of or refusal to participate in or acquiesce to the discriminatory practices. 24. In discriminating against and depriving Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black and/or Caribbean employees of fair and equal employment opportunities, Barbiere and/or others acting at Defendants' and Barbiere's directives selected employees of Black and/or Caribbean descent for discrimination and harassment and then subjected them to: continual racial epithets; public ridicule; assigned them different and undesirable taskslwork assignments; badgered them in order to provoke a response or lack of response, which was then used as a basis upon which to impose an adverse employment action; fabricated false or misleading reasons to impose discipline; issued unwarranted verbal or written warnings; and suspended and/or terminated the employment of Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black and/or Caribbean employees. These adverse and hostile acts were committed and continue to be committed with the full knowledge, encouragement, and consent of Defendants and their owner Benenson. 25. As part of t h s practice of false reports, Defendants created and submitted false or unjustified write-ups as the basis upon which to impose disciplinary action to be taken against Black and/or Caribbean employees. In this regard, Barbiere and other supervisors and

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 8 of 38
managers did or attempted to direct or enlist patients and/or staff to participate in making of false, misleading, or inaccurate complaints against Black and/or Caribbean employees so as to provide a basis upon which to take adverse employment action.
26. The fabricated. misleading, or inaccurate reports, some of which are believed to have been supplied by Defendants to the New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH), which has authority over the Defendant Facilities, were made with the knowledge that the reports did or could have subjected CNA's to investigation by NYSDOH, jeopardized or could have threatened suspension or loss of their CNA licenses, and also potentially imposed criminal liability, and intended to intimidate and silence complaining Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black and/or Caribbean employees.
ContinuingRetaliation against Black and/or Caribbean CNA's 27. Numerous complaints of racial/national origin discrimination, harassment, and retaliation were made to Defendants, including owner Benenson. These complaints of discrimination were made to Defendants continually and over the years to Defendants and their management, including, but not limited to Benenson, Administrator Richard Sherman, General Counsel Michael Borelli, Barbiere, and other supervisors at the Facilities, and also included three (3) separate occasions where formal written complaints ("Employee Complaints") were presented to Defendants and their administration(s), complaining of racelnational origin discrimination, a continuing hostile work environment, and ongoing harassment and abuse. 28. After receiving the Employee Complaints, Defendants engaged in continuing retaliation against Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other signatories for their complaints of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, by making false reports against signatory Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other signatories, imposing disciplinary actions which

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 9 of 38
included, but was not limited to, suspension and termination of Plaintiffs-Intervenor(s)' and other signatories' employment, and pursuing a course of continued discrimination and harassment against them for exercise of a protected right.
Defendants' Refusal to Conduct an Investigation and Remedy ongoing ~iscriminationH, ostile Work ~nvironmenta,nd ~etaliatorvActs 29. Disturbingly, not only did Defendants fail to take remedial action with respect to the Employee Complaints made and submitted over the years, Defendants also refused to conduct proper investigations of the complaints regarding discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Indeed, Defendants and Barbiere reprimanded, and intimidated supervisors who stood in the way of or objected to Defendants' raciallylethnically discriminatory practices. 30. By way of example, Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other complaining employees prepared and submitted a formal written complaint to Defendants in September 2003 ("September 2003 Employee Complaint"). In the September 2003 Employee Complaint, Plaintiffs-Intervenors complained of and advised Defendants of the hostile work environment and the unfair and discriminatory treatment to which they and other similarly situated employees were being subjected. Plaintiff-Intervenor Weir approached owner Benenson and tried to speak with her directly to address the Employee Complaint. Benenson, though, refused to accept the Employee Complaint and directed Weir to address any complaints to Barbiere the very individual engaged in the various discriminatory acts, retaliatory treatment and hostile work environment subject of the Employee Complaints. 31. Over the years-and throughout the relevant time periods herein, Defendants and, in particular, Benenson have refused to acknowledge or address continuing complaints of raciallethnic discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to which Black andlor Caribbean

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 10 of 38
employees are subjected at the Defendants' Facilities. Indeed, when complaints have been made about Barbiere's and other supervisors' treatment of Black and/or Caribbean employees, Defendants and Benenson have repeatedly failed to undertake measures required by law to investigate and/or effect prompt remedial action. In refusing to correct racially/ethnically discriminatory policies and practices at the Facilities, Benenson has told complaining employees, "Idon't care what Barbiere has done to you;" "Ms. Barbiere has saved me too much money;" and "lfyou don't like it, you know where the door is,you can leave at anytime," ignoring pleas that prompt remedial action be taken to rid the Facilities of the discriminatory/retaliatory treatment to which Black andfor Caribbean employees were being subjected, and which by act and by deed fostered, encouraged, condoned, and permitted Barbiere to continue the unlawful practices.
Continuing Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation against Plaintiffs-Intervenors
Petrona Simms 32. Plaintiff-Intervenor Petrona Simms ("Simms"), a Black female of Caribbean descent, was subjected to Defendants' continuing discriminatory and retaliatory practices. Defendants and Barbiere targeted Simms for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for her complaints of and repeated objections to Defendants' treatment of her and other Black andfor Caribbean employees. 33. Indeed, in addition to her other complaints, Simms was also influential in the submission of the September 2003 Employee Complaint to Defendants. Shortly after Simms signed and assisted in regard to the September 2003 Employee Complaint, she received a written warning from Barbiere falsely claiming that Simms had a "history ofpoor attitude." During a meeting, Barbiere told Simrns that she spoke like she was at a 'tfish market" and that

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 11 of 38
if she did not change her accent she would fire her. This remark was heard by fellow CNA Angela Deshong (a Black female of Panamanian descent), whose recollection is that Barbiere
stated something to the effect that "You're not at the market of Jamaica ...and i f you don't
change the way you speak, you '11 beflred." 34. Barbiere "wrote-up" Simms and then imposed further and additional
disciplinary measures against Simms based on her race, national origin, and/or in retaliation for Sirnms having complained about the discrimination and signing the September 2003 Employee Complaint. Thereafter, Simms suffered further discrimination and harassment. Then, on or about June 9, 2004, Barbiere again falsely accused Simms of "poor patient care." Barbiere's charge, however, backfired on her when it was proven that the patient had, in fact, received proper care. Barbiere back-tracked from her accusation and claimed that someone else must have cleaned-up the patient before her inspection, which claim was disproved when several Facility staff members disputed Barbiere's charge against Simms and confirmed Simms as having given the patient proper care.
35. Despite the falsity of the charge, Barbiere still issued a written warning to Simms regarding the patient's care. Barbiere, looking for a reason to suspend Simms, baited her, causing Simms to ask Barbiere, "Why don 'tyou like me? Am I too Black for you? " in answer to which Barbiere claimed that Simrns had called her a "racist" by the question and suspended Sirnms without pay for three (3) days and further threatened to terminate her employment.
36. On or about June 29, 2004, Simrns filed a Charge of Discrimination against Defendants with the New York State Division of Human Rights. On or about that same date, Barbiere suspended Simms, this time claiming that Simms was insubordinate and had engaged

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 12 of 38
in improper conduct. This charge was fabricated and further proof of retaliation for Simms' complaints of unfair treatment and/or for a discussion Sirnms had with a co-worker Yanick Jean-Louis ("Jean-Louis"), another Black employee of Haitian descent, who herself filed claims of race and/or national origin discrimination with the EEOC and the New York State Division of Human Rights. In this instance, Sirnms was off-duty and discussing with JeanLouis the hostile work environment. When Barbiere found out about the conversation, she suspended Sirnms and told her not to come back to work unless she came back with a union representative.
37. Although banned from the workplace, days later Barbiere demanded that Simrns appear at Defendants' Facilities on her day off and threatened termination of employment if she did not appear. Barbiere relented only after Simrns made clear that she could not appear because of a prior engagement, but insisted that Simms report to her the next morning. On the following morning, on or about July 2, 2004, Barbiere suspended Simrns for five (5) days without pay.
38. On or about July 7, 2004, Simrns and others signed and presented another formal written complaint of discrimination and hostile work environment to Defendants and its owner Benenson ("July 2004 Employee Complaint"). When Benenson was attempted to be served the July 2004 Employee Complaint, Benenson responded, "Idon 't care what Barbiere has done to you;" "Ms. Barbiere has saved me too much money; " The July 2004 Employee Complaint effected no change in the discriminatory policies and practices, and following her return to work Defendants have undertaken further and additional acts intended to force Simrns' termination.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 13 of 38
39. Barbiere's baseless discriminatorylretaliatory treatment of Simrns and her complaints set forth in the July 2004 Employee Complaint was then directed at Supervising Nurse Ina Zinovkina. After suspending Simms, Barbiere called in Zinovkina and reprimanded her for siding with Simms and other complaining Black andlor Caribbean employees regarding their complaint of discrimination. Barbiere threatened to fire Zinovkina and, as reported to others, have her nursing license pulled, if Zinovluna did not resign her position. Upon information and belief, Barbiere threatened that if Zinovkina did not do as Barbiere directed and immediately resign her position with Defendants: that she was "going to make [her] life a living misery " and would '>ull [her] license if [she] f[ought] this." Defendants' and Barbiere's actions forced Zinovkina's discharge from employment and in keeping with their practice of suppressing complaints of discrimination, retaliated against Zinovkina for her complaint of and refusal to participate in or condone the discriminatory treatment and hostile work environment suffered by Sirnms and other Black and/or Caribbean employees. This was not an isolated occurrence, but rather an ongoing practice of racially/ethnically bullying tactics by Defendants and Barbiere in response to the exercise of a legally protected right to report Title VII and other unfair employment practices.
40. Because of the hostile work environment, disparate treatment, retaliation, and fearful of being falsely written-up andlor reported to state authorities, Simms has not returned to work.
Frederick Hvlton 41. Plaintiff-Intervenor Frederick Hylton ("Hylton"), a Black male of Caribbean descent, was subjected to Defendants' continuing discriminatory and retaliatory practices and still to this day is subjected to those practices. Since at least 2002, Defendants have continued

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 14 of 38
to discriminate against and repeatedly brought false charges against Plaintiff-Intevenor Hylton and imposed disciplinary measures, including suspension from work without pay, on a continuing basis. The acts for which Hylton was disciplined were unfounded andlor were taken against him on the basis of race, national origin, and/or as retaliation for him complaining of raciallethnic discrimination and harassment, being a signatory to and having assisted in securing the various signed Employee Complaints, and for his refusal to acquiesce to the discriminatory practices.
42. In addition to his other complaints of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, Plaintiff-Intervenor Hylton was also a signatory to all three Employee Complaints regarding the mistreatment and disrespect suffered by him and other Black and/or Caribbean CNA's and was, like other Plaintiffs-Intervenors and signatories, selectively targeted for discipline and termination. For this reason, Defendants either fabricated false charges against Hylton or treated him in a dissimilar manner from other non-BlacklnonCaribbean employees, who were not targeted for discipline and often excused for such infractions of rules.
43. Particularly egregious was Defendants' treatment of Hylton when he returned from recovery in December 2002 after suffering a heart condition. Once he returned, Defendants and Barbiere remained determined to subject Hylton to further and additional increased hostile treatment despite his recent medical condition. By way of example, the racially/ethnically discriminatory remarks of Barbiere seemed to intensify against Hylton with remarks such as, "What's going on here - Are you all smoking weed? " (a remark directed at Jamaicans) and "You should all be mechanics. " (a remark made to demean Black and/or Caribbean employees).

