07 CV 859

11 * H r* IP R IVTTS MT^ER'WENDEESON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Christina L. Feege, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MAY 0 4 2007

^J > w «

Civil Actio

iX.

'CASHIERS—J

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL

ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)

(FEDERAL QUESTION)

BARBARA ROCKMORE,

Plaintiff,

-againstDARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

TO THE CLERK FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants DARRICK E. ANTELL, DARRICK E.

ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., and DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

(collectively referred to as "Defendants") hereby remove the above-entitled action from the

Supreme Court, State of New York, New York County, to the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York, on the grounds that this Court has original jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and this action is one that may be removed to this Court by Defendants

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b), 1441(c), 1446.

In support of this Notice of Removal of Civil Action, Defendants state:

1. On or about December 19, 2006, Plaintiff Barbara Rockmore ("Plaintiff) filed a

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 53
Complaint in the Supreme Court, State of New York, New York County, against Defendants

entitled Barbara Rockmore, vs. DarrickE. Antell, DarrickE. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., Darrick

E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S. DarrickE. Antell, M.D., F.A.C.S. and DarrickE. Antell,

M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C., Index No. 06-118789. Plaintiffs Complaint alleged federal and local

statutory claims against Defendants which arose out of Plaintiffs employment. These claims

were asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York,

New York City Human Rights Law, § 8-107 et seq.

2. On or about April 10, 2007, Plaintiff served a copy of the Summons and

Complaint by hand delivery to Defendants' place of business, and thereafter served a copy of the

Summons and Complaint upon the Secretary of State of the State of New York. Defendants

attached hereto a true and correct copy of all process served upon in this matter. See Exhibit 1

hereto.

3. Accordingly, Defendants have filed this Notice of Removal within 30 days after

the receipt of the first pleading setting forth a removable claim, and it is timely filed under 28

U.S.C. § 1446(b). Plaintiffs Complaint alleges, inter alia, a federal cause of action under the 42

U.S.C. § 1981.

4. Plaintiffs Complaint also asserts municipal statutory claims asserted under the

Administrative Code of the City of New York, New York City Human Rights Law, § 8-107 et

seq. Where a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over one or more federal question

claims, it shall assert supplemental jurisdiction over any other state claims arising out of the

same operative facts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In the present case, both the state and federal claims

derive from a single set of operative facts surrounding Plaintiffs employment. Indeed, by filing

a single action, Plaintiff has demonstrated an expectation that all of her claims will be considered

in a single lawsuit. Consequently, because Plaintiffs claims arising under local law sufficiently

intertwine with his federal claim in a single proceeding, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction

over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 53
5. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and removal

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1441(b) and 1441(c).

6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), venue of the removed action is proper in the Southern

District of New York, which is situated in the same County where the state action is pending.

7. The Notice to Adverse Parties of Removal to Federal Court was filed in Supreme

Court, State of New York, New York County, and served simultaneously herewith in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), and a copy thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

8. The Notice to State Court of Filing of Notice of Removal was filed in Supreme

Court, State of New York, New York County, and served via Federal Express herewith in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), and a copy thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

9. The Defendants' Civil Cover Sheet is attached as Exhibit 4.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4,2007

istmTL. Feeige (CL-1474)

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, New York 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Fax: 212.832.2719

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 53
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BARBARA ROCKMORE,

Plaintiff,

-againstDARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS

I, Christina L. Feege hereby certify that on May 3, 2007, I caused a true and correct

copy of Defendants' Notice to State Court of Filing of Notice of Removal, Notice of Removal of

Civil Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (Federal Question), and Notice to Adverse Party of

Filing of Notice of Removal, to be served via Federal Express upon the following:

Scott A. Lucas, Esq.

Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

Attorney for Plaintiff

The Lincoln Building - Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

(212) 573-6906

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Untied States of America that the

forgoing is true and correct.

Executed this 3rd day of May 2007 in New YorkyNew York.

/ V i ~> C.j/si e

Christinsf L Feege (CL-1474)

i:l24173S7.1 0547*7,1001

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 53
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 53
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

_,— OC

BARBARA ROCKMORB, Index No. 9£-11*7*1

Plaintiff,

-againstSUMMONS

DARR1CK E. AMTELL. WITH NOTICE

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, MJ5., DJD.S., P.C., F.A.C.S-,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, MD., F A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D>, F.A.C.S., P.C,,

flfcUM

Defendants.

