1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

CARL FRANZONE

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

--Against-- 07-3342

CON EDISON

Defendant,

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

Plaintiff, CARL FRANZONE, by his attorneys, LAW OFFICES OF AMBROSE

WOTORSON, alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 794 et seq., and 42 U.S.C.

Section 12101 et seq. to vindicate the civil rights of plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that defendant

altered the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment on the basis of his recognized

disability/impairment, Paruresis, and failed to accommodate his recognized disability. This

illegal conduct is ongoing in nature.

II. JURISDICTION

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 29 U.S.C. Section 794 et. seq.,

and 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq. Venue is proper, as the operative events occurred within this

judicial district, and plaintiff has filed the instant action within ninety (90) days from his receipt

of a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 7
2

III. PARTIES

3. CARL FRANZONE (hereinafter, “plaintiff”) who resides in Queens County, New

York at 72-35 Metropolitan Avenue, Middle Village, New York 11379, hereby sues in on his

own behalf.

4. CON EDISON (hereinafter, “defendant) is a for profit energy supply company. It

is located at 4 Irving Place, New York, New York 10003.

IV. FACTUAL AVERMENTS

5. Plaintiff is employed by Con Edison as Assistant Storekeeper assigned to a

location in the Bronx.

6. In light of a collective bargaining agreement which mandates that plaintiff could

not be subjected to adverse employment actions without a showing of just cause, and in light of

the Civil Service Laws, plaintiff has a protected property interest in his job.

7. Plaintiff’s performance has been fully satisfactory at all relevant times.

8. However, the terms, conditions, and privileges of plaintiff’s employment have

been adversely affected on the basis of his recognized disability/impairment, Paruresis, in the

following ways:

a. Plaintiff is an Assistant Storekeeper with Con Edison assigned to a

location in the Bronx.

b. Plaintiff suffers from paruresis, a disability which causes a person to have

extreme difficulty or an inability to urinate on demand.

c. There is no dispute that Con Edison has a practice of conducting random

drug tests on its employees by obtaining urine samples.

d. Mr. Franzone has a record of having suffered from this disability.

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 7
3

e. For example, on or about November 13, 2000, one of Mr. Franzone's

physicians, Flavio Crisari, M.D., informed Con Edison’s Occupational

Health Department that Mr. Franzone had a “long standing problem in that

he is unable to urinate on command, and in the presence of other people

watching.” Mr. Franzone also requested, through Dr. Crisari, an

alternative form of drug testing, including blood tests, as a reasonable

accommodation for his disability. (Exhibit “1”).

f. Upon information and belief, Con Edison’s Occupational Health

Department utterly ignored Mr. Franzone and his physician, Dr. Crisari.

g. In fact, on or about December 1, 2000 – after he had requested an

accommodation – Mr. Franzone was ordered to produce a urine sample.

Mr. Franzone specifically replied that he was unable to do so, and that he

suffered from a disability which caused him to have extreme difficulty or

an inability to urinate on demand. As a direct consequence of his

disability, Mr. Franzone was terminated on December 1, 2000. (Exhibit

“2”).

h. On December 5, 2000, one of Con Edison’s human resources specialists,

Margaret Farran, specifically told Mr. Franzone’s union’s representatives

that Mr. Franzone had been terminated because of “a condition identified

by Occupation Health Services which precludes approval for continued

employment.” (Exhibit “3”).

i. On the same day, my Franzone’s labor union filed a grievance protesting

his wrongful discharge. (Exhibit “4”). The grievance was eventually

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 7
4

settled in early January 2001. This was only after Mr. Franzone had

successfully produced a urine sample after nine (9) hours of trying.

j. On or about February 7, 2001, Mr. Franzone’s urologist, Edmund Mandel,

M.D, once again, informed Con Edison that Mr. Franzone suffered from

the recognized disability of paruresis, and requested the reasonable

accommodation of an alternative to his having to produce a urine sample

on demand. (Exhibit “5”).

k. On information and belief, Con Edison, once again, utterly ignored Mr.

Franzone’s request for a reasonable accommodation.

l. On or about May 30, 2001, Mr. Franzone was prescribed Xanax to ease

any panic or anxiety associated with his condition whenever he was

ordered to produce a urine sample on demand. (Exhibit “6”).

m. In early 2003, Mr. Franzone was again ordered to produce a urine sample,

and once again, Mr. Franzone experienced humiliation and extreme

difficulty producing a urine sample.

n. On or about April 1, 2004, Dr. Crisari again informed Con Edison that Mr.

Franzone suffered from paruresis. Dr. Crisari also informed Con Edison

that he had prescribed 5 mg. of valium to Mr. Franzone to take prior to

any random urine tests in order to alleviate any panic and/or anxiety

associated with his condition. In other words, Mr. Franzone was

prescribed a psychotropic drug to take prior to any random tests for the

presence of drugs. (Exhibit “7”).

o. Mr. Franzone now suffers from daily panic attacks associated with a fear

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 7
5

that he will be subjected to a urine test at any time, that he will fail to

produce the required sample, and that he will be terminated, as occurred in

December 2000. Thus, on November 2, 2005, Mr. Franzone began

psychotherapy sessions with a Clinical Psychologist because of these daily

panic attacks. (Exhibit “8”).

p. In light of the his record of suffering from paruresis, complainant

requested, on December 6, 2005, that Con Edison acknowledge his

disability and grant him a reasonable accommodation of an alternative to

having to produce urine samples on demand.

q. On January 20, 2006, defendant denied plaintiff’s reasonable

accommodations request. (Exhibit “9”).

r. Mr. Franzone now suffers extreme anxiety on a daily basis, because of a

well-founded fear that he will be subjected to a random urine test, that he

will have extreme difficulty producing a sample, that he will be

humiliated, and that he will eventually fired.

9. As a further proximate result of defendant’s’ discriminatory acts towards plaintiff,

plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, bonuses and other employment benefits.

10. As a further proximate result of defendants’ discriminatory actions towards

plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered impairment and damage to plaintiff’s good name and reputation.

11. As a further proximate result of defendant’s discriminatory actions towards

plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and emotional injury.

12. As a further proximate result of defendant ‘s discriminatory actions towards

plaintiff, plaintiff has been unable to ameliorate his employment situation.

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 7
6

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

13. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each allegation in each numbered paragraph

above.

14. By discriminating against plaintiff because of his disability condition, to wit,

paruresis, and by failing to give him a reasonable accommodation of an alternative drug test,

defendant violated 29 U.S.C. Section 794 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each allegation in each numbered paragraph

above.

16. By discriminating against plaintiff because of his disability condition, to wit,

paruresis, and by failing to give him a reasonable accommodation of an alternative drug test,

defendant violated Section 296 of the New York Human Rights Law, and Sections 8-107(1)(a)

and 8-107(15) of the New York City Administrative Code.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court grant to him judgment containing the

following relief:

a. Reinstatement;

b. An award of damages to be determined at the time of trial to compensate plaintiff

for mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional injury;

c. An award of punitive damages to be determined at the time of trial as against

each individual defendant;

d. An award of reasonable attorney fees and the costs of this action and;

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 7
7

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

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

Brooklyn, New York 11242

718-797-4861

Case 1:07-cv-03342-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 7