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 15 of 38
44. As part of the continuing discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation, Defendants and Barbiere undertook efforts designed to make an example out of Hylton to intimidate Black and/or Caribbean employees. While Hylton was subjected to ongoing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, it escalated on or about October 29, 2004, when Defendants and Barbiere terminated Hylton's employment based upon false claims of "unsatisfactory work," "insubordination," "failure to obey orders," "leaving without permission," and "violation of Facility Policies/Rules." These claims were baseless, known to be false, andor made only to conceal the true racially/ethnically motivated reason for the disciplinary actions and termination of Hylton's employment and in retaliation for him having brought the Employee Complaints against Defendants. Although reinstated, Defendants' motives for rehiring him were revealed later when the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation suffered by him was commenced again in order to show others what they could andor would do to Black andor Caribbeans and those that complained or opposed the discriminatory/retaliatory practices. Indeed, to this day, the unlawful treatment of Hylton continues without end as evidenced by Benenson calling Hylton's parents in Florida on three (3) occasions and threatening Hylton with retaliation for his having filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Defendants andor Barbiere having made false reports against Hylton, and taking further adverse employment actions against him.
Marie Cilus 45. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marie Cilus ("Cilus"), a Black female of Haitian descent, was subjected to Defendants' continuing discriminatory and retaliatory practices. Throughout her employment at the Facilities, despite her repeated complaints of Defendants' discrimination and harassment, she was repeatedly reprimanded, written up and/or subjected to

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 16 of 38
disciplinary action taken against her without basis. This included, but was not limited to being: (i) singled-out regarding work demands and assignments; (ii) unfairly blamed for the care of other employees' patients; (iii) suspended without pay; and (iv) harassed on a continual basis by having a supervisor follow her during shifts who subjected her to heightened scrutiny not imposed upon non-Black and/or non-Caribbean employees.
46. By way of example, on one occasion, after Cilus had completed her shift, Barbiere followed her out to her car in the parking garage and demanded to know where she was going. Cilus explained to her that she had finished her shift and had to go home to attend to her children. Barbiere then, without cause, ordered Cilus suspended from work. Barbiere, though, while believing she had suspended Cilus, actually mistakenly suspended another CNA of Haitian descent evidencing Barbiere's lack of respect and inhumane treatment of Haitians/Caribbean employees whom she considered fungible personnel. Realizing her error, Barbiere withdrew the suspension of the wrongfully suspended CNA and suspended Cilus. Indeed, this was not the only time Cilus was unlawfUlly suspended and otherwise subjected to unwarranted disciplinary action and differential treatment.
47. Further evidencing the hostile environment to which Cilus was subjected, Defendants, Barbiere, and Supervising Nurse Manjeet Uberoi, verbally abused Cilus and other HaitidCaribbean CNA's. By way of example, Uberoi would make statements to Cilus such as "You are garbage ...y ou are nothing!" This verbal abuse was further evidenced by the remarks of Defendants' management and non-Haitian/Caribbean employees who remarked, "We have too many Blacks and Haitians working in this Facility" and "You know how those Haitians are. "

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 17 of 38
48. Defendants and Barbiere also condoned the raciallethnic animosity exhibited against Cilus and other CNAYs,who on numerous occasions were referred to as a "Nigger" and "Black Monkey" by one resident. This resident, and other supervisory staff, further indicated to Cilus and other Black and/or Caribbean CNAYsthat the sole reason for "people like her" working at the Facility was "to clean up shit," a sentiment laughed about by Barbiere and to which Barbiere would say, "That S what you're herefor ...to clean up the shit."
49. Defendants also discriminated against Black andlor Caribbean CNA's in enforcing an "English-Only" policy. In this regard, Defendants did not allow Cilus and other employees of Caribbean descent to speak their native language and enforced the "English Only" policy by imposing disciplinary measures or retaliation if the policy was violated, while Defendants did not enforce said policy against non-Black and/or non-Caribbean employees who spoke in their native languages at work. Indeed, Supervising Nurse Uberoi personally directed Cilus and others of Caribbean descent not to speak in their native language, a policy encouraged and enforced by Defendants and Barbiere
50. The discriminatory racial and national origidlanguage practices were also evidenced by non-Caribbean supervisors mocking Caribbean employees' accents, mimicking their language as part of public humiliation, and otherwise suggesting or implying that their language, accent, and speech were inferior.
51. When Cilus complained about the unfair treatment and hostile work environment to which she was being subjected, Barbiere responded by saying, "It'syour word against mine; I can fire you anytime" and "Your country [Haiti] is no good; you should be glad you have ajob at all. "

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 18 of 38
52. Because of Defendants' abusive treatment of her and the hostile work environment to which she was subjected, Cilus requested that she be scheduled for part-time work instead of full-time status. Further, in September, 2004, Cilus once again pleaded to be assigned a supervisor other than Uberoi because of her abuse. A supervisor other than Uberoi was beginning her shft soon and Cilus requested that she be assigned to this other supervisor. Defendants denied her request and told Cilus to "punch out" and "go home," despite her protestations that she wanted to work her shift.
53. A few days later, on or about September 21, 2004, Cilus was told by Barbiere that her employment was being terminated because Cilus had "abandoned [her] job. " This reason was false because at no time did Cilus ever abandon her job or refuse to appear for work. The decision to terminate her employment was made to cover for Defendants' racial and ethnic discrimination against her and in retaliation for exercise of a protected right to report discriminatory and harassing treatment.
Tanya Weir 54. Plaintiff-Intervenor Tanya Weir ("Weir"), a Black female of Caribbean descent, was subjected to Defendants' continuing discriminatory and retaliatory practices. In addition to suffering from Defendants' continuing discriminatory and retaliatory policies and practices over the course of time, Weir was subjected to further and additional acts of discrimination and retaliation following the submission of the September 2003 Employee Complaint in which Weir and other Black and/or Caribbean employees complained about the hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment to which they were subjected. Defendants discriminated and retaliated against Weir at that time, beginning with her reassignment to a different floor. At that time, Barbiere stated to Weir in a threatening tone, "You are being sent

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 19 of 38
up there [to the Ninth Floor] to be watched. " This was a threat that Barbiere was overheard repeating on several occasions.
55. Consistent with her threats and in further retaliation for her complaints and being both a signatory to and having assisted in the presentation of the Employee Complaints, Barbiere issued two disciplinary notices to Weir, including a suspension without pay for three (3) days shortly after the September 2003 Employee Complaint.
56. The first disciplinary notice following the September 2003 Employee Complaint was given to Weir by Barbiere on or about October 31,2003.
57. Shortly thereafter, on or about December 16, 2003, Barbiere issued a second disciplinary notice to Weir, this time placing her on suspension without pay, claiming that a patient had complained about her. This claim, like the others, was without basis. Not only had the patient not lodged a complaint about Weir, but upon information and belief, the patient prepared a statement attesting to Weir's skills and abilities as a CNA and praising her for the high level of care provided to her.
5 8 . In further discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, in October 2004, Barbiere terminated Weir's employment, charging that she had "falsified" medical records by claiming that she had personally performed colostomy care on a patient. This claim was, of course, entirely false and wholly fabricated because CNAYsare not responsible for making medical record entries regarding performing colostomy care on a patient. Rather, it is the responsibility of an LPN to enter such information into a Treatment Book. Because Weir was not an LPN, she never prepared a medical record stating that she had performed colostomy care on a patient, thus demonstrating the falsity of Barbiere's claims and the pre-textual basis for her termination. The termination of her employment in October 2004 was yet another

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 20 of 38
discriminatory and retaliatory act suffered by her (having previously been terminated by Defendants).
Discriminatory Treatment and Harassment of Other Black andlor Caribbean Emplovees and Claimants and Additional Acts o fRetaliation 59. Upon information and belief, Tamara Resielaid, a Black female believed to be of Caribbean descent, was also subjected to adverse employment actions being taken against her on the basis of race and/or national origin by Defendants and Barbiere, including forcing her unlawful termination 60. Angela Deshong, a Black female of Caribbean descent, was also falsely written up, subjected to adverse actions being taken against her by Barbiere, including being involuntarily terminated (later rescinded), because of her racelnational origin and in retaliation for Deshong's active involvement in lodging numerous complaints to Defendants regarding the ongoing discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation to which she and others continued to be subjected. Indeed, like Simms and Weir, Deshong signed and participated in the preparation and/or submission of the Employee Complaints submitted to management regarding their complaints of on-going discrimination and the racially/ethnically hostile work environment to which they continued to be subjected by Defendants. 6 1. Upon information and belief, other targeted employees and Claimants subjected to this form of discriminatory and retaliatory treatment with the knowledge and approval of Defendants, include, but are not limited to: Bernadette Augustin; Marie Metellus; Maxine Campbell-Belle; Hortense Jackson; Nerleen Nickie; Christaline Ovide-Pierre; Marie Normil; Pamela Smart; Marie Apollon; and Mary Altador. 62. Defendants discriminated against these other Black and/or Caribbean employees, as they did with Plaintiffs-Intervenors, because of their race, national origin andor

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 21 of 38
in retaliation for complaining about said treatment. Further, Defendants have fostered, condoned, encouraged, and perpetuated a raciallylethnically hostile work environment in which raciallylethnically discriminatory policies, practices, treatment, and abuses have been permitted to exist and made manifest in: the racial epithets, slurs, and remarks suffered by Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black andlor Caribbean employees; the constant harassment inflicted upon them on a continuing basis; false reporting as a basis upon which to impose discipline; and unlawful suspensions and terminations of employment. This discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and hostile work environment has been persistent, continuing, and relentless against Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Black and/or Caribbean employees who continue to be aggrieved of oppressive and offensive conduct and retaliation through adverse employment conditions.
Other Acts Taken Against Plaintiffs-Zntevenors and Other Black andlor, Caribbean Emplovees 63. On or about September 20, 2005, a Caucasian Charge Nurse was observed by Black and/or Caribbean CNA's push an elderly resident to the ground causing injury to the resident. 64. The Black and/or Caribbean CNA's who witnessed the Caucasian nurse pushing the resident, which included Marie Metellus, a Claimant and cooperating individual in the EEOC action, reported the matter to a Supervising Nurse Bernadette Augustin ("Augustin") and prepared written accounts of the incident causing the resident's injuries. 65. Augustin reported the matter to Defendants and Barbiere and presented them with written accounts prepared by the witness CNA's. 66. Upon information and belief, Defendants and Barbiere attempted to and undertook measures to have the Black and/or Caribbean CNA witnesses blamed for the

