Alan Rich

From: Alan Rich

Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 5:27 PM

To: 'Peter Shapiro'

Subject: Fuller v Interview - Proposed Amended Complaint

Page 1 of 1

7/18/2010

Attached please find the Proposed Amended Complaint referred to during our recent conference with the 

Court. Please advise if you will consent to the amendments. Otherwise, as the Court indicated, we will 

have to plan a briefing schedule. 

 

Thank you.

 

Alan J. Rich, Esq.

Law Offices of Alan J. Rich, LLC

26 Court Street, Suite 1801

Brooklyn, NY 11242

Tel: 212.921.2244

ARich@RichLaw.US

 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Plaintiff, Victoria Fuller, by her attorneys, the Law Offices of Alan J. Rich, LLC, 

as and for her complaint against defendants, alleges as follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Victoria Fuller (“Fuller” or “plaintiff”), is a citizen of the 

State of New York, residing in, Kings County. 

2. Defendant, Brant Publications, Inc. (“Brant” or “defendant”), is a 

corporation authorized to do business in New York State with its principal place of 

business located in New York County at 575 Broadway, 5th Fl., New York, New York 

10012. 

__________________________________________

VICTORIA FULLER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 -againstINTERVIEW, INC.; BRANT PUBLICATIONS, 

INC., as the owner of Interview, Inc.; PETER 

BRANT, individually and as the shareholder and 

owner of Brant Publications, Inc.; SANDRA J. 

BRANT, individually and as the shareholder and 

owner of Brant Publications, Inc.; and DEBORAH 

BLASUCCI, individually and as the Executive Vice 

President and Chief Financial Officer of Interview, 

Inc. and Brant Publications, Inc., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civ. Action No.: 07 cv. 5728 (RJS/DCF)

 PROPOSED 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 30
3. Defendant, Interview, Inc. (“Interview” or “defendant”), is a 

privately held company. 

4. At all times relevant to this action, Interview, Inc., published 

Interview Magazine. 

5. From approximately 1987 to date, Brant has owned, directly or 

indirectly, Interview, Inc. 

6. Defendants Peter Brant (“Peter Brant” or “defendant”) and Sandra 

J. Brant (“Sandra Brant” or “defendant”) were married and had five children together. 

7. Between December 2006 and March 2007, Interview was wholly 

owned by shareholders Peter Brant and Sandra Brant through intermediate corporations, 

including, but not limited to, Brant. 

8. Between December 2006 and March 2007, Brant was owned by 

shareholders Peter Brant and Sandra Brant. 

9. Interview is wholly owned, at present, by shareholder Peter Brant 

directly and/or through intermediate corporations, including, but not limited to, Brant, 

and is located in the same business offices as Brant. 

10. Defendant, Sandra Brant, was the Publisher of Interview magazine, 

as well as the Chief Executive Officer and President of Brant. 

11. The position of Publisher of a magazine is traditionally to 

administer and to be responsible for the business, non-editorial aspects of the publication, 

including but not limited to advertising, printing, distribution and sales. 

12. In or about January 2008, defendant, Sandra Brant, sold her 

interest in Brant to Peter Brant, and/or entities owned directly or indirectly by Peter 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 30
Brant, and was removed as the Publisher of Interview magazine, as well as the Chief 

Executive Officer and President of Brant. 

13. With the sale of defendant, Sandra Brant’s ownership interest in 

Brant to Peter Brant, Ingrid Sischy, resigned as Editor-In-Chief of Interview Magazine. 

14. Ingrid Sischy, was and is the domestic partner of Sandra Brant and 

her 18 year tenure as Editor-In-Chief at Interview Magazine, continued during the entire 

time that Sandra Brant was Publisher of Interview. 

15. Defendant, Peter Brant, is the Chairman of Brant. 

16. Defendant Peter Brant, is an American newsprint magnate, art 

collector, and film producer. He is the Chairman and C.E.O. of White Birch Paper 

Company, a private company, headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. Brant is also the 

owner of Brant Publications, Inc., which specializes in publishing about art in America 

and antiques via its three magazines: Interview (founded by Andy Warhol), Art in 

America, and The Magazine Antiques. 

17. White Birch Paper is a manufacturer of high-quality newsprint, 

directory paper, and paperboard with mills in the United States and Canada. As of 

December 2007, White Birch Paper operated six pulp and paper mills; three in Quebec, 

Canada and three in the United States. Together, these mills produce more than 1.3 

million tons of newsprint and directory paper. Headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut, 

White Birch Paper is a privately owned, family-run business that manufactures and ships 

paper products to customers in North America and all over the world. 

18. Peter Brant is an owner/breeder of a number of Thoroughbred 

racehorses, notably Waya, the winner of the 1979 Eclipse Award for Outstanding Older 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 30
Female Horse, and Gulch whose wins include the Breeders' Cup Sprint and who was 

voted the 1988 Eclipse Award for Outstanding Sprint Horse. 

