1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------X

ANGEL VARGAS, FELIX BONILLA, RYAN MCKENZIE,

BERNARDO RAMIREZ and SIMON NORALES,

Plaintiffs COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-Against- 07-3343

MIDTOWN AIR CONDITION AND

VENTILATION, LTD.,

Defendant

------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiffs, ANGEL VARGAS, FELIX BONILLA, RYAN MCKENZIE, BERNARDO

RAMIREZ, and SIMON NORALES by their attorneys, LAW OFFICES OF AMBROSE

WOTORSON, allege as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, et seq., the New York State

Constitution, The New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights

Law, to vindicate the civil and commercial rights of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs -- all of whom are either

Black or Hispanic -- contend that defendant discriminatorily altered the terms, conditions, and

privileges of their employment on account of their races and national origins. As well, plaintiffs

contend that they were terminated, in part, because they reasonably complained that they were

being paid less than similarly-situated Caucasian workers and in derogation of New York’s

prevailing wage law. Plaintiffs were replaced by individuals who were Caucasian and of

primarily Russian national origin.

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 12
2

II. JURISDICTION

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, et seq.

Venue is proper, as the operative events occurred within this judicial district. Prior to

commencement of this action, plaintiffs served a copy of this complaint upon the New York City

Commission of Human Rights in accordance with N.Y.C. Administrative Code Section 8-502(c).

Moreover, the New York Comptroller’s Office issued a determination in 2006 on plaintiffs’

prevailing wage claims, and that determination is un-reviewed.

III. PARTIES

3. ANGEL VARGAS (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) who resides in Hackensack, New

Jersey, hereby sues on his own behalf, and at all relevant times, he was employed with the

defendant. He was 51 years old at the time of his termination.

4. FELIX BONILLA (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) who resides in Bronx, New York,

hereby sues on his own behalf, and at all relevant times, he was employed with the defendant. He

was 49 years old at the time of his termination.

5. RYAN MCKENZIE (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) who resides in White Plains, New

York, hereby sues on his own behalf, and at all relevant times, he was employed with the

defendant. He was 31 years old at the time of his termination.

6. BERNARDO RAMIREZ (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) who resides in Kings County,

New York, hereby sues on his own behalf, and at all relevant times, he was employed with the

defendant. He was 36 years old at the time of his termination.

7. SIMON NORALES (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) who resides in Bronx County, New

York, hereby sues on his own behalf, and at all relevant times, he was employed with the

defendant. He was 45 years old at the time of his termination.

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 12
3

8. Defendant, MIDTOWN AIR CONDITION AND VENTILATION, LTD, at all

relevant times maintained a principal place of business at 545 Eight Avenue, 6

th

Floor, New

York, 10018, and at all relevant times, defendant entered into performance contracts with the

City of New York.

IV. FACTUAL AVERMENTS

9. Facts relating to Angel Vargas

a. Plaintiff, Angel Vargas, is a 53-year old man of Puerto Rican national

origin and descent.

b. Angel Vargas began working for defendant on or about February 1995.

c. Defendant terminated Angel Vargas on or about February 28, 2006.

d. Angel Vargas was initially hired as an AC mechanic/ steam-fitter for

$10.00/hour. He got steady raises of $1.50 each year. At the time of his

termination, Angel Vargas was making $20.50 an hour.

e. On information and belief, Angel Vargas’ pay, on City of New York

contracts, as a sheet metal mechanic, was below the prevailing wage and

hours for similarly-situated sheet metal mechanics in and for the City New

York.

f. Moreover, upon information and belief, defendant paid Angel Vargas less

than its other similarly-situated workers who were white.

g. Further, the prevailing wage, at all relevant times for NYC was about $39-

$40 an hour.

h. An Inspector from the New Y9rk City Comptroller’s Office (hereinafter,

“inspector”) visited defendant’s job site in June 2005.

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 12
4

i. Angel Vargas spoke with the inspector and the inspector told plaintiff that

he was being underpaid.

j. Roman Lieberstein, Angel Vargas’ supervisor, later told plaintiff that he

had become aware that an inspector had been on the job site. Lieberstein

then asked plaintiff what had said to the inspector.

k. Angel Vargas truthfully told Liberstein that the inspector informed him

that he was being underpaid. He also told Liberstein that he and the other

plaintiffs in the instant action were interested in pursing prevailing wage

and discrimination claims, and that he had cooperated fully with the

inspector.

l. Thereafter, Vargas began to receive received utterly pretextual

disciplinary memoranda.

m. Angel Vargas was laid off in March 2006, and was replaced by a

Caucasians of Russian national origin.