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 22 of 38
resident's injuries instead of the Caucasian Charge Nurse, whose actions were attempted to be
suppressed and not properly reported to state agencies responsible for investigation of patient
abuse matters.
67. Several days after reporting the incident, Barbiere called Augustin to her office.
In the office, Augustin was confronted by Barbiere, Assistant Director of Nursing Lynn
McIntyre, and another supervising nurse. Barbiere then attempted to have Augustin change her
report of the assault as witnessed by the CNA's. Augustin, a Black, Caribbean refused to
prepare a false or misleading report, at which time she was confronted by Barbiere who forced
Augustin's termination of employment and escorted her out of the Facilities.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
68. For years, Defendants have engaged in ongoing unlawfid employment practices
in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e et seq., as amended, which practices include, but
are not limited to:
a. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to discrimination and hostile work environment on the basis of their race and/or national origin by terminating and suspending their employment;
b. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to discrimination and hostile work environment by creating, asserting, and reporting false and pre-textual reasons offered to conceal the discrimination and harassment, a result not suffered by non-Black andor non-Caribbean employees;
c. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to unequal/disparate treatment in the workplace because of their race andor national origin, causing them to suffer adverse employment actions of the kind and frequency not suffered by non-Black and/or non-Caribbean employees;
d. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to stricter supervision and harsher discipline on the basis of race and/or national origin as compared to other employees who were non-Black and/or of non-Caribbean descent;
e. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to intimidation and harassment by falsely writing-up and also reporting or threatening to report Plaintiffs-

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 23 of 38

Intervenors and other similarly situated employees to state authorities thereby threatening their licenses and livelihoods;

f, Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to a continuous stream of verbal harassment on the basis of race and/or national origin, where Defendants and their supervisors and staff uttered, made, fostered, encouraged, and condoned racial/ethnic epithets and slurs directed at PlaintiffsIntervenors and other Black and/or Caribbean employees;

g. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to discrimination and hostile work environment on the basis of national origin by forbidding them to use
their native language and mocking their accents, while other nonBlack and/or non-Caribbean employees were allowed to speak in their
native languages;

h. Subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to discrimination and hostile work environment on the basis of race andlor national origin by continually making derogatory remarks about their national origin, culture, and customs;

1. Disregarding Plaintiffs-Intervenors' pleas, complaints, and reports of racial and/or national origin discrimination and retaliation against them by failing to properly investigate and take prompt remedial and corrective action to correct the discriminatory and retaliatory practices and failing to discipline supervisors and other management who discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors;

j.

Engaging in further retaliation against Plaintiffs-Intervenors after their

complaints of racial and/or national origin discrimination and retaliation;

and

k. Benenson's continued encouragement, condonation, and acquiescence to Defendants' practices of discrimination on the basis of race and/or national origin and retaliation as suffered by Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and her continued refusal to prevent, address, or correct Defendants' practices of discrimination or retaliation.

69. The effect of the Defendants' practices complained of above and throughout this

Complaint has been to create, implement, perpetuate, foster, encourage, condone, and permit a

hostile work environment suffered by Plaintiffs-Intervenors.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 24 of 38
70. The purpose and effect of the hostile work environment has been to deprive Plaintiffs-Intervenors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of their employment and their status as employees because of their race, national origin, andlor refusal to participate in discriminatory practices.
71. Defendants' unlawful employment practices against Plaintiffs-Intervenors were intentional and at all relevant times Defendants have acted with malice or reckless indifference to the legally protected rights of Plaintiffs-Intervenors.
FIRST THROUGH SIXTEENTH CAUSES OF ACTION (FEDERAL CLAIMS) AS AND FOR THE FIRST THROUGH FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (TITLE VII RACE AND/OR NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS)
72. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sirnms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs " 1" through "71" of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
73. Plaintiffs-Intervenors were, at all relevant times, fully qualified as CNA7sand performed their duties in a competent and satisfactory manner.
74. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race and/or national origin by subjecting them to: (I) continuous racial epithets, slurs, insults, and derogatory remarks; (2) false write-ups and/or reports; (3) unwarranted disciplinary actions; (4) suspension of employment; (5) termination from employment; and (6) other adverse employment actions suffered by them as a result of the discrimination.
75. All acts in violation of 42 U.S.C $ 2000e, et seq., as amended.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 25 of 38
AS AND FOR THE FIFTH THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (TITLE VII RACE AND/OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
DISCRIMINATION - UNEQUALIDISPARATE
TREATMENT CLAIMS) 76. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "75" of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 77. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race andlor national origin by Defendants' unequalldisparate treatment of them, who were subjected
to unequalldifferential treatment, stricter supervision, harsher discipline, suspension and other adverse employment actions of a different kind and at a greater frequency than non-Black and/or non-Caribbean employees not subjected to the kind of supervision, oversight, and discipline imposed upon Black and/or Caribbean employees.
78. All acts in violation of 42 U.S.C 5 2000e, et seq., as amended.
AS AND FOR THE NINTH THROUGH TWELFTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (TITLE VII HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS) 79. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "78" of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 80. The above-referenced discriminatory practices were intended to and did create, effect, permit, and perpetuate a hostile work environment suffered by Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 26 of 38
which were continuing and persistent and so severe and pervasive as to adversely affect the terms and conditions of their employment.
81. All acts in violation of 42 U.S.C 5 2000e, et seq., as amended.
AS AND FOR THE THIRTEENTH THROUGH SIXTEENTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIMS) 82. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Ijylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat,
reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "81"
of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
83. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors for complaining about the discrimination against them on the basis of race and/or national origin and retaliation against them.
84. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors for complaining of, presenting and/or being a signatory to the Employee Complaints submitted to Defendants complaining of discrimination against them and other similarly situated employees on the basis of race and/or national origin and retaliation, protected activities known to Defendants.
85. The retaliation included, but was not limited to, constant harassment, further and additional acts of discrimination on the basis of race and/or national origin, suffering unwarranted disciplinary action, causing the suspension andlor termination of their employment, and other adverse employment actions against them.
86. All acts in violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 1981.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 27 of 38
SEVENTEENTH THROUGH THIRTY-SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION (STATE CLAIMS)
AS AND FOR THE SEVENTEENTH THROUGH TWENTIETH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (NYSHRL DISCRINLINATION CLAIMS) 87. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat,
reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "86"
of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
88. The above-referenced acts as set forth above establish Defendants' discrimination against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race and/or national origin.
89. Defendants' discrimination against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race and/or national origin violated NY Executive Law tj 290, et seq.
AS AND FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST THROUGH TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANTS (NYSHRL CLAIMS -
UNEQUALIDISPARATE TREATMENT) 90. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs " 1" through
"89"of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
91. The above-referenced acts as set forth above establish Defendants' discrimination against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race and/or national origin
as applied by the unequalldisparate treatment of them.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 28 of 38

92. Defendants' unequalldisparate treatment discriminated against Plaintiffs-

Intervenors on the basis of race andlor national origin violated NY Executive Law § 290, et

seq.

AS AND FOR THE TWENTY-FIFTH THROUGH TWENTY-EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANTS (NYSHRL CLAIMS -
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)
93. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat,

reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "92"

of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set

forth at length herein.

94. The above-referenced discriminatory practices were intended to and did create,

effect, permit, and perpetuate a hostile work environment suffered by Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

which was continuing and persistent and so severe and pervasive as to adversely affect the

terms and conditions of their employment.

95. Defendants created, maintained, encouraged, condoned, acquiesced in, and
supported a hostile work environment in violation of NY Executive Law 5 290, et seq.

AS AND FOR THE TWENTY-NINTH THOUGH

THIRTY-SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

AGAINST

DEFENDANTS

(NYSHIU

RETALIATION CLAIMS)

96. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sirnrns, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat,

reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "95"

of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set

forth at length herein.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 29 of 38

97. The above-referenced acts as set forth above establish the Defendants'

retaliation against Plaintiff-Intervenors in the exercise of a protected activity and which

caused them to suffer adverse employment actions as a result thereof.

98. Defendants' retaliation against Plaintiffs-Intervenors are all in violation of

NY Executive Law 5 290, et seq.

THIRTY-THIRD THROUGH FORTY-EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION (NEW YORK CITY CLAIMS)

AS AND FOR THE THIRTY-THIRD THROUGH

THIRTY-SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION

AGAINST

DEFENDANTS

OWcHRL

DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS)

99. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sirnms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir repeat, reiterate and

re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "98" of this

Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at

length herein.

100. The above-referenced acts as set forth above establish Defendants'

discrimination against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race andlor national origin.

101. Defendants' discrimination against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of

their race and/or national origin violated NYC Admin. Code 8tj 8-101, et seq., and 8 8-107.

AS AND FOR THE THIRTY-SEVENTH THROUGH FORTIETH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS W C H R L DISCRIMINATION CLAIMSUNEQUALIDISPARATE TREATMENT)
102. Plaintiff-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat,

reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "101" of

this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at

length herein.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 30 of 38

103. The above-referenced acts as set forth above establish Defendants'

discrimination against Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the basis of their race andlor national origin

as applied by the unequalldisparate treatment of them.

104. Defendants' unequalldisparate treatment discriminated against Plaintiffs-
Intervenors on the basis of race andlor national origin violated NYC Admin. Code $8 8-101, et seq., and specifically 8 8-107.

AS AND FOR THE FORTY-FIRST THROUGH

FORTY-FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION

AGAINST

DEFENDANTS

(NYCHRL

DISCRIMNATION CLAIMS - HOSTILE WORK

105. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sirnrns, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "104" of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
106. The above-referenced discriminatory practices were intended to and did create, effect, permit, and perpetuate a hostile work environment suffered by Plaintiffs-Intervenors, which was continuing and persistent and so severe and pervasive as to adversely affect the terms and conditions of their employment.
107. Defendants created, maintained, encouraged, condoned, acquiesced in, and
supported a hostile work environment in violation of NYC Admin. Code 88 8-101, et seq., and 8 8-107.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 31 of 38

AS AND FOR THE FORTY-FIFTH THROUGH

FORTY-EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

AGAINST

DEFENDANTS

(NYCHRL

RETALIATION CLAIMS)

108. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Simms, Hylton, Cilus, and Weir respectively repeat,

reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "1" through "107"

of this Complaint against Defendants with the same force and effect as if more fully set

forth at length herein.

109. The above-referenced acts as set forth establish the Defendants' retaliation

against Plaintiffs-Intervenors in the exercise of a protected activity and caused them to

suffer adverse employment actions as a result thereof.