19. Peter Brant is the owner of a world class modern art collection. 

20. Peter Brant was the Executive Producer of the 1996 film Basquiat 

and the 2000 film Pollock, in which his wife, Stephanie Seymour, a/k/a Stephanie Brant, 

had an acting role. 

21. Peter Brant is divorced from his first wife, defendant, Sandra 

Brant, former Publisher of Interview Magazine. 

22. Peter Brant was an initial investor and long time shareholder in 

computer games company Take-Two Interactive, maker of “Grand Theft Auto.” Ryan A. 

Brant, son of Peter Brant, founded Take-Two Interactive at age 20. In February 2007, 

Ryan Brant pleaded guilty to a false filing charge in connection with a six-year stockoption backdating scheme dating back to the company's 1997 initial public offering. In 

2001, the SEC sued the Take-Two Interactive for conspiring to inflate earnings. Mr. 

Brant, the company and his associates settled those charges in 2005 for about $14 million 

and restated four years of earnings. 

23. In 2008, defendant, Peter Brant, hired Alan Katz as Publisher of 

Interview Magazine. 

24. In late 2008, defendant, Peter Brant, terminated Alan Katz as 

Publisher of Interview. 

25. Peter Brant hired Samantha Fennell, former Associate Publisher of 

Elle, to become Publisher of Interview Magazine effective February 2, 2009. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 30
26. Samantha Fennell accepted the position of Publisher of Interview 

Magazine but declined the position after learning that Interview’s coeditorial director 

Fabien Baron and creative director Karl Templer had been terminated. 

27. Peter Brant never advised Samantha Fennell of the termination of 

Fabien Baron and Karl Templer. 

28. After Barron and Templer suddenly left, Ms. Fennell decided not 

to report to work as Publisher as per her scheduled February 9, 2009 start date. 

29. A few years prior to Plaintiff's termination, Plaintiff, Victoria 

Fuller herself, hired David Hamilton to work as an advertising sales representative. 

30. At the time Plaintiff hired Hamiliton as a sales representative, he 

had no prior advertising sales experience. 

31. Hamilton worked under the supervision of plaintiff, Victoria 

Fuller, during her tenure at Interview. 

32. After Ms. Fennell decided not to accept the position of Publisher, 

David Hamilton, was appointed Publisher. 

33. While Associate Publisher at Interview Magazine, plaintiff, 

Victoria Fuller, regularly performed major functions of Publisher of Interview, 

particularly because Publisher, Sandra Brant was frequently out of the office for a variety 

of reasons. 

34. Plaintiff, Victoria Fuller, was fully qualified to carry out the duties 

of Publisher of Interview Magazine. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 6 of 30
35. Plaintiff would have been an appropriate and the likely choice for 

Publisher of Interview, had defendants not discriminated and retaliated against her, 

resulting in her termination. 

36. Defendant, Deborah Blasucci (“Blasucci” or “defendant”), is 

currently serving as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of 

Interview and Brant. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

37. Original jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 

§1331 and 1332 (a), et. seq., in that this is a civil action wherein the matters in 

controversy arise under the laws of the United States, 29 U.S.C. § 2615. 

38. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants named in 

the complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a) because the defendants conduct business 

in this district and because an act proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 2615 occurred within this 

district. 

39. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), 

and 29 U.S.C. § 2615, because the defendants conduct business in this district, and all the 

acts, omissions and events giving rise to the violations of 29 U.S.C. § 2601 alleged in the 

complaint occurred in this district. 

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

40. Plaintiff was diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis and requested 

reasonable accommodations of defendants and time for medical leave and to seek 

treatment. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 7 of 30
41. In response to plaintiff's taking medical leave, defendants 

discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff for seeking reasonable accommodation of 

her disability by, among other things: (a) refusing to pay plaintiff’s full compensation to 

which she is lawfully entitled; (b) engaging in an intentional campaign designed to 

undermine and sabotage plaintiff in carrying out her job responsibilities; (c) created a 

hostile environment by demanding that plaintiff not communicate with any Interview 

staff or clients, as well as undermining plaintiff’s authority and marginalizing her 

management role, in an effort to force her from her employment; (d) when plaintiff did 

not resign, defendants sought to discharge her "for cause," thereby avoiding paying some 

$350,000 in severance pay and encouraged, supported and accepted the fabrication of 

claims of fraud and theft against plaintiff; (e) and ultimately terminating her employment. 

Defendants discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff, and/or aided, abetted and 

conspired with the other defendants, inter alia, in permitting, assisting and advising 

defendants to perpetrate a fraud upon plaintiff, by fabricating knowingly false claims for 

defendants to use and assert and to deprive plaintiff of her rights and compensation. 

42. Subsequent to plaintiff’s return to work from her first medical 

leave, plaintiff requested further reasonable accommodation of defendants to permit her 

to take sick leave for surgery to treat previously diagnosed but untreated perineorrhaphy - 

a progressively debilitating medical condition. In response, defendants terminated 

plaintiff’s employment because of her disability. 