10. Facts relating to Felix Bonilla:

a. Felix Bonilla is a 49-year old man of Honduran national origin.

b. Defendants had hired Felix Bonilla in June 2003, and he was

terminated on November 21, 2005.

c. Felix Bonilla was initially hired as a mechanic for $12.00/hour. Plaintiff

got steady raises of $1.00 each year. At the time of his termination,

plaintiff was making $14.00 an hour.

d. On information and belief, Felix Bonilla’s payment, at all relevant times,

was below the standard wage and hours for similarly-situated mechanics

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 12
5

in New York City. Indeed the prevailing wage, at all relevant times was

about $39-$40 an hour. Moreover, defendant paid Felix Bonilla less than

its similarly-situated Caucasian workers.

e. An Inspector from the New York City Comptroller’s Office visited

defendant’s job site in June 2005.

f. Felix Bonilla spoke with the inspector and the inspector told plaintiff that

he was being underpaid. Thereafter, Felix Bonilla sent several documents

to this inspector pursuant to potential prevailing wage and discrimination

claims.

g. Roman Lieberstein, Felix Bonilla’s supervisor, later told him that he had

become aware that an inspector had been on the job site. Lieberstein then

asked Felix Bonilla what had said to the inspector.

h. Felix Bonilla truthfully told Liberstein that the inspector informed him that

he was being underpaid. Felix Bonilla also told Liberstein that he and the

other plaintiffs in the instant action were interested in pursing prevailing

wage and discrimination claims, and that he had cooperated fully with the

inspector.

i. After Felix Bonilla informed Liberstein about his meeting with the

inspector, plaintiff was “laid for “and was never called back to work. On

information and belief, plaintiff was replaced by a similarly-situated

Caucasian worker of Russian descent.

11. Facts relating to Ryan McKenzie

a. Ryan McKenzie is a 31 year-old man of Jamaican national origin.

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 5 of 12
6

b. Defendant hired Ryan McKenzie in September 2003, and it terminated

him on November 21, 2005.

c. Ryan McKenzie was initially hired as a sheet metal mechanic for

$15.00/hour. He got steady raises of $1.50 each year. At the time of his

termination, Ryan McKenzie was making $20.00 an hour. On information

and belief, Ryan McKenzie payment, at all relevant times, was below the

standard wage and hours for similarly-situated sheet metal mechanics on

City of New York contracts in New York. Indeed the prevailing wage, at

all relevant times was about $39-$40 an hour. Moreover, defendant paid

Ryan McKenzie less than its similarly-situated Caucasian workers.

d. An Inspector from the New York City Comptrollers Office visited the site

on June 2005. Ryan McKenzie spoke with the inspector and the inspector

told plaintiff that he was being underpaid.

e. Roman Lieberstein, Ryan McKenzie supervisor, later told him that he had

become aware that an inspector had been on the job site. Lieberstein then

asked Ryan McKenzie what had said to the inspector.

f. Ryan McKenzie truthfully told Liberstein that the inspector informed him

that he was being underpaid. He also told Liberstein that he and the other

plaintiffs in the instant action were interested in pursing prevailing wage

and discrimination claims, and that they had cooperated fully with the

inspector.

g. On December 21, 2005, plaintiff, Ryan McKenzie was “laid off,” and

replaced by a Caucasian worker of Russian national origin.

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 6 of 12
7

13. Facts relating to Bernardo Ramirez:

a. Bernardo Ramirez is a 36 year-old man of Honduran national origin.

b. Defendant hired Bernardo Ramirez in June 1999, and it terminated him on

February 28, 2006.

c. Bernardo Ramirez was initially hired as a “helper” at $7.00/hour. He got

steady raises of $1.00 each year. At the time of his termination, Bernardo

Ramirez was making $19.00 an hour as a mechanic. On information and

belief, Bernardo Ramirez’s payment as a mechanic, on City of New York

contracts was below the standard wage and hours for similarly-situated

mechanics in New York City. Indeed the prevailing wage, at all relevant

times was about $39-$40 on City of New York contracts.

d. Moreover, defendant paid Bernardo Ramirez less than its similarlysituated Caucasian workers.

e. An Inspector from the New York City Comptrollers Office visited the site

on June 2005. Bernardo Ramirez spoke with the inspector and the

inspector told him that he was being underpaid.

f. Roman Lieberstein, Bernardo Ramirez’s supervisor, later told plaintiff that

he had become aware that an inspector had been on the job site.