110. Defendants' retaliation against Plaintiffs-Intervenors are all in violation of
NYC Admin. Code $5 8-10 1, et seq., and specifically § 8-107.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs-Intervenors pray that this Court grant the following relief: (a) Declare the conduct engaged in by all Defendants complained of herein to be in violation of Plaintiffs-Intervenors' rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended by Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §$ 2000e-et seq.; New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law $290, et seq.; and New York City Human Rights
Law, New York City Administrative Code $5 8-101, et seq. and 107;
(b) Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and its owners, officers, management personnel, employees, agents, successors, and assigns and those acting in concert therewith from any conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs-Intervenors under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL;

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 32 of 38
(c) Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, regardless of race or national origin, and that eradicate the effects of Defendants' past and present unlawful practices;
(d) Award Plaintiffs-Intervenors h l l compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawfbl employment practices complained of herein, including, but not limited to full back pay, front pay and other compensatory damages as
determined pursuant to 42 U. S. C.992000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9 1981(a); the New York
Executive Law, NY Exec. Law 9290, et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law,
NYC Admin. Code 99 8-101, et seq;
(e) Compensatory Damages as determined for all losses suffered as a result of emotional pain, suffering, depression, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and other psychological and physiological symptoms and conditions, in amounts to be determined at trial;
(f) Award full liquidated and/or punitive damages as allowed under 42 U.S.C. 99 42 U. S. C. §92000e, et seq. ; 42 U.S.C. 9 1981(a); the New York Executive Law, NY Exec. Law 9290, et seq. ;and the New York City Human Rights Law, NYC Admin. Code 9 9 8-101,
et seq. ; (g) Award Plaintiffs-Intervenors reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
disbursements; and (h) Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 33 of 38
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiffs-Intervenors hereby demand a trial by jury in this action.
Respectfully submitted, THE WATANABE LAW FIRM, LLC
By: &&d#Laura A. Watanabe (LW 7953) Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Intervenors Petrona Simms, Frederick Hylton, Marie Cilus, and Tanya Weir 100 Park Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10017 (212) 984-0660 (Telephone) (646) 390-5226 (Facsimile)
Dated: New York, NY January 5,2006
To: Marc S. Wenger, Esq. Jackson Lewis Attorneys for Defendants 58 South Service Road Suite 4 10 Melville, NY 11747 (63 1) 247-4660 (Telephone) (631) 247-0417 (Facsimile)
Sunu Chandy, Esq. U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 Whitehall Street, 5" Floor New York, New York 10004-3620 (212) 336-3706 (Telephone) (2 12) 336-3620 (Facsimile)

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 34 of 38
EXHIBIT A

/ k i /CI; ase.110::0085-FcAvX-0426120818-0N64G9-9REI R

Document 10
EAX

Filed 01/05/2006 Page 35 of 38

Spenc~Hr.tcwi3, Ir.
DkUb!f rIlm?tOr

EQUAL U.S.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYC O ~ S S I O N

New Yvrk Dwtrict Qffirce

13 Whi& !her, 5. P l p x

New Y TI N- (Y21211030306&3Z712112

(219 3363622 (212) 336-3625

BEQC Charge1 No.:
- Tmyu Wdr 160-2065-00589
- Fdurick liipllm 160-2005-0@0
- Pertmaa Simms 16G-2004-0194 - h f ~ ? fCe ~ 1S60-2005-01740

I
t Win& Cans,F W c k Xdj&n, & ~ R USmms di T ' y a Weir
C/O hum Watanabe. Esq.

The Watanabe ]Law F h ,LlLC

100 Park Averruc, Suire 1600

NewYokNY 10017

I

W U k m 6.~enanswn~ ~ d k M ub nr

FJMMUC~ m n r

cur+, ~ i r

.P b h h g Mawr Naming andRykabB#de~

Fiushi~gMturor Care C-, do D d d Fddmau, Esp.

7I c.

Morelli & E m ,P.C.

One Old Counayb a d , Suite #3

CarlePlase, NY 11514

Under the authority vest& in melby the Ccmdsion, I issue tha fbllowinp
the merits of the above citcd c-es 61ed d s Title WK of the Civil
"4 amendad C'Titlc VF3, and the esicaua with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
~ild, The chqgngPanics, ~ ~ i FreederickHyItcm, P r m a Shnmr and Tanya W ir luvo Pavilion, Flushing Manor Gdarrio~enterk , ., add FlrurhmgManbr Care Ccntcr, h.(pcctively
against Charging P&es and mheX Eijmil

I

I

Page I of 3

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 36 of 38

f
i
/.
/.
f :

employees, onthe basis oftheir m e @la&), and/@nrndoml orlgin (Caribbean) in violationof Title W.
C b p gParty Tanya Weir also alleges chat Respond~nfdiscriminated against her based on her disability when it failed to aceommedareher disabilifyin violation of the ADA.
Chaegbg P A M , Matit Cilua, Fd& Hylton and Tanya Weir began their employment with R w e n t a as CartifiM Nursing Assimmts C'CNAs"). in 1998. Charging PBlrty Petrona Siquns
be- her employmentas a CNA with R a p d a t a in 2000,
Chargins Partia allege t h ~ they end- a hostile w o k envkomncnt and difhvmt terms, conditions, or privileges of employment due to. tbRir raw (Black) and or national origin
(Carribem).
Specifically, Charging F%des allege thaf Rapad8rU9 made dtro@,ory comments such as, "Go b e on the,banana bout wherp you came from." Rcsp~ndentaalso permirted patients to make racial e l m such es,'Wiggsr," d "Monkey,"when referring to the Char& Parties. Charging Psrtiies8lW allege that Rqic&ts rqahmdd them for speaking in Jmguages other than
B@bb and bar88Std zhembecause oftheir Cariibean accents. Charging Parties also allegethey were eubjscted to infhior assigments and disparatediscipline.
Charging Parties Aveher allege that ResponcLcm rctaliatod against them for complaining about objectiag to the discrimination. Charging Parties allege that Rcspondmts (1) fabricated
patient cosnplaints, (2) issued false verbal and writtea warnings, and (3) suspended md tembued Charging Paities and orher similarly situated employees Eor making discriddon complaim and otherwise opposing the discriminatory~ c ~ t m e n ~ ,
ReSpoadents deny all allegarione of discrimhation and retaliation. Respondents claim that the suspensions and terminmion$ of Charging Parties were justified based on poor perfbmmce. Respondents ~k that disciplinq actions against the ChargingPartiteware made t0 protect the
patima.
The investigation reveals, through the restbmny ofCharging Parties and othw ~ l 6 ~ c #thait , Black mdlm Caribbean employees were subjected to a hostile work environment and subjeoted rn disparate treatm9lr, sUGh as do= supervision, disparate diecipline, and infkor terms,
m&itims,or p r i v i b p ofemployment basedontheir tece andlord d origin.
Jn addition, rht investipzion Weals th# Rcspcmkts Lsncw sf ~e above described discriminstion and harassment, but filed to eppmpria3e1y investigate a d nmedy the discrimination. Thehestigati6ashow that employees brought several complaints regarding,the
hostile environment and discdmhatory tmmaent and the situation oantinucd without remedy.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 37 of 38
'I'he hmgigation also suppons Charging PartiesJallegationsthat Fbzqondegts retaliatedagainst
Charging'Parties end other c m p l o p for opposing employment discrirninatik and/or making camplaints of discriminatim.
Based on the investigation, EEbC has conclrabcdchat Reqmdcnto have violated Title VII in that they have dischhated againsr the Cbwgbjg Yartiea and similar situated anploytes based an &efr w e (Black) end notipnal ori* (Cmibbean), and that Respondents have retaliated a-
bdw-e,ruC-mhan'@ .atgionP.tiltiea and other employees finopposing discriminarian and making complaints of
Howcva, b d upon Zhe Commission investigation, 1 an unable to canclude that Respondents failedto accommoda& Tmp Weir or discriminated againstherbecause ofher disebility when it failed to a e c ~ ~ l & th a disability in iriolation of the ADA This does not certify .that
Respondents are in compliance with the ADA, and no findingis made as to any other issues that
might be construed as having been Wed by this allegation, except as set forth above.
Section 706 @) ef Title VLT requires, that if the Ckmmhibn dmbmines that there is reasonable
cauee tv believe that violations have oaurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unIawfu1 eaploynamt practice by bkmd mcthads of confmnce, wnciiliation, and persuasion Having
derermined that there is reasonable cause 10 believe that a violation has occurreb the Cammission now invites thc pmics to join with it in a w llective effort toward a just resolution
of ttxis mutter.
Enclosed please 5nd EEOC's d a t i u n prap6d in tbis matteratDtaisclosure of i n f o d o n obtained by the C o d s s i c m during the concilialionprooms will be made in acmrdaneewith the mtute and Section 1601.26of the Commission's pwdml regulations.
If Rcspndmts declina to cnta into condatian discussions, or when the Commission's representative-for any other reason is unable to secure a scttlcment acceptable to the
C o ~ ' s ~ i c t1nw, ill 80 infbm the parties in writing and advise them of the caurr cnforccment
alteraativesavailable to the ChargingParty, aggrievedpersons, and the CdrmUsion, ,
On Waif ofthe Commission:

District Director

'L/

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 10 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 38 of 38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 5, 2006, I served the within Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Complaint and Jury Trial Demand via First-Class Mail by depositing a true copy of same into an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United Postal Service and by facsimile addressed as follows:
Marc Wenger, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 410 Melville, New York 11747 (631) 247-0417 (Facsimile)
Sunu Chandy, Esq.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
33 Whitehall Street, 5thFloor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3790 (Facsimile)
Albert Van-Lare, Esq. The Law Offices of Albert Van-Lare 45 John Street, 4thFloor New York, NY 10038 (2 12) 608-9347 (Facsimile)
LAURA A. WATANABE (LW 7953)

 
 Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐x EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISION, TANYA WEIR, PETRONA SIMMS, FREDERICK HYLTON, MARIE CILUS AND YANICK JEAN –LOUIS,
Plaintiffs,
‐against‐

Civil Action No.: 05 CV 4601
Gershon, J. Mann, M. J.

WILLIAM O. BENENSON REHABILITATION PAVILION & FLUSHING MANOR GERIATRIC CENTER, INC.
Defendants, ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐x

VERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL IS REQUESTED
Plaintiff, by her attorney, ALBERT VAN-LARE, ESQ., complaining of the defendants alleges the following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964, 42 USC 2000e et seq. (Title VII) This Court has jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 29 USC 1331. Claims arising under state statutory and common law are included under this Court’s pendent jurisdiction 28 USC 1367. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 USC 1392(b).
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Yanick Jean-Louis is black and female.
3. Plaintiff is of Haitian/Caribbean national origin.