43. In this action, plaintiff seeks: (i) compensatory and statutory 

liquidated damages, along with statutory attorneys' fees for defendants’ willful violation 

of plaintiff’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 8 of 30
et. seq.; and (ii) compensatory and punitive damages for defendants’ willful violation of 

plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Executive Law § 296, et. seq. and the New 

York City Administrative Code § 8-502(a), et. seq. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

Fuller’s Employment 

44. Plaintiff commenced her employment at Interview on, or about, 

February 14, 1994, in the capacity of Fashion Advertising Manager. In, or about, April of 

1994, plaintiff was promoted to the position of Fashion Director with added 

responsibilities for managing the majority of the client accounts in the fashion, 

accessories and jewelry sector of the market. 

45. In, or about, March of 1996, plaintiff was promoted to the position 

of Interview’s Advertising Director, reporting directly and exclusively to the magazine’s 

President, CEO and Publisher, Sandra Brant. In this new position, plaintiff’s scope of 

responsibilities was expanded to include direct supervision and management of the Sales, 

Promotion and Marketing Departments at Interview. 

46. In, or about, April of 1998, plaintiff was promoted to the position 

of Interview’s Associate Publisher, with an expansion of the corresponding 

responsibilities and managing authority, including, among other things, recruitment, 

training, direction and management of the sales staff and independent agents for the 

territories of the United States, Italy and France. 

47. On, or about, August 15, 2002, Interview and plaintiff executed 

and made effective the employment agreement (the “Agreement”), memorializing in 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 9 of 30
writing the terms and conditions governing plaintiff’s employment, including her duties 

and compensation, along with the specific obligations and responsibilities of each party 

to the other. 

48. In, or about, February of 2004, plaintiff was promoted to the 

position of Interview’s Vice President and Associate Publisher, with the corresponding 

expansion of responsibilities and managing authority. 

49. During her tenure at Interview, plaintiff was directly and 

proximately responsible for the expansion of Interview’s advertising revenue more than 

threefold by, among other things, developing new client accounts in the heretofore 

underdeveloped sectors of the market and substantially increasing revenue from certain 

key accounts that plaintiff was responsible for servicing personally. 

50. At all relevant times, plaintiff performed her duties in an 

exemplary manner. No disciplinary actions for cause or other adverse employment 

actions had ever been taken by defendants against plaintiff prior to the unlawful actions 

taken by defendants in retaliation for the plaintiff’s medical leaves, as more particularly 

set forth in this complaint. 

51. At all relvant times, defendants had a responsibility to maintain a 

work environment free of unlawful discrimination and retaliation. 

Plaintiff’s Medical Leaves and Defendants’ Willful Violations of Plaintiff’s Rights 

A. Plaintiff’s First Medical Leave 

52. On, or about, December 7, 2006, plaintiff suffered severe 

abdominal pains and left work in the early afternoon to seek urgent medical attention 

from her attending physician, Dr. Jerry Clements, M.D. (“Dr. Clements”). Upon 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 10 of 30
completion of the examination, Dr. Clements diagnosed acute gastroenteritis as the 

principal cause of plaintiff’s illness and instructed her not to return to work and to take an 

immediate one month medical leave. Plaintiff’s health condition was to be reassessed at 

the end of that initial medical leave period. 

53. On the afternoon of December 7, 2006, Interview’s Director of 

Human Resources, Ms. Marie Mascaro (“Mascaro “ or “HR Director”), received a 

medical note from Dr. Clements, stating that Mrs. Fuller was to go on medical leave 

effective immediately for a period of one month. 

54. Later that day, plaintiff phoned Mascaro and confirmed her receipt 

of the doctor’s note, informed Mascaro of the need for an immediate medical leave and to 

request the necessary forms to apply for the Short-Term Disability (“STD”) benefits. 

55. At no time prior to the onset of plaintiff’s illness did defendants 

post the required public notice explaining employees’ rights to a medical leave pursuant 

to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et. seq. (“FMLA”), or 

furnish other material informing plaintiff of her foregoing statutory rights. 

56. On, or about, December 8, 2006, plaintiff’s husband, Mr. Graham 

Fuller, received in person from Mascaro the STD benefits claim documents, to be 

prepared and submitted by plaintiff. 

57. In, or about, afternoon of December 8, 2006, plaintiff contacted her 

executive assistant by phone and requested to have certain work files forwarded to 

plaintiff’s home so that she could continue with her work to the degree possible. *Fuller 

was informed that her assistant was instructed by the defendants not to comply with her 

requests. Plaintiff also attempted to remotely access work-related records on her office 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 11 of 30
computer, only to find that such heretofore customary and regular course of business 

remote access had been summarily terminated by defendants, without any prior notice to 

plaintiff. By the end of the same day, plaintiff received a written communication from the 

HR Director, which stated, in part: 

“We will temporarily reassign staff to deal with clients and other 

related matters, [to] assure that all tasks are performed... 

Accordingly, you should not contact clients or staff during your 

period of disability leave. We need to avoid miscommunications 

and are concerned that our hard work would be counterproductive 

if you attempt to continue to perform tasks. ...I understand you 

requested certain files to be sent to you at home. In light of the 

above, we do not think it appropriate to send work to you at home. 