X MOT COMPARED

WITH COPY RtHD

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action

and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this

summons, to serve a notice of appearance on Plaintiff's attorneys within 20 days

after the service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is

not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in the case of

your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for

the relief demanded herein.

Plaintiffs designate New York County as the place of trial. The basis of

venue is CPLR §§. 503 and 509.

Defendants' Address: Plaintiffs* Attorneys:

Darrick E. Antell, Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

(address presently unknown) The Lincoln Building, Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

Darrick E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C. New York, NY 10165

Darrick E. Antell, M.D., DJD.S., P.C,, F.A.C.S. (212) 573-6006

Darrick E. Antell, MD.. F.A.C.S. and

Darrick B. Antell, MD., F.A.C.S., P.C.

850 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10021

(212) 988-4040

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 53
NOTICE: This action is to recover not less than $1,000,000 in compensatory

damages and not less than $2,500,000 in punitive damages based on, inter alia,

Defendants' violations of the New York City Human Rights Law (New York

Administrative Code (N.Y. Admin. Code § 8-107) and also 42 U.S.C, § 1981.

Upon your failure to appear, judgment wiU be taken against you by default for the

principal sum of not less man 53,500,000, plus attorney's lees, costs,

disbursements and interest.

Dated:New York, New York

December 19,2006

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. LUCAS

The Lincoln Building, Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

(212) 573-6906

Attorneys for PlatntjffBarbara Rockmore

Bv s'tfsZt*' /£is&tss±t

ScottA. Lueas

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 53
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 53
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

X

BARBARA ROCKMORE, Index No. 06-118789

Plaintffi

-against- VERIFIED

COMPLAINT

DARRICK E. AMTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, MD., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, MJD., D JXS., P.C., F.A.C.S.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK B. ANTOLL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff BARBARA ROCKMORE ("Plaintiff"), by her attorneys, the Law

Offices of Scott A. Lucas, alleges as follows for her Verified Complaint against

Defendants DARRICK E. ANTELL, DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK & ANTELL, M.D., DD.S., P.C., F.A.C.S., DARRICK E. ANTELL,

M.D., F.A.C.S. and DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., FA.C.S., P.C.:

INTRODUCTION

1. This case involves a hostile work environment permeated by virulent

anti-Semitism, misogyny and discriminatory and hate-filled depravity, all of which

was practiced and perpetrated by Darrick E. Antell, the man who owns and

controls the company that employed Plaintiff.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 53
THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Barbara Rockmorc is a natural person residing at 200 West

79* Street in Manhattan.

3. Defendant Danick E. Antell is a natural person who, upon

information and belief, resides in Greenwich, Connecticut

4. Upon information and belief, each of the other above-named

Defendants is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a professional corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, located in

Manhattan, currently at 850 Park Avenue.

5. Upon information and belief, to the extent they were different from

one another, at all times mentioned herein each Defendant was the agent of each

other Defendant, *"4 in doing the things alleged in this Complaint was acting

within the course and scope of such agency.

JURISDICTION A VENUE

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CPLR § 301, et seq.

1. Venue is proper in New York County under CPLR. fi 503(a) and (c)

based on: (A) Plaintiffs residence; (B) Defendants' place of business; and (C) the

fact that Manhattan is where each of the acts and occurrences alleged herein

occurred.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 53
8. A copy of the Complaint will be served on the New York City

Commission on Human Rights and Corporation Counsel contemporaneously with

service on Defendants and filing with the Court

FACTS1

9. Over the course of Plaintiffs employment, the office where Plaintiff

reported to work was usually identified as Derrick E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.

10. However, at various times it was also identified as Derrick E. Antell,

M.D., DJD.S., P.C., F.A.C.S., Darrick E. Antell, M.D., F.A.C.S. and Datrick E.

Antell, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.

11. Upon information and belief, Darrick E. Antell is the sole owner of

Defendant Darrick E. Antoll, M.D., DD.S., P.C.

12. Upon information and belief, Danick E. Antell is the sole owner of

Derrick E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C, FA.C.S., Danick E. Antell, M.D., F.A.C.S.

and Darrick E. Antell, MX)., F A.C.S., P.C. (to the extent they are different from

Dairick E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.).