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 2 of 7
4. Defendants are employers of Plaintiff. Specifically, at all times mentioned she was employed by defendants.
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 5. Plaintiff has complied with all jurisdictional prerequisites to action under Title VII as she
has timely filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 6. EEOC found probable cause and recommended conciliation and reforms. 7. Defendants declined conciliation. 8. Plaintiff commenced this action following defendants’ refusal to enter into conciliation.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN 9. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a certified nurse’s aide starting in or around
October 1998. 10. In or about October 2001 Barbiere was hired by defendants as Director of Nursing. 11. In her capacity as Director of Nursing Barbiere had and still has supervisory jurisdiction
over plaintiff’s work unit. 12. Director Barbiere (Barbiere) treats employees who are black and of Caribbean/Haitian
descent different from others who are not black and are not of Caribbean/Haitian descent. 13. Barbiere started this discriminatory treatment from the time she assumed her position as
the Director of Nursing. 14. This management style of hard nose discriminatory treatment adopted by Barbiere created
a very hostile work environment. 15. Barbiere constantly refers to the black/Caribbean workers as “monkeys.” 16. Barbiere throughout her employment at the facility where plaintiff works (facility) she
would refer to the black/Caribbean workers as “wolf,” and animals.” 17. Barbiere addressed plaintiff in the work place by saying: “who raised you, “who raised
you like a wolf.”
2

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 3 of 7
18. These remarks are inappropriate for the job place. 19. Barbiere did not call other non black/Caribbean workers wolf or ask them the identity of
individuals who raised them.
20. Barbiere specifically referred to plaintiff as an “animal” although she was fully aware that plaintiff is a human being and that plaintiff has a name.
21. Barbiere knows that plaintiff is of Haitian national origin. 22. Barbiere would often dismiss plaintiff by mocking her Haitian/Creole identity and
language with the use of the word “au revoir” which mean goodbye in French/Haitian Creole. 23. The disparagement and aspersion resulting from Barbiere’s aggressive verbal attacks led to very uncomfortable and hostile work environment for plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff was told several times by Barbiere that: “you don’t speak English,” although plaintiff speaks English fluently. 25. Barbiere questioned plaintiff’s ability to speak English only as a means of intimidation and discrimination since Barbiere knows that plaintiff speaks English fluently. 26. Barbiere has mockingly commented to plaintiff: “who raised you au revoir.” 27. On or about July 29, 2004, Barbiere threatened to terminate plaintiff after making a mockery of plaintiff’s Creole origin. 28. On or about July 24, 2004 Barbiere also asked plaintiff if she was raised by a “wolf.” 29. Plaintiff attempted to resolve these hostilities by making series of complaint to the union. 30. The union investigated the matter on behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. 31. The union repeatedly brought these complaints to the attention of management. 32. Management failed to appropriately investigate the complaints and remedy the discriminatory conducts. 33. Management provided Barbiere with the necessary support and administrative tools she needed to execute her management by discrimination method.
3

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 4 of 7
34. The union acting on behalf of plaintiff and other employees had at least one meeting with Mrs. Esther Benenson to discuss discrimination in the facility where plaintiff works.
35. Upon information and belief, Mrs. Benenson refused to act on the discriminatory complaint and concerns presented to her.
36. Mrs. Benenson refused to investigate the complaint presented to her and instead asked the union in a non polite manner to exit her office.
37. Caribbean employees were cautioned and reprimanded by Barbiere for speaking Haitian Creole while other employees who speak their native (non-English) language were not reprimanded.
38. Barbiere regularly made fun of the accent of plaintiff and other Caribbean born employees.
39. Many black and Caribbean born employees have resigned because of the discriminatory treatment emanating from Barbiere.
RETALIATION
40. Defendants retaliated against plaintiff by issuing false verbal and written warnings against plaintiff.
41. As part of a calculated retaliatory tactics towards plaintiff, defendants also issued written disciplinary memoranda against plaintiff for signing petitions condemning discriminatory conducts in 2002. 2003 and in 2004.
42. Because plaintiff opposed defendant’s discriminatory policies she was singled out for harassment by an aggressive and in your face style of supervision.
43. As part of the aggressive retaliatory tactics adopted by Barbiere plaintiff was issued warnings for failure to perform tasks that were neither assigned to her or constituted part of daily responsibilities.
44. After plaintiff filed the administrative action alleging discrimination, Barbiere continued with the retaliatory tactics of issuing written and verbal warnings for conduct that were not infractions or violations.
45. Defendants also falsely stated to the New York Human Rights Division that plaintiff was suspended from employment as a disciplinary measure.
46. Plaintiff has never been suspended from employment.
47. While trying to justify the apparent racist behavior of Barbiere, defendants alleged that plaintiff filed administrative action because she was suspended.
4

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 5 of 7
48. Plaintiff was never suspended and could never have filed a discrimination complaint after a suspension that NEVER HAPPENED.
49. Plaintiff was also targeted because she joined other staffers in signing a 76 signature petition aimed at arresting the unconscionable discrimatory practices of Barbiere.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 50. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 thru 49. 51. Plaintiff was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment because of her
race and national origin. As a result of this differential treatment plaintiff was unjustly and discriminatorily deprived of equal employment opportunities.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 52. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 thru 49 53. Defendants violated the New York State Executive Law Section 296 (1) (a) by unfairly
discriminatory against plaintiff on the basis of race and national origin. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
54. Plaintiff repeats paragraph 1 thru 49. 55. Plaintiff was damaged by defendants’ denial of equal terms and conditions of employment
in violation of Section 8-107.1 (a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands the following relief: (1) A permanent injunction restraining defendants from discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of national origin or race; (2) An order that Defendants compensate, reimburse, and make whole plaintiff for all the benefits she would have received had it not been for defendant’s illegal actions, including, but not limited to pay, benefits, training, promotions, and seniority, with interest; (3) Actual and consequential damages as may be proven for pain, suffering, and humiliation plaintiff suffered as a result of
5

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 6 of 7
defendant’s illegal actions; (4) Punitive damages payable to plaintiff in an amount to properly penalize defendants for their misconduct and to deter such wrongdoing in the future; (5) such other equitable relief as is just and proper; (6) Statutory damages as may be proven at trial on defendants’ violation of the New York State Executive Law Sec. 296 (1) (a) and Sec. 8-107. 1 (a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Dated December 26, 2005 Respectfully Submitted
__ _________________________________________ ALBERT VAN-LARE, ESQ (AV 6614) Attorney for Plaintiff 45 John Street 4th Floor N.Y., NY 10038 (212) 608-1400 Dated: January 5, 2006
6

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 12 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 7 of 7

VERIFICATION
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: SS.:
Yanick Jean-Louis, being duly sworn, deposes and says
1. I am plaintiff in the above matter.
2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know its contents; the same is true to my personal knowledge, except as to matter alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Sworn to January 05, 2006

/s/Yanick Jean-Louis Yanick Jean-Louis

__ Notary Public

7

 
 Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 10

l? I ILTiT1VfIl'1I?I1L%l)C '1I'tA%I ILC3fflTliC3 'II'IfIl1Ttm'tl'AmJUi nfilI'r
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X

EQUAL EIVIYLUYIVIEJNI UYYUKJUI"lII I

:

COMMISSION,

Plain tiff,

PETRONA SIMMS, FREDERICK HYLTON, MARIE CILUS, TANYA WEIR, AND YANICK JEAN LOUIS,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
V.

WILLIAM 0. BENENSON REHABILITATION: PAVILION & FLUSHING MANOR CUSvjrAnSASTfl SnISrtCS'_V%1%_flTATSVD ilI%I Tr

Defendants.

i I 1_EED p4 CLERKS OttlUt u.s. DISTRICT COURT ED. NY:
4 APR20 20074
P.M.
liME A.M.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 05 CV 4601 (NG) (RER)

CONSENT DECREE

This cause of action was initiated on September 29, 2005, by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC"), an agency of the United States Government,

alleging that Defendant, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc., et al. (hereinafter "Defendant") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in

——-—C——— that they engaged in discrimination against the Charging Parties and a class of other similarly
situated emniovees (collectively "Claimants"i on the basis of race (Black'I andlor national oriQin

(Caribbean). This lawsuit also alleges that a class of Defendant's employees, regardless of race

or national origin, was subjected to retaliation for opposing or refusing to participate in the

Anna+,a+,. flflAT_fl flfl'flT'TflTflTCIfl CTnlnIInn! CflT1TCT

'pjj 'Ajj3iJ!oodDOHd

104U1 'flh12 UT T! 1U!UjdWOO WI-Il iuupuaja pouunuasip

against Black and/or Caribbean employees by: 1) making harassing comments based on race

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 2 of 10

,nA/nr

nntnnol

tfl%11I,'fLl )

tuppiiig

c,.il_ip1loyces

r
irom

speaking

in

ureoie

while

allowing

other

non-

English languages at the facility to be spoken anddiscriminating against Caribbean employees for their accents and manner of speech, 3) allowing residents to makerace related comments to

employees such as "Nigger" and "Monkey," 4) treating Black andlor Caribbean employees with

stricter rules and disciplinary actions as compared to other employees and 5')retaliating a--Cgainst employees who brought these issues to the attention of management.

Intervening Plaintiffs Tanya Weir, Petrona Simms, Frederick Flylton, and Marie Cilus
r filed n— Ca.n.._m_-n_laint hrinoqr.inQo dnil1nr nlleantnnc ,r,rn, A•iiin.rni. c i•nnfnlni-7 T'flTTT I1IIIflA nT T1T+nI:IWcTc\iT-.v.n:r.'1m

S!flOq-uRf pojg .iaq lIMO 4uidwo3 uithrnq

suoq2aiin uo

'ç 9ØØ

Defendant submitted Answers to the three Complaints denying any liability and alleging

mat it engageci in no uniawrui conduct or wrongdoing ot any kind.

EEOCand Intervening Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and Defendant agree that it is in their mutual interest to fully resolve the matter without further litigation.

Plaintiffs and Defendant do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as

final and binding between the parties signatory hereto and its assigns or successors.

This Decree, and any separate Releases entered into among and between Defendant and

the Claimants, resolves all matters raised in the Complaints filed herein. EEOC is not a party to

•Tn tim

P

plpnop,

rp4rnrfnlIl

tn
TTT

OnTTTtIllc,

flrrcn

Th %TTT f/l%nTn%ra#'afl .,flTTTTT

Cn*.

CIVTTfl Jffll'fTlflf,l,4CnC11,TtTc9T,TtnfYnIrencnnancn.rcd.

Aim aininj soamqj mp Aux aq P°Ill 3srneTh 'iupuojo pue 01 aouauiuioo 1P40 SIIOIDR uo Au

such Charges.

Inc parties nave agrecu tnat this uecree may be entered without F innings ot 1' act and Conclusions of Law having been made and entered by the Court.

n

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 3 of 10

T1-.1-. 1 cuiisiueruauo.frli_0' rmi e m-utual promises 01 each party to this Decree, the sufficiency of

which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed and IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Decree resolves all of the issues raised by the EEOC Complaint and the

following EEOC Charges: Marie Cilus - 160-2005-01740. Frederick Hvlton - 1 60-200S-00590

Petrona Simins -16G-2004-01994, Tanya Weir - 160-2005-00589 and Yanick Jean-Louis - 16G-

2004-01997.

—.

:.:- .-.ea... TS1n pnlct%./oo5n1r¼a¼a LtiUjoatu+. thIIWc 'AJWL 1iajLuiuituuii UI UIC suujcct III4LLWJ UI tHIS

action and of the parties, that venue is proper, and that all federal administrative prerequisites

have been met.

3. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of the federal court to enforce this Decree

and its terms or the right of any party to bring an enforcement suit upon breach of any of the

terms of this Decree by any other party.

4. Defendant shall pay a total of $900,000 in compensatory damages, backpay

damaQes. and attorneys' fees to the 29 Claimants identified by.1 E——EO—C nrior to the January W—, 2007 deadline set by the Court. The specific amounts are set forth on the document attached as

Exhibit A, which shall be filed under seal.