Since your assistant will be temporarily reassigned, and in order to 

avoid any confusion, please direct any questions or concerns to 

Debbie or me.” 

58. Defendants took actions to isolate plaintiff from contact with her 

subordinates, clients and colleagues at Interview and from all work related matters. 

Defendants also acted to turn and manipulate employees and others against plaintiff in an 

unprecedented fashion and contrary to regular course of business practices throughout 

plaintiff’s tenure at Interview. 

59. Defendants had never before directed any employee not to contact 

staff and clients while that employee was on medical leave. 

60. On December 7, 2006, the day plaintiff, Victoria Fuller, advised 

defendants that she needed to take her medical disability/FMLA leave, notwithstanding 

supporting medical documentation, defendant Debbie Blasucci immediately acted in a 

hostile manner to plaintiff and asked employees at Interview to report to her whether

Mrs. Fuller “looked sick.”

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 12 of 30
61. Defendants immediately directed plaintiff not to communicate with 

her co-employees, her clients and even her assistant. This was the only time in company 

history that defendants forced the isolation of an employee on medical leave and did so as 

part of an attempt to foment false claims about plaintiff without her knowledge, to isolate 

her and to generally impose an environment so hostile as to cause her to wish to resign. 

62. Such hostile actions, among others, were discriminatory. 

63. Defendants used plaintiff's FMLA leave as an opportunity to 

isolate plaintiff, discriminate against her and to create an environment so hostile that she 

would resign. 

64. Immediately after plaintiff indicated she was taking a 

medical/disability leave, Ms. Blasucci first orally asked Vince Frezzo, Executive Beauty 

Director of Interview if Mrs. Fuller had “looked sick” at a client meeting at Biotherm’s 

offices. Blasucci was seeking a pretext to take some action against plaintiff. 

65. Where Interview was given medical documentation that plaintiff 

was taking medical leave due to gastroenteritis, a company employee’s non-medical 

opinion about whether plaintiff “looked sick” would not have been relevant, and could 

likely provide misinformation. Seeking an unqualified co-employee’s opinion about 

plaintiff’s medical condition, demonstrated defendants’ hostile attitude and attempt to 

find some pretext to discriminate against plaintiff. 

66. If defendants wished to inquire about plaintiff's medical conditions 

and/or her ability to perform work, they were obligated to communicate with plaintiff, 

obtain further medically related information and/or obtained an independent medical 

opinion, which they did not do. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 13 of 30
67. In defendants’ further effort to undermine plaintiff’s right to a 

medical leave, David Hamilton, who was plaintiff's subordinate, sought to establish that 

plaintiff was not ill and on December 7, 2006, wrote to Vince Frezzo, with a courtesy 

copy to Debbie Blasucci, “These are my notes from the conversation this morning 

between you, me and Debbie regarding your meeting yesterday at 10:00am with 

Biotherm: You met the Sr. VP of Marketing at Biotherm, whom you and Victoria had 

met about 1-1/2 years ago. Victoria arrived on time and contributed to the meeting in her 

usual way. She appeared to be ok and was not sick. She left the meeting early because 

she said she had to go uptown to an appointment. She pretty much seemed herself at the 

meeting. There was nothing physically wrong with her that was apparent. She showed no 

signs of being sick. She talked about the magazine and added a few comments to your 

presentation. She did not seem incoherent.” 

68. On December 10, 2006, Vince Frezzo responded to Hamilton’s 

above email, by emailing to Interview President, Sandy Brant, David Hamilton, and 

Debbie Blasucci with a "cc" to Human Resources director Marie Mascaro. 

69. Frezzo confirmed his view of the impropriety of this request in an 

email stating; 

“This is the first time I have received such a 

follow-up memo regarding a meeting with 

Victoria Fuller, the AP of Interview magazine. 

As per our conversation I met with the client 

along with Victoria Fuller at Biotherm's 

offices. In a subsequent meeting between 

David Hamilton and Debbie Blasucci; I 

confirmed the meeting. At this point I was 

asked by David and Debbie if Victoria looked 

sick. I said she did not appear sick but this is a 

question that should be directed to Victoria as 

I don't know how she actually felt. I asked if 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 14 of 30
there was something they were trying to 

communicate regarding her health. Both 

David and Debbie said no and not to worry. 

You can imagine my surprise to get such a 

follow-up memo; again asking the health of an 

employee of Interview. In my experience of 

managing at Fortune 100 companies; I have 

found a question regarding someone's health 

in the organization to be an HR and legal 

matter. You can understand the ethics 

regarding such a matter. 

I look for guidance from Sandy Brant or HR 

regarding the company's policy on how any of 

these questions should be handled in the 

future. 

Respectfully, Vince Frezzo” 

 [BRANT ARB HC 001705] 

70. Because Vince Frezzo detected that the inquiry about plaintiff, 

Victoria Fuller’s health was improperly motivated, defendants falsely sought to claim that 

they were confirming that the client meeting on Friday was without incident. 