Lieberstein then asked Bernardo Ramirez what had said to the inspector.

g. Bernardo Ramirez truthfully told Liberstein that the inspector informed

him that he was being underpaid. He also told Liberstein that he and the

other plaintiffs in the instant action were interested in pursing prevailing

wage and discrimination claims, and that they had cooperated fully with

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 7 of 12
8

the inspector.

h. Thereafter, Bernardo Ramirez received approximate 4-5 disciplinary

memos on lateness and departure times that, on information and belief

were designed to create a paper trial justifying his eventual termination.

i. Bernardo Ramirez was terminated on February 28, 2006 and he was

immediately replaced by a similarly-situated Caucasian worker of Russian

national origin.

14. Facts relating to Simon Norales:

a. Simon Norales is a 45 year-old man of Honduran national origin.

b. Defendant hired Simon Norales in 1996, and it terminated him on

February 28, 2006.

c. Simon Norales was initially hired as sheet metal mechanic at $18.00/hour.

He got steady raises of $1.00 each year. At the time of his termination,

Simon Norales was making $25.00 an hour. On information and belief,

plaintiff’s payment as a mechanic, on City of New York contracts was

below the standard wage and hours for similarly-situated mechanics in

New York City. Indeed the prevailing wage, at all relevant times was

about $39-$40 on City of New York contracts.

d. Moreover, defendant paid Simon Norales less than its similarly-situated

Caucasian workers.

e. An Inspector from the New York City Comptrollers Office visited the site

on June 2005. Simon Norales spoke with the inspector and the inspector

told plaintiff that he was being underpaid.

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 8 of 12
9

f. Roman Lieberstein, Simon Norales’ supervisor, later told plaintiff that he

had become aware that an inspector had been on the job site. Lieberstein

then asked Simon Norales what had said to the inspector.

g. Simon Norales truthfully told Liberstein that the inspector informed him

that he was being underpaid. Simon Norales also told Liberstein that he

and the other plaintiffs in the instant action were interested in pursing

prevailing wage and discrimination claims, and that they had cooperated

fully with the inspector.

h. Simon Norales never received any disciplinary memoranda or any

reprimands indicating his work was sub-standard.

i. Still, Simon Norales was summarily terminated on February 28, 2006 and

he was immediately replaced by a similarly-situated Caucasian worker of

Russian national origin.

15. As a further proximate result of defendant’s illegal acts towards plaintiffs,

plaintiffs will suffer a loss of earnings, bonuses and other employment benefits.

16. As a further proximate result of defendant’s illegal actions towards plaintiffs,

plaintiffs have suffered impairment and damage to plaintiffs’ good names and reputations.

17. As a further proximate result of defendant’s illegal actions towards plaintiffs,

plaintiffs have suffered mental anguish and emotional injury.

18. As a further proximate result of defendant’s illegal actions towards plaintiffs,

plaintiffs has been unable to find comparable employment with comparable pay, despite their

best efforts to do so, and have all suffered extraordinary consequential damages as a result..

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 9 of 12
10

19. Defendant’s actions were willful, outrageous and were malicious, and were

intended to injure plaintiffs, and were done with reckless indifference to plaintiffs’ protected

rights, entitling plaintiffs to punitive and/or liquidated damages.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each allegation in each numbered paragraph

above.

21. By discriminating against plaintiffs on account of their races and alienages, and

account of their good faith complaints about discrimination, defendant violated 42 U.S.C.

Section 1981 et seq.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

22. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each allegation in each numbered paragraph

above.

23. By discriminating against plaintiffs on account of their races, alienages and

national origins, and on account of their good faith complaints about discrimination, defendant

violated Section 296 of the New York Human Rights Law.

. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

24. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each allegation in each numbered paragraph

above.

25. By discriminating against plaintiffs on account of their races, alienages and

national origins, and on account of their good faith complaints about discrimination, defendant

violated New York City Human Rights Law Section 8-107(1)(a).

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 10 of 12
11

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each allegation in each numbered paragraph

above.

27. By refusing to pay plaintiffs the prevailing wages for similarly-situated mechanics

with City of New York contracts, defendants willfully violated Article I, Section 17,

of the New York State Constitution, and Labor Law Section 220 et seq., (as made actionable by

New York Labor Law Section 220(8)).

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court grant to them judgment containing

the following relief:

a. Awards of damages to be determined at the time of trial to compensate

plaintiffs for mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional

injury;

b. Awards of punitive and/or liquidated damages to be determined at the

time of trial;

c. An award of reasonable attorney fees and the costs of this action and,

d. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper; and

e. Reinstatement or any other equitable relief available, including an

injunction against the adverse actions complained of herein.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

April 24, 2007

Respectfully Submitted,

Law Offices of Ambrose Wotorson, P.C.

By___________/s/______________________

Ambrose W. Wotorson (AWW—2412)

26 Court Street

Suite 1811

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 11 of 12
12

Brooklyn, New York 11242

718-797-4861

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 12 of 12