C
suuoj .ioj aip

t,ni JIPTIC TIQi-tImI cinnmnmmn huM X71-7hAn LJITOT ml ,Cpdwnn mmJ lflflfl.xm oZiuxnp siunoum pu sAuiojw 'saoj pue iuepuaja HIM Ard Si!

portion of taxes for the amounts of the settlement designated as backpay. Defendant shall deliver

copies or me cnecks ana tax torms to ttUC at the same time it delivers them to Claimants. (All

submissions to the "EEOC" herein shall be directed to: S. Chandy, US EEOC, 33 Whitehall

Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004).

a

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 4 of 10

r

U.

l n1i LJclcIIuailL,4iI.a..11l1 piuvitie eacn iaimarn me amounts specitieci in Exhibit A, less

lawful deductions, if applicable, withinten (10) business days of receipt of a signed Release by

Claimant.

7. In addition to the $900,000 referenced in Paragraph four (4), Defendant shall

provide reasonable attorney's fees, not to exceed $750.00 per Claimant, for each of the 14

Claimants not represented by private counsel, to consult with an attorney before signingany Release of any rights waived. Within five (5) business days of Defendant's counsel's receipt of
1l an inv- o——ic--e-- —fr- om such nttnmev flefenilnnt nil!' nFq'Jnrutnutobcnaniiu,nm"nii.t. I¼Jt11Ua11t VYIlI 1UC L•.I-..) tdalllittllL
a 1099 form for such payment.

8. Defendant and its managers, officers, agents, successors and assigns are enjoined irom r-n1-s-cnm- inanng against any individual because ot her or his race or national origin.

9. Defendant and its managers, officers, agents, successors and assigns are enjoined

from maintaining, implementing or having any "No Creole" language policies or practices. 10. Defendant and its managers, officers, agents, successors and assigns are enjoined

from retaliating against any Claimant for having asserted her or his rights under Title VII. Defendant shall not retaliate against any Claimant or witness who has participated in this matter.

11. Defendant and its managers, officers, agents, successors and assigns are enjoined
hCh-... &Crnl ko"nn ,BTcTTrnTdflTnWaT;flnaITTmf.lnVn%TnflT,I'tThTTot%,lf;lfcll,Cnfrl1ifnlT,T'nTTnT+TTaTcC,Tfnl nICnT.InIOc9,+" tim flflflT(IIITfl flCflDfln Tfl fliT 1(1 CIII

soqai 03R1 Jo 1m10!Wu U!UO JO

4SUTR Au IUflU!RID jo ssaup4w oM seq pwdr3fl.md ut siqi

lawsuit.
IILn.

nr1 - ieienuam anu its managers, onlglicers, agents, successors and assigns are enjoined

from reporting employees to the Department of Health in a manner that discriminates on the

basis of race or national origin or in retaliation against any Claimant or witness who has

'F

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 5 of 10

r

.Lfl paiLI.dpaLcu 111 tins

i1uw_sfulii.

-- I
uerenuant

I II
snaii investigate

incidents

as

required

by

Department

of

Health regulations when makthg determinations as to whether toreport allegations of mistreatment, neglect or abuse at the facility, and shall have a continuing obligation to provide and/or make available relevant information to reporting agencies.

13. Defendant will maintain and implement Anti-Discrimination Pnlieiesnnd

Procedures ('Policy") at the Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. The Policy is attached as

Exhibit B. The Policy will include: (a) a clear explanation of prohibited conduct; (b) the

assurance that emnlnvrpc

nn SISWW nn.,,nlo;.,+ '-" u1111IIu1aL1u11 ul piuviue inronnauon reiatecj

to such complaints will not be retaliated against; (c) a clearly described complaintprocess that provides accessible avenues of complaint; (d) the assurance that Defendant will reviewany and au complaints trom employees who wish to file internal complaints; (e) the assurance that

Defendant will protect the confidentiality of complaints to the extent possible; (1) a complaint

process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation; (g) the assurance that

Defendant will take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it determines that

discrimination has occurred: and (h) an assurance that- —Defen-—da-—n-t- will inform nomnlninnnt of the

outcome of investigations within a reasonable amount of time.

14. The revised Policy will be distributed to all of Defendant's employees within
flJflfl fill TT'flITTT ((1rTC\\ VC'MTTCIIflACC.-O.f,l Tfl fCl.f.lh. l.f-H.ciaf.i-n.
.cT 4uBpuojoJ jiM OP!AOJdUO!WUIWUOSIP-!4UR '&IfflflJ popnpuoa Aq iOSø3 ioj
Defendant, to all of the managers and employees of Defendant within sixty (60) calendar days of

me entry or me Decree and provide documentation of such training to EEOC within seventy-five

(75) calendar days of the entry of the Decree. The training will include at least four (4) hours of

annual training for all employees including managers and two (2) additional hours of annual

D

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 6 of 10

uauiiug

Cni.t..aI1n

managers.

Cl I
sucn

traimng

will

be

conducted

on

a

yearly

basis

for

the

term

of

the

Decree and documentation will be provided to EEOC confirming the training within thirty (30) calendar days of each training session.

0 16. In addition, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the entry of the Decree,
Defendant shall req- uire its Director of Nursi—n-. Grace Barbiera to undenic an additinnal'f-n,'i.i-r (d\ hours of training and counseling regarding federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The training and counseling will be provided by counsel for Defendant and thecontent of the
ri tr,ininn intI rwnIiiion,c.1nsfl1n1n5n1nshziou+L u'. app'uvcu k, Cflnr tY,V:,ILtInHI! seven t/) c- aie- nui ar ciays O1 Inc

training, Defendant must furnish EEOC with documentation confirming that the training was

completed. Such training will be conducted annually for the length of the Decree or as long as Urace liarbiere remains employed by Defendant.

17. Within five (5) calendar days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant will post a
Notice of Non-Discrimination attached as Exhibit C in a prominent and visible location at its
r1"'r-'.7..flfl'. facility where employee notices are typically posted. 18. As nart of their initial orientatinn Defend5rnt will nrnvide new emnlnveec 11h1,

copy of the Policy. A representative of Defendant's management will spend a minimum of thirty (30) minutes reviewing the Policy with the new employee and document this meeting for the ilIuIvluua_I PcIs;jlnlcl lily.

19. Defendant shall hire a Human Resources and Equal Employment Opportunity

Coordinator (hereinafter "HRIEEO Coordinator"). The HR/EEO Coordinator will implement ana oversee Lietenclants Anti-Discrimination Policies and Procedures for the duration of the

Decree. The I-IR/EEO Coordinator will be responsible for receiving and investigating

complaints of discrimination. This individual shall, in addition to possessing general human

6

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 7 of 10

tcsuuicvs ilu..i_u_w_ie1u.ig_c.,..Oi_C_riiowi_e1u_g_1e_a_o_i1e_10_1_ra_nti-aiserimmation laws and appropnate

investigatory practices and techniques, and shall have significant experience in the field of

human resources. This position shall be compensated at a reasonable salary consistent with the

market rate for such position. Defendant will provide EEOC with information about the

background and qualifications of the top three candidates selected as finalists for the HRJEEO

Coordinator position within three (3) months of the entry of the Decree. EEOC shall review the

qualifications of the top three candidates and advise Defendant as to whether each individual

wniild he eiiitqhle fr.r

t1, umn L1 ssLaJ u.JI.JI1Iatu1. tn.aLllualIt iiiay IHIC 1lly In LIIC suitttuie

candidates for the position approved by EEOC. If EEOC finds that none of the candidates are

suitable, EEOC will advise Defendant as to the deficiencies and Defendant will review additional canuiua-tes bI' r tn-Ie position and lure someone that meets EEOC ———--——-- rev-iew approva-l. Th- e HRJEEO

Coordinator will commence employment within six (6) months of entry of the Decree. 20. Defendant agrees that EEOC may monitor compliance with this Decree by

inspection of Defendant's premises, records and interviews with employees at reasonable times.

Defendant agrees to make available for inspection and couvin records reasonably relate—d t-o—an.1y

of these areas, upon reasonable notice by the Commission.

.i 21. For the duration of this Decree, Defendant shall provide a written report to EEOC

,hl-1

TTflT1flTTTTtW

r9aTTnTQflTrAISi.nT nCTofltnT,flf,lT7naArhInnlT,T.f.lII?IT,A$A+Q41T-T. T,P.!diI:II.f.lf.l -.T.n,cT.P.I.f.l.P:Ti

Ifl

IPtIflhltil! U1IJO

I. — — -
DOSPO

uomssiiq .io uoquiwuosipwag sp saoAojdmo 43JL{M OJOM paAiaaaT Aq sjuPpuaJau

Designated Representatives (as defined in the Policy attached as Exhibit B and the Notice

attacneu

as

txnioit

UI)l'wir•-nl in

mirty

(Ml)

days

ot,—

receiving

any

suc—h

comp—la-ints.

— —
Defendant

shall

provide EEOC with the name of the complainant, the name of the alleged harasser, a summary of

the complaint, the results of any investigation of the complaint, and remedial action, ifany was

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 8 of 10

Lar.cII 1)n)_' _I-Jc_c__le_li-l_u-.a_-nLi-._v- e- ry t.1nree (3) months durrng the time period of this Decree, commencing three (3) months after the entry of the Decree, Defendant shallsubmit a report listing the formal or informal race or national origin based discrimination or harassment complaints received during that period, or stathig that it has received no such complaints during that preceding three (3) month period.

2j 22. The Parties agree that neither this Consent Decreenor the ifirnishing of

consideration pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be deemedor construed at any time for any

niimnPv nn q,-ln,h,dnn

Wi'Jiig uuiiig U eviueiice 01 aX1 Ilaflhlily or UfllaWtUI

conduct of any kind.

23. All parties agree that Defendant must operate its facility in accordance with

reucral, state, local and agency laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances, including those of New

York State Department of Health. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted in a

manner that tends to interfere in any way with Defendant's ability to comply with the

aforementioned laws, rules, regulations and ordinances.

24. Other than as —reflec— ted in P— nrarnn1i geven (k7'\/nnA PI_vIthAifll,LitJiA a'n—n,htl•Snfnl ,pta, i.lyk.I-1.a1111 0Cm its own attorney fees and costs incurred in this action.

25.

i i This Decree, and any separate Releases entered into among and between

'IaI11IaiILs,

CUiISLILULC

me

compiete

i.
unuerstanuing

among

the

respective

Parties to this Decree. EEOC is not a party to any Releases referred to in this Decree. No other

promises or agreement shall be binding unless agreed to in writing and signed by these parties. 20. mis Decree will remain in effect for five (5) years from the date of entry. The

court retains jurisdiction over this action during the duration of this Decree. The mattermay be administratively closed but shall not be dismissed during the duration of this Decree. Within

S

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 9 of 10

—'

,ul,:lii-l.LiynnIJ—V1).—ct-a-.y--s_a-ni-t-e--r-m1- e- u1ate set ror tiie expiration of this Decree, the parties shall submit a

stipulation of dismissal to the court.

FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC

Date± ft- [cr1

Elizabe Grossman. Reiona1 Attorney

Dated:
- --
Dated: / (J WU1

r.

nI

- -

Dated: üfrljt( (7, ?007

I

Dated: Art I aoo7

I W
Judy itnan,'Csbry Trial Attorney

senR Ill Sunu P. Chandy,
ii wnitenaii street,

)-.