71. On December 11, 2006 at 11:51 a.m., Marie Mascaro, Interview's 

head of Human Resources, emailed Vince Frezzo stating, “Dear Vince, It is our policy 

not to reveal or discuss any confidential medical information. Without disclosing any 

such information, we needed to confirm that the client meeting on Friday was without 

incident. Thank you for your concern. Marie Mascaro.” [BRANT ARB HC 1704-1705] 

72. Similarly, later that day, December 11, 2006, at 2:18 p.m., David 

Hamilton emailed Vince Frezzo stating, “[t]he original conversation that Debbie Blasucci 

and I had with you on Friday morning was in response to Debbie's concern about 

Victoria's well-being and her concern that the meeting on Thursday with Biotherm went 

without incident.” [BRANT ARB HC 001840]. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 15 of 30
73. The excuses that were provided in both emails that Interview 

needed to confirm that the meeting with Biotherm went “without incident” were false. 

Vince Frezzo had already advised Blasucci and Hamilton orally of that fact. Moreover, 

the confirming email sought to portray information about the appearance of plaintiff’s 

health. In addition, it was not Interview’s practice to confirm in writing that a meeting 

went without incident. 

74. Defendants participated in a fraud, using a false excuse as a pretext 

to cover up the reasons for Blasucci and Hamilton’s inquiries into plaintiff’s health, and 

the attempt to confirm same in the Hamilton email to Frezzo. 

75. Defendants knew the purpose of the inquiry by Blasucci and 

Hamilton was to attempt to use any information against plaintiff Fuller, rather than to 

“confirm that the client meeting on Friday was without incident.” 

76. Defendants had no reason to believe that “[it was Interview’s] 

policy not to reveal or discuss any confidential medical information” because Interview 

had no such policy. Had that been the "policy," Hamilton should not have been permitted 

to inquire about and discuss Fuller’s health at the outset. 

77. These efforts attempted to, and did, discriminate and retaliate 

against plaintiff, inter alia, for taking an FMLA medically required leave and based on 

her disability. 

78. On or about December 11, 2006, Plaintiff's then attorney, Wendy 

Lazar, wrote defendants and complained of the hostile and wrongful treatment of 

plaintiff, including isolating plaintiff from her staff and clients. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 16 of 30
79. Defendants failed to correct their wrongful, hostile and 

discriminatory actions toward plaintiff. On the contrary, their actions increased and 

became worse. 

80. On, or about, December 14, 2006, plaintiff submitted to the 

defendants completed STD benefits claim documents, receipt and sufficiency of which 

was duly acknowledged by defendants in writing. 

81. On, or about, January 1, 2007, defendants, in violation of the terms 

governing plaintiff’s employment, unilaterally and without prior notice, ceased paying 

plaintiff the full compensation that was due and owing. 

82. Defendants’ refusal to pay plaintiff’s full compensation was 

discriminatory and retaliatory. 

83. On, or about, January 2, 2007, following the reexamination of 

plaintiff’s medical condition, Dr. Clements instructed Fuller to remain on medical leave 

until February 1, 2007, subject to his further evaluation of plaintiff’s health at the end of 

January 2007. 

84. On, or about, January 9, 2007, plaintiff submitted to defendants 

revised STD benefits claim documents, informing defendants of the change in the 

plaintiff’s expected return to work date. Receipt and sufficiency of said revised STD 

benefits claim documents was duly acknowledged by defendants in writing. 

85. On, or about, January 25, 2007, following the reexamination of 

plaintiff’s health condition, Dr. Clements instructed Fuller to remain on medical leave 

until March 12, 2007, subject to his further evaluation of plaintiff’s health in February 

2007. Corresponding certification by Dr. Clements was provided to defendants. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 17 of 30
86. On, or about, February 8, 2007, following the reexamination of 

plaintiff’s medical condition, Dr. Clements informed plaintiff that her health condition 

was improving and she would be able to resume normal work on March 2, 2007. 

Corresponding certification was provided by Dr. Clements on revised STD benefits claim 

documents, which were provided to defendants the following day, February 9, 2007. 

Receipt and sufficiency of said revised STD benefits claim documents was duly 

acknowledged by defendants in writing. 

87. On, or about, February 16, 2007, during a routine follow-up 

examination, Dr. Clements became concerned with another serious health condition of 

plaintiff, unrelated to the previously diagnosed gastroenteritis, and referred her for a 

consultation with a specialist, Dr. Christina Kwon, MD (“Dr. Kwon”). Following a series 

of tests, Dr. Kwon diagnosed plaintiff with perineorrhaphy - a progressively debilitating 

medical condition that necessitates surgical intervention. Despite Dr. Kwon’s concerns 

with the plaintiff’s deteriorating medical condition, she was unable to schedule Fuller for 

surgery until May of 2007. 

88. In February 2007, Plaintiff commenced an arbitration claim against 

defendants for their wrongful actions against her, including but not limited to defendants' 

breach of contract and wrongful denial of her job, with all its authority, compensation, 

perquisites and benefits. 