Floor

Aftorney

(SC-3535)

New York, New York 10004

Telephone No. 212-336-3706

FOR PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS MARIE
CILUS, PETRONA SIMMS. FREDERICK HYLTON. AND TANYA WEIR
- 4 1 /n A
(/\6U440 (1. 6t'6tW/.nU(e
By: Laura A. Watanabe (LW 7953)
4-4--4—M---a--d—is-—on—A-—v.--e.,—1.7th Floor (4Q/Srn
New York, New York 10017
Telephone No. 212-486-7005

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR YANICK JEAN LOUIS
4.' . . C— A

By: AlbeP Van-Lare (AV 6614)
ou wail sweet, 5 rloor
New York, New York 10005 Telephone No. 212-608-1400

9

Case 1:05-cv-04601-NG-RER Document 60 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 10 of 10

Dated: i3r1 I'?, ?c7

ruK UtFLNDANI FLUSHING MANOR
GERIATRIC CENTER. INC.. ET AL.
-1 -1

__________________________

Byt' I4éc S. Wenger

4

JacksSn Lewis LLP

58 South Service Road, Suite 410

Melville. New York 11747

Telephone No. 631-247-0404

Q'3'f-l, fJlffllLflJffllffllfJlf3lJAJ, ftlWfl JTUflUfl'fjlffllLA),,ut%T1n,4nNrnUnV-E,-L.-K,.L-L%JJ,

Signed thisO day of/?.v(..( , 2007

A

Ia.

sING

- Judge Niñ Jershon

IItf)l

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 1 of 9
CLOSED,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−04601−NG−RER

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC) v. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion et al Assigned to: Judge Nina Gershon Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Mediator

Date Filed: 09/29/2005 Date Terminated: 04/20/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Paul McDonough

Plaintiff
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC)

represented by Sunu P. Chandy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Flr. New York, NY 10004 212−336−3706 Email: sunu.chandy@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stella Natsue Yamada E.E.O.C. 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−336−3689 Fax: 212−336−3623 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Marie Cilus
Intervenor Plaintiff Frederick Hylton

represented by Laura A. Watanabe The Watanabe Law Firm, LLC 444 Madison Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 212−486−7005 Fax: 646−390−5226 Email: wkwlaw@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laura A. Watanabe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 2 of 9

Intervenor Plaintiff Petrona Simms
Intervenor Plaintiff Tanya Weir
Intervenor Plaintiff PLAINTIFF YANIC JEAN−LOUIS

represented by Laura A. Watanabe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laura A. Watanabe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Albert Van−Lare Law Offices of Albert Van−Lare 80 Wall Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10005 212−608−1400 Fax: 212−608−9347 Email: vanlareesq@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion

represented by David R. Ehrlich Stagg Terenzi Confusione & Wabnik, LLP 401 Franklin Avenue Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 516−812−4500 Fax: 516−812−4600 Email: dehrlich@stcwlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc S. Wenger Jackson Lewis, LLP 58 South Service Road Suite 410 Melville, NY 11747 (631) 247−0404 Fax: (631) 247−0417 Email: wengerm@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 3 of 9

Defendant Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.

represented by David R. Ehrlich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc S. Wenger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sunu P. Chandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2005
09/29/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/29/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/19/2005 12/20/2005
01/05/2006 01/05/2006 01/05/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. $ 250, filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
Summons Issued as to William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 ANSWER to Complaint by all defendants.(Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
3 Rule 7.1 in connection with ANSWER to Complaint by all defendants.(Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
4 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Conference set for 12/20/2005 12:00 PM in Courtroom B before Magistrate−Judge Roanne L. Mann.. Ordered by Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/29/05. (Maynard, Pat) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
5 Letter from Laura A. Watanabe to Judge Nina Gershon Regarding Inquiry regarding pre−motion conference. (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
6 ORDER re 5 Letter. Counsel for the four Charging Parties is welcome to attend the 12/20/05 initial conference (at noon). Ordered by Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/30/05. (Maynard, Pat) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Pre Motion Conference set for 12/20/2005 2:30 PM in Courtroom 4 before Judge Nina Gershon. Ordered by Judge Nina Gershon on 12/9/2005. (Joe, Victor) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
7 Letter from Albert Van−Lare Esq to Judge Gershon and Judge Mann Regarding Request to intervene. (Van−Lare, Albert) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
8 ENDORSED ORDER re 7 Letter. Counsel for Jean−Louis is welcome to attend the 12/20/05 initial conference. So ordered by Judge Roanne L. Mann on 12/19/05. (Shindel, Cory) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Roanne L. Mann : Initial Conference Hearing held on 12/20/2005. The case is sent for court−annexed mediation. Fact discovery to be completed by 10/6/06. The parties shall file a status report by 9/8/06 (Tape #05/25 (3602−6371).) (Maynard, Pat) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
10 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Marie Cilus, Frederick Hylton, Petrona Simms, Tanya Weir. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Determination# 2 Affidavit Certificate of Service)(Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
11 STIPULATION and Order by William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
12 COMPLAINT UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ETAL v. WILLIAM O BENENSON REHABILITATION PAVILION ETAL against all defendants filing fee $ 250, receipt number 1612075, filed by YANIC JEAN−LOUIS.(Van−Lare, Albert) (Entered: 01/05/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 4 of 9

01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/13/2006 01/17/2006
01/27/2006 02/10/2006 02/28/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 06/02/2006 06/03/2006
06/08/2006 06/08/2006

13 ORDER re 11 Stipulation filed by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.,, William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion. SO ORDERED . Ordered by Judge Roanne L. Mann on 01/06/06. (Maynard, Pat) Modified on 1/10/2006 (Guzzi, Roseann). (Entered: 01/06/2006)
14 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation.Selection of Mediator due by 1/20/2006. Ordered by Judge Roanne L. Mann on 12/20/05. (Maynard, Pat) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
15 ANSWER to Complaint of Simms, Hylton, Cilus and Weir by all defendants.(Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
16 ANSWER to Complaint of Yanick Jean−Louis by all defendants.(Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
17 RESPONSE to Discovery Request from WILLIAM O BENENSON REHABILITATION PAVILION ET AL by YANIC JEAN−LOUIS.(Van−Lare, Albert) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
18 MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS sent to Counsel. Attached are Letters of Instruction. By 1/27/2006, Counsel are to select a Mediator, schedule the first mediation session, and electronically file and confirm in writing to the ADR Adminstrator, Gerald P Lepp, by email(gerald_p_lepp@nyed.uscourts.gov) or by first class mail to 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn NY 11201; the name of the Mediator, and the date, time, and place of the first mediation session. Counsel are to confer with each other and to speak directly to the potential Mediator in scheduling the first mediation session. For a list of EDNY Mediators and their qualifications, see the courts website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr. In accordance with Adminstrative Order 2004−08(as of August 2, 2004)electronic filing became mandatory in the Eastern District of New York for all cases, (pro se cases are excluded).(Suarez, Jennica) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
19 SELECTION OF MEDIATOR Paul McDonough selected(Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
20 TRANSCRIPT of Civil Cause for Telephone Conference held on 12/20/05 before Judge Roanne L. Mann. Court Reporter: Rosalie Lombardi. (Black, Amanda) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
21 Letter Re Mediation Status by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
22 Letter Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors' Requests for Conference Regarding Discovery Disputes by Petrona Simms. (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 6/7/06 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom A North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. Defendants are to respond to plaintiffs' letter regarding discovery disputes no later than 6/2/06. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 5/25/06. (Corchado, Lara) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
23 Letter to Magistrate Reyes by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to opposing counsel# 2 HIPAA protective order)(Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 6/12/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, North Building, before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. Parties must be prepared to discuss and resolve outstanding discovery disputes as referenced in their letters of 5/24 and 6/2/06. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 6/3/06. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 06/03/2006)
24 Letter requesting adjournment of 6/12/06 status conference by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
ORDER granting 24 Letter filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC) requesting adjournment of Status Conference from 6/12/06 to June 19, 2006 at 10:30am before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. SO Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 6/8/06. (Vertus, Miriam)(entered:6/8/06) (Entered: 06/08/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 5 of 9

06/08/2006 06/19/2006
07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/11/2006 07/19/2006 07/20/2006 07/21/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 08/03/2006 08/09/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/22/2006

Email Notification Test − DO NOT REPLY (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Ramon E. Reyes Jr.: Status Conference held on 6/19/2006. Sunu Chandy, Laura Watanabe and Albert Van−Lare for plaintiffs; Marc Wenger and Chris Valentino for defendants. Discussions held. Parties to meet and confer over next two weeks to discuss discovery issues. Parties must submit to chambers no later than July 10, 2006: 1) a proposed HIPPA protective order (to reflect the understandings of counsel and the Court as discussed at length at the conference); and 2) a proposed consent scheduling order. The consent scheduling order must take into account: 1) a presumption that each witness will be deposed for 2 days, unless good cause is shown for decreasing or extending that time limit, and 2) all fact discovery must be concluded by February 2, 2007. A further conference will be held on September 19, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Parties to submit a status report on January 12, 2007. (Court Reporter none.) (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
25 Proposed Scheduling Order and Proposed HIPAA Order and Correspondence by Petrona Simms. (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
26 Letter Regarding Scheduling Order and HIPAA Order by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
27 Letter to Mag Reys encl HIPPA and Scheduling Orders by William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
28 Scheduling Order and HIPAA Protective Order For Release Of Protected Information. So Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 7/11/06.(Vertus, Miriam)(entered:7/11/06). Modified on 7/11/2006 (Vertus, Miriam). (Entered: 07/11/2006)
29 Joint MOTION for Discovery Compel Compliance with Prior Court Orders Regarding Defendants' Production of Documents to Discovery Requests by Petrona Simms. (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
30 Letter to Mag. Reyes by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
ORDER denying 29 Motion for Discovery. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Scheduling Order in this case require defendants to produce multiple sets of documents. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 7/21/06.(Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
REPORT of Mediation: CONTINUED. The parties have met and the mediator, Paul McDonough, has recommended holding another session after depositions are taken. Currently these depositions are scheduled to take place in September. Report of Mediation due by 10/23/2006. (Warren, Edward) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
31 NOTICE of Appearance by Stella Natsue Yamada on behalf of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC) (Yamada, Stella) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
32 Proposed Pretrial Order PROPOSED DISCOVERY STIPULATION AND ORDER by YANIC JEAN−LOUIS. (Van−Lare, Albert) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
ORDER to Stipulation and Order re 32 Proposed Pretrial Order PROPOSED DISCOVERY STIPULATION AND ORDER file by YANIC JEAN−LOUIS. (Van−Lare, Albert).So Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 8/9/06.(Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
33 MOTION to Adjourn Conference of Sept. 19th by all defendants. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
ORDER granting 33 MOTION to adjourn Status Conference from September 19,2006 to September 22,2006 at 11:00a.m.. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 9/15/06.(Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Ramon E. Reyes Jr.: Status Conference held on 9/22/2006. Sunu Chandy, Stella Yamada, Laura Watanabe and Ojediji Olughodi for