B. Plaintiff’s Return to Work After the First Medical Leave 

89. Plaintiff’s medical leave of absence ended on March 1, 2007 and 

she promptly returned to work at the defendants’ place of business on the morning of 

March 2, 2007. However, plaintiff found that she was unable to gain entry to her office 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 18 of 30
because the locks to her office door had been changed by defendants. Subsequently, 

plaintiff also found that access to her office computer had been blocked by defendants. 

90. Upon her return to work, plaintiff found that during the period of 

her medical leave of absence, the long established business practices governing the dayto-day work of plaintiff’s direct subordinates had been countermanded by defendants, 

thereby undermining and sabotaging plaintiff’s authority and her ability to carry out her 

job responsibilities in accordance with the terms governing her employment. 

91. On, or about, March 5, 2007, defendant Blasucci demanded that 

plaintiff produce a fitness-for-duty certification despite the fact that defendants were in 

receipt of prior writings from plaintiff’s physician attesting to her need for medical leave 

and that she would be fit to return to work on March 2, 2007. 

92. The following day, March 6, 2007, at plaintiff’s request, Dr. 

Clements wrote an additional fitness-for-duty certification and faxed it to plaintiff at 

Interview. The document’s facsimile was not sufficiently legible, requiring plaintiff to 

visit her physician’s office to personally obtain the original of the fitness-for-duty 

certification document, which was promptly delivered by plaintiff to defendants on 

March 15, 2007. 

C. Plaintiff’s Second Medical Leave 

93. On, or about, March 9, 2007, Dr. Kwon, in consultation with Dr. 

Clements, determined that due to plaintiff’s deteriorating medical condition, unrelated to 

plaintiff’s other medical conditions for which she took her first medical leave, it was 

medically advisable for plaintiff to promptly undergo a corrective surgical procedure. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 19 of 30
94. On, or about March 12, 2007, plaintiff informed defendants about 

her need for a second medical leave, delivering in person to Interview's Human 

Resources Director, Marie Mascaro, a written document from plaintiff’s physician, 

indicating that she would be undergoing the required surgical procedure on March 26, 

2007. 

95. On, or about, March 26, 2007, plaintiff underwent the surgical 

procedure, performed by Dr. Kwon, and was discharged from the hospital on March 28, 

2007. 

D. Examples of Defendants’ Discriminatory and Retaliatory Actions Against 

Plaintiff 

96. On, or about, March 14, 2007, plaintiff was handed by Mascaro a 

letter authored by Blasucci and dated March 14, 2007, informing plaintiff that she was 

being suspended without pay, pending investigation by defendants into alleged illegal and 

unethical conduct engaged by plaintiff in her capacity as Vice President/Associate 

Publisher (“Suspension Letter”). The Suspension Letter never identified the basis for the 

defendants’ allegations. 

97. On, or about, March 27, 2007, just one day after her surgery, 

plaintiff received via courier at her residence a letter authored by Sandra Brant, dated 

March 27, 2007, informing plaintiff that: “... we have now concluded our investigation 

referenced in Debbie Blasucci’s letter suspending you on March 13th [sic]. Effective 

immediately, your employment is hereby terminated for Cause in accordance with 

Section 6.1 of the Employment Agreement between you and Interview, Inc. dated August 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 20 of 30
15, 2002. Cause includes, but not limited to, your violations of Sections 6.1(a) and (d)... 

All employee benefits are canceled effective immediately ...” (“Termination Letter”). 

98. The Termination Letter never identified with any specificity the 

facts supporting the determination that purportedly served as the basis for the defendants’ 

adverse employment actions against plaintiff. 

99. At no time prior to commencement of plaintiff’s medical leaves 

have the defendants served upon plaintiff notices required pursuant to the terms of her 

employment, nor provided plaintiff with adequate time to cure any alleged cause for 

adverse employment action by defendants against plaintiff. 

100. Plaintiff was unlawfully suspended and then summarily terminated 

from her employment because of her medical disability and for seeking reasonable 

accommodations for medical leaves associated with her disability. 

101. Defendants encouraged and requested employees and former 

employees to provide false and exaggerated information against plaintiff, inciting staff 

and former staff to make false and dubious claims that plaintiff submitted false expense 

reports and committed other wrongful acts.

102. Defendants proffered such false allegations as part of a 

discriminatory and retaliatory pretext to claim that plaintiff breached her employment 

contract so defendants could terminate plaintiff. Defendants conducted a so-called 

investigation of plaintiff’s acts and expenses where it never so investigated other persons 

who were not disabled or did not request medical leave. Defendants knowingly used 

incomplete, dubious and false information in their “investigation.” 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 21 of 30
103. Plaintiff, and those who were involved in preparing plaintiff’s 

expense reports, properly submitted those reports which were contemporaneously 

approved by Brant and Interview without dispute. 

104. The procedure Blasucci established in her capacity as CFO, for 

resolving erroneous or disputed expense reports, was to return the report to the employee 

for revision and resubmission of the expense report by that employee. 

105. Defendants never rejected, returned or disputed plaintiff’s expense 

reports during the entire time of her employ at Interview Magazine. 

106. Blasucci personally approved of all of plaintiff's expense report 

payments and never rejected nor returned for resubmission any of plaintiff's expense 

reports. 

107. Interview and Blasucci regularly returned erroneous expense 

reports to other employees. 

108. It was not until the discovery process in this lawsuit that 

defendants claimed that plaintiff’s expense reports were erroneous or false. 

109. Defendants never contemporaneously provided plaintiff the 

opportunity to either explain the contents of her expense reports or modify same at any 

time, up to and including the time of her termination. 

110. Other employees, managers and executives of Interview and Brant 

Publications regularly charged or claimed a variety of expenses as business expenses 

which are now being claimed to constitute "personal" expenses in connection with 

Victoria Fuller. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 22 of 30
111. Numerous "personal" expenses were routinely approved or not 

disputed when submitted by certain other employees, managers and officers. 

112. Defendants now claim that allegedly "personal" expenses of 

Plaintiff that were routinely acceptable expenses for others, form the basis, in whole or in 

part, for Plaintiff’s termination. 

113. The amounts apparently claimed by defendants in dispute total in 

the hundreds of dollars. 

114. Plaintiff’s annual compensation was approximately $325,000 

annually. 

115. Plaintiff was responsible for approximately $17 million in revenue 

annually. 

116. Plaintiff, at her own initiative and not at the request of any officer, 

manager or employee of Interview or Brant, regularly reimbursed her employer by check, 

amounts she charged to her employer for her own personal use, such as for her personal 

use of messenger services. 

117. Other employees, managers and executives regularly charged nonbusiness and personal items to Interview and/or Brant and were not subject to any 

discipline. 

118. Defendants wrongfully terminated plaintiff’s employment contract 

and falsely claimed that plaintiff stole or embezzled company funds. 

119. All of plaintiff’s expenses were checked by defendants Interview, 

Brant and Blasucci when submitted and were contemporaneously approved for payment. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 23 of 30
120. Defendants discriminated against plaintiff because of her 

disability, the perception of her disability, medical leaves, and retaliated against her for 

seeking reasonable accommodation for her disabilities and attempts to enforce her rights, 

by, among other things: (a) refusing to pay plaintiff’s full compensation to which she was 

lawfully entitled pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement and company 

policies; (b) an intentional campaign designed to isolate, undermine and sabotage 

plaintiff in her position as Vice President and Associate Publisher and in carrying out her 

job responsibilities; and (c) suborning plaintiff’s authority and marginalizing her 

management role, in an effort to force her from her employment prior to her unlawful 

termination by defendants. 

121. Defendants created a hostile work environment, wrongfully 

terminated plaintiff, deprived her of a promotion for which she was uniquely qualified to 

the Publisher position at Interview magazine, and otherwise discriminated and retaliated 

against plaintiff. 

122. Upon information and belief, defendants knew, or should have 

known, that their actions were unlawful and violated plaintiff’s rights under 29 U.S.C. §§ 

2601 et. seq., New York State Executive Law § 296, et. seq. and the New York City 

Administrative Code § 8-502(a), et. seq.

123. Defendants willfully and knowingly conspired, aided and abetted 

to discriminate and retaliate against plaintiff and to deprive plaintiff of her civil rights. 

124. Upon information and belief, defendants acted maliciously and/or 

in reckless disregard to plaintiff’s protected civil rights. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 24 of 30
125. As Vice President and Associate Publisher of Interview Magazine, 

Plaintiff was in a position of responsibility and performed satisfactorily, the tasks 

normally performed by a publisher of a magazine. 

126. Plaintiff could not rise to the position of Publisher of Interview 

Magazine because as long as defendant Sandra Brant was an owner of Brant, her contract 

provided for her to be Publisher. 

127. Upon the termination and departure of Sandra Brant from Brant 

and Interview Magazine when her interests were bought by Peter Brant and/or companies 

he owned in 2009, plaintiff, Victoria Fuller would have risen to the position of Publisher 

of Interview Magazine, but for defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions. 

128. Plaintiff has suffered extraordinary emotional distress and 

psychological damages as a consequence of defendants’ actions, including isolating her 

from her coworkers at Interview, intentionally alienating her subordinates from her, by 

spreading false information about plaintiff including accusing her of embezzlement 

and/or theft of company funds, by wrongfully withholding pay and commissions from 

plaintiff, by humiliating her in her work situation and by otherwise acting in a hostile, 

discriminatory and retaliatory manner. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FMLA

129. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

130. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability 

and discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 25 of 30
employment because of her disability and because of her requests for family medical 

leave and failed to leave her job open and available for her in violation of the Family 

Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) of 1993 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et. seq. 

131. Defendants interfered with plaintiff’s rights to take an FMLA 

medical leave but also significantly interfered with plaintiff’s right to return to her job 

after her first FMLA leave. 