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 6 of 9

09/25/2006 09/26/2006 10/02/2006 10/03/2006 10/04/2006
10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/11/2006 10/12/2006
10/12/2006
10/31/2006 10/31/2006 10/31/2006 11/07/2006 11/30/2006 11/30/2006

plaintiffs, Marc Wenger for defendants. Various discovery disputes discussed; several rulings made. Parties to submit revised scheduling order within two weeks. Parties to submit letters regarding remaining discovery disputes within two weeks. Parties to consider whether a settlement conference should be held, and report to the Court on 9/25. (Court Reporter none.) (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
34 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 11/7/2006 @10:30 AM in Courtroom A before Magistrate−Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr.. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 9/25/06. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
35 Letter agreeing to November 7 settlement conference by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
36 Letter to Mag Reyes regarding deposition scheduling by William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
37 Letter Plaintiff−Intervenors' Response to Defendants' Letter Dated October 2, 2006 by Petrona Simms. (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
ORDER re 36 Letter filed by defendants and 37 Letter filed by plaintiffs. The relief requested in the final paragraph in plaintiffs' letter is SO ORDERED. The Court suggests that in the future the parties make more of an effort to resolve their discovery disputes prior to raising them with the Court. This dispute could easily have been resolved without the Court's intervention had all counsel put aside their obvious personal animosity toward each other. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 10/04/06. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
38 Proposed Scheduling Order by Petrona Simms. (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
39 Letter Re Outstanding Discovery Disputes by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
40 Letter Brief by William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
ORDER re 38 Proposed Scheduling Order filed by Petrona Simms, . So Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 10/11/06. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
ORDER re 40 Letter filed by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.,, William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion,, 39 Letter filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC), . Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 10/12/06. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
41 ORDER re 40 Letter filed by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc.,, William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion,, 39 Letter filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC), . Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 10/12/06. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
Settlement conference scheduled with Judge in lieu of further mediation.(Hawa, Nancy) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by William Keith Watanabe on behalf of Petrona Simms (Watanabe, William) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
43 NOTICE of Change of Address and Telephone Number by William Keith Watanabe (Watanabe, William) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
44 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 11/7/2006. Settlement discussion held, parties too far apart. (Tape #06/58 (0−2128).) (Black, Amanda) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
45 MOTION to Adjourn Conference on December 1, 2006 by all defendants. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
ORDER granting 45 MOTION to Adjourn Status Conference on December 1, 2006 by all defendants filed (Wenger, Marc).The next scheduled status conference will be held on January 17, 2007 at 11:00a.m.. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 7 of 9

01/31/2007 01/31/2007
01/31/2007 01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/14/2007 02/14/2007 02/15/2007
03/01/2007 03/02/2007
03/09/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007

11/30/06.(Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Proposed Deposition Schedule by all defendants. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
47 First MOTION to Compel Discovery by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery# 2 Affidavit Declaration of Sunu P. Chandy in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery# 3 Exhibit A−2002 Petition# 4 Exhibit B−2003 Petition# 5 Exhibit C−2004 Petition# 6 Exhibit D−1−EB Deposition# 7 Exhibit D−2−EB Deposition# 8 Exhibit D−3−EB Deposition# 9 Exhibit E−GB Deposition# 10 Exhibit F−1−RS Deposition# 11 Exhibit F−2−RS Deposition# 12 Exhibit F−3−RS Deposition# 13 Exhibit F−4−RS Deposition# 14 Exhibit G−MB Documents# 15 Exhibit H−Kulynch Case# 16 Exhibit I−Patsy's Italian Rest. Case# 17 Exhibit J−Smith Case# 18 Exhibit K−McLendon Case# 19 Exhibit L−Stoner Case# 20 Exhibit M−Pray Case# 21 Exhibit N−Rekrem Case# 22 Exhibit O−Cioffi Case# 23 Exhibit P−Allstate Case) (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
48 Proposed Scheduling Order by Petrona Simms (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit # 3 # 4 Exhibit) (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
49 Proposed Scheduling Order Correspondence and Exhibits by Petrona Simms (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
50 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 2/1/07. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
51 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 47 First MOTION to Compel Discovery and for a Stay of Discovery Proceedings by all defendants. (Ehrlich, David) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
52 Letter Opposition to Defendants' Application to Further Stay Discovery by Petrona Simms (Watanabe, Laura) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 47 First MOTION to Compel Discovery. Response due by 3/2/2007, reply due by 3/9/2007. Further, discovery is stayed until 3/2/07 to facilitate the preparation of the Consent Decree. Parties directed to file the Consent Decree by 3/2/07. Ordered by Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. on 2/15/07. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
53 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference , extend defendant's time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to compel and to extend the time for the parties to file the consent decree by all defendants. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Ramon E. Reyes Jr.: Telephone Conference held on 3/2/2007.Sunu P.Chandy, Esq.,Laura A. Watanabe,Esq. and Albert Van Lare,Esq. for plaintiff and david R. Ehrlic,Esq. Marc Steven Wenger,Esq. for defendant.Parties to submit consent decree by 3/16/07.Defendant's time to respond to motion to compel extended to 3/16/07. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
54 TRANSCRIPT of Civil Cause for Status Conference before Hon. Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., for the date of January 17, 2007. (Abdallah, Fida) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
55 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consent Decree, and for an extension of time to file opposition papers to Plaintiffs' motion to compel by all defendants. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Ordered by JudgeRamon E. Reyes Jr. on 3/16/06. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
56 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File The Consent Decree and To Extend The Time For Defendant To Respond To Plaintiff's Motion To Compel by all defendants. (Ehrlich, David) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
ORDER granting 56 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File The Consent Decree and To Extend The Time For Defendant To Respond To Plaintiff's Motion To Compel by all defendants. (Ehrlich, David). Ordered by JudgeRamon E. Reyes Jr. on 3−23−07. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 8 of 9

04/05/2007 04/06/2007 04/09/2007
04/13/2007 04/13/2007
04/20/2007
04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/24/2007
04/24/2007 05/17/2012 06/04/2012 06/05/2012
06/05/2012 07/02/2012 07/09/2012

58 Letter dated April 2, 2007, from David Ehrlich, Esq., to Clerk of the Court informing the Court of his new email address. (Abdallah, Fida) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
57 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consent Decree from all parties & Defendants' Unopposed Request for Extension of time to file Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery by all parties. (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
ORDER granting 57 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consent Decree from all parties by 4/13/07 and Defendants' Unopposed Request for Extension of time to file Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery by 4/13/07 filed by (USEEOC)(Chandy, Sunu). Ordered by JudgeRamon E. Reyes Jr. on 4/9/07. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
Email Notification Test − DO NOT REPLY (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
59 Letter confirming that Consent Decree signed by all parties will be hand delivered to the Clerk's Office today and that all parties respectfully request that Exhibit A to the Decree be filed under seal by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC) (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
60 CONSENT DECREE; Plaintiffs and Defendants do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the parties signatory hereto and its assigns or successors. (see order for detail). Ordered by Judge Nina Gershon on 4/20/2007. (Clarke, Melonie) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
61 SEALED EXHIBIT PLACED IN VAULT (sealed 4/20/07) (Clarke, Melonie) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
Motions terminated: 47 First MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
Motions terminated: 53 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference. (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
62 SCHEDULING ORDER:Pre motion conference scheduled for 5/9/2007 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 6D South before Judge Nina Gershon. All parties involved in the action are directed to appear at this conference, whether or not they are involved in the proposed motion(s). The parties are reminded to adhere to the Individual Motion Practices of Judge Nina Gershon which are attached. So Ordered by Judge Nina Gershon on 4/24/2007. (Joe,Victor) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Please disregard the pre motion conference scheduled for 5/9/2007. The wrong case number was selected. (Joe, Victor) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
63 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc., William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
64 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc., William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
NOTICE re 64 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation, 63 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation. Counsel are advised that these motions should be addressed to Judge Gershon, as the parties seek an extension of a deadline established in the Consent Decree 60 . (Yasunaga, Adrienne) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
ORDER granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Ordered by Senior Judge Nina Gershon on 6/5/2012. (Joe, Victor) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
65 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. (Wenger, Marc) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
66 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 65 ; The parties entered into a Consent Decree entered April 20, 2007 to settle and resolve this action in full. The Consent Decree expired on April 20, 2012 and Defendants have fulfilled all obligations contained in the Decree. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between

Case: 1:05-cv-4601 As of: 05/28/2017 04:43 PM EDT 9 of 9
the undersigned attorneys for the parties to this action that the complaint and all claims alleged therein by the EEOC are dismissed, without costs or attorneys' fees to any party as against the other. Ordered by Judge Nina Gershon on 7/3/2012. (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 07/09/2012)

 
 Geriatric Center to Pay $900,000 for Race Bias, National Origin Discrim...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-23-07.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 23, 2007

CONTACT: TTY:

Sunu P. Chandy, Senior Trial Attorney (212) 336-3706 Stella N. Yamada, Trial Attorney (212) 336-3689 Elizabeth Grossman, Regional Attorney (212) 336-3696 (212) 336-3622

GERIATRIC CENTER TO PAY $900,000 FOR RACE BIAS, NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION

EEOC Says Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion Harassed Black and Caribbean Workers
NEW YORK – A New York geriatric center will pay $900,000 to settle a class race and national origin discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today (case, Civ. No. 05-4601, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of New York).
The EEOC charged that Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc., doing business as William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, subjected 29 black and Caribbean employees (specifically, Haitian and Jamaican) to harassment and retaliation. The consent decree settling the case was entered late Friday afternoon, April 20.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the Pavilion permitted harassing comments based on race and/or national origin by its managers and residents against the workers, who served in the nursing, food service, housekeeping, and recreation departments. The EEOC said the Pavilion also prohibited Haitian employees from speaking in Creole while allowing other non-English languages to be spoken at the facility; subjected black and/or Caribbean employees to stricter disciplinary actions as compared to others; and retaliated against those who brought these issues to management.
Employees at the facility formally complained about discrimination to management in 2002, 2003 and 2004 without any effective remedy, the EEOC said. This case also involved egregious retaliation in that the owner attempted to force the charging parties to withdraw their EEOC charges through harassing telephone calls to one of the claimant’s family members. All of this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In addition to monetary payment to the claimants, the settlement requires the facility to hire a qualified human resources professional, implement anti-discrimination polices and procedures, conduct extensive anti-discrimination training, and report internal complaints of discrimination to EEOC over a five-year period.
“The EEOC commends the five charging parties for their courage in bringing this matter to our attention,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Sunu P. Chandy. “Cases involving race and national origin are EEOC priorities.”
EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. added, “Employers must be warned that retaliation, such as discouraging employees from filing discrimination charges, is itself illegal.”
On February 28, EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp launched the Commission's E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment), a national outreach, education, and enforcement campaign focusing on new and emerging race and color issues in the 21st century workplace. Further information about the E-RACE Initiative is available on the EEOC’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/index.html.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on April 23, 2007.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/25/2007 3:40 PM