132. The right to take an FMLA leave is virtually illusory without the 

right to return to the same job following such leave. 

133. Defendants used plaintiff’s absences while on leave to undermine 

her authority and to conspire to discriminate, retaliate, suspend and terminate plaintiff. 

134. As a result, plaintiff suffered damages for lost past and future 

earnings as limited pursuant to the FMLA, liquidated damages pursuant to the FMLA and 

other employment benefits, of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000) DOLLARS, plus costs, 

attorneys' fees and disbursements in connection with this case. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 

NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

135. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

136. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability, 

and otherwise discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff in violation of the New York 

State Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 290, et. seq. 

137. As a result of such discrimination and retaliation, plaintiff suffered 

damages for lost past and future earnings, other employment benefits, and emotional 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 26 of 30
injuries and other compensatory damages in an amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) 

DOLLARS. 

 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

138. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

139. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability, 

and otherwise discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff in the terms and conditions of 

her employment based on disability and the perception of disability in violation of the 

New York City Administrative Code § 8-502(a), et. seq. 

140. As a result of such discrimination and retaliation, plaintiff suffered 

damages for lost past and future earnings, other employment benefits, and emotional 

injuries and other compensatory damages in the amount of TEN MILLION 

($10,000,000) DOLLARS. 

141. As a result of defendants’ willful and/or reckless disregard for the 

protected rights of plaintiff, and based on the respective wealth of the defendants and the 

amounts appropriate to punish and deter them from such future wrongful acts, plaintiff 

should be awarded punitive damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION 

($25,000,000) DOLLARS. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: PRIMA FACIE TORT

142. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 27 of 30
143. Defendants intentionally inflicted harm, without excuse 

or justification, through acts that would otherwise be lawful.

144. Plaintiff suffered special damages, including but not limited to the 

loss of wages, loss of commissions, emotional injuries and other compensatory damages 

resulting as a consequence of defendants' wrongful actions. 

145. As a result, plaintiff suffered compensatory damages in an amount 

of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) DOLLARS. 

146. As a result of defendants’ willful and/or reckless disregard for the 

protected rights of plaintiff, and based on the respective wealth of the defendants and the 

amounts appropriate to punish and deter them from such future wrongful acts, plaintiff 

should be awarded punitive damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION 

($25,000,000) DOLLARS. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

147. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained 

above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

148. Defendants, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or 

recklessly caused severe emotional distress to plaintiff. 

149. Defendants extreme and outrageous conduct included, but was not 

limited to fabricating claims that plaintiff, a valued member of upper management employed in 

good standing for some 13 years, engaged in acts of fraud and theft and other acts constituting 

crimes, humiliated plaintiff in front of those over whom she had direct supervisory authority, 

intentionally isolated plaintiff from her fellow employees and clients by directing her and her coCase 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 28 of 30
employees not to contact each other, using the enforced isolation to create and fabricate false 

claims against plaintiff, and other intentionally outrageous, humiliating and intentionally injurious 

acts.

150. Plaintiff suffered serious emotional injuries including, but not 

limited to, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

151. As a result, plaintiff suffered compensatory damages in an amount 

of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) DOLLARS. 

152. As a result of defendants’ willful and/or reckless disregard for the 

protected rights of plaintiff, and based on the respective wealth of the defendants and the 

amounts appropriate to punish and deter them from such future wrongful acts, plaintiff 

should be awarded punitive damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION 

($25,000,000) DOLLARS. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as 

follows: 

a) On the First Cause of Action pursuant to FMLA for damages in the amount of 

TWO MILLION ($2,000,000) DOLLARS, plus attorneys' costs and fees, 

including but not limited to: 

i) actual damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(i)(I); 

ii) statutory liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(iii); PLUS, 

iii) statutory attorney fees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3); 

b) On the Second Cause of Action pursuant to the New York State Human Rights 

Law for damages in the amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) DOLLARS; 

c) On the Third Cause of Action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law 

for actual damages in the amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) DOLLARS, 

and punitive damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION ($25,000,000) 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 29 of 30
DOLLARS and attorneys' fees pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 

8-502(a), et. seq.; 

d) On the Fourth Cause of Action for Prima Facie Tort, for actual damages in the 

amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) DOLLARS, and punitive damages in 

the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION ($25,000,000) DOLLARS; 

e) On the Fifth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress for 

actual damages in the amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000) DOLLARS, and 

punitive damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE MILLION ($25,000,000) 

DOLLARS; 

f) Fees, disbursements and other costs and interest where permitted by law; and 

g) For such other relief which the Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. 

Dated this 18th day of June, 2010 

Brooklyn, New York 

 Alan J. Rich, Esq. [AR-4701] 

Law Offices of Alan J. Rich, LLC 

26 Court Street, Suite 1801 

Brooklyn, New York 11242 

Telephone (212) 921-2244 

Email: ARich@Richlaw.US 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-25 Filed 07/22/10 Page 30 of 30