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dairick E. Antell is and at

all times mentioned herein was the principal of Darrick E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S.,

P.C. and of each of the other named Defendants to the extent they are different

from Dairick E. Antell, M.D., D.D.S., P.C

1

 All directly quoted statement!, unless otherwise specified, are the sun and substance of such statements

as recalled by Plaintiff.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 11 of 53
14. References herein to "Dr. AntelT include Dazrick E. Antoll and the

other named Defendants, all of which were controlled by Dr. Antell, as one or

more of them constituted Plaintiffs actual employer.

IS.Upon information and belief, by using varying names to describe

Plaintiff's true employer, Dr. Antell was acting at all times mentioned herein as an

agent for a partially disclosed principal.

16. Upon information and belief at all material times herein each of me

Defendants employed not less than four employees, including Plaintiff.

17. Plaintiff's employment, as described in greater detail herein, began

in December 1993 and continued through July 29,2004.

18. Plaintiff is a member of the Jewish faith.

19. Plaintiff is a member of the Jewish religion.

20. Plaintiff is female.

21. Plaintiff was first exposed to Dr. Antell's anti-Semitism on her first

or second day of employment, when Dr. Antell wanted Plaintiff to telephone a

person who was apparently Jewish.

22. Referring to that person, Dr. Antell ordered Plaintiff to "Get that Jew

on the phone."

23. Plaintiff immediately got up *n^ walked away in disgust.

24. Upon information and belief, moments later a co-worker named

Josephine Maggio told Dr. Antell that Plaintiff was Jewish.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 12 of 53
25. Upon information and belief, Dr. Antell was unaware that Plaintiff

was Jewish when Plaintiff was hired.

26. Plaintiff began acting as the de facto office manager after die regular

office manager quit and there was nobody else to perform the office manager

functions. Although Plaintiff proved herself to be highly capable, dependable and

reliable in performing those functions, Dr. Antell sought to prevent her from

continuing in that role by hiring three other "office managers," each of whom quit

or was fired in rapid succession, at which point Plaintiff became the office

manager by default and resumed her performance of the officer manager role.

27. Dr. AntelTs knowledge mat Plaintiff was Jewish did nothing to

<tifntniah Dr. AntelTs willingness to subject Plaintiff to openly anti-Semitic

conduct.

28. To the contrary, beginning shortly after Plaintiff became an

employee, and continuing until Plaintiff ceased to be an employee, Dr. Antell,

both individually and in his capacity as principal the other Defendants, subjected

Plaintiff to an ongoing and unwelcome course of discriminatory, intimidating and

demeaning conduct and blatantly anti-Semitic, racial and misogynistic statements.

29. Upon information and belief, Dr. Antell was emboldened by the fact

that he perceived Plaintiff as a person who was weak and had low self esteem.

30. Upon information and belief, it gave Dr. Antell a sense of power to

be able to lord his anti-Semitic and depraved misconduct over a Jewish female

who lacked the courage and self-esteem to stand up for herself.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 13 of 53
31. Accordingly, wh m Dr. Antell decided he would pressure one of his

employee* to log onto the KKK's website so that his P.O. box could be added to

the KKK's mailing list, the per ion he initially targeted to carry out this request

was Plaintiff, even though he k new she was Jewish and would be deeply offended

or sickened by the idea.

32. To "justify'this

it for him because the govemni

afraid of ending up on an FBI >

•equcst, Dr. Antell told Plaintiff he needed her to do

it monitored the traffic on such sites and he was

chlist

33. Despite her economic need to remain employed. Plaintiff was so

sickened by tf»« suggestion thai she immediately and adamantly refused.

34. Upon information and belief, Dr. Antell then instructed Eva

Taczanowski, a co-worker of Plaintiff, to do so, and Ms. Taczanowski told him

she would do so.

35. Upon information, and belief, Ms. Taczanowski went home that night

and wept about the situation, and her then-fiance1, upon information and belief,

urged her to call in the next da;r and quit over the phone.

36. Ms. Taczanowsk later confided in Plaintiff mat she had not

followed Dr. AntelTs instruct^ ns.

37. In June or July 012004, after a malpractice suit was filed against

him, and at a time when he was facing serious legal claims, including an ongoing

investigation by the federal go- eminent, Dr. Antell alluded to his legal problems

and identified himself with Ad >lph Hitler, telling Plaintiff: "Hitler -was a great

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 14 of 53
man and he could have won the War. The only problem -was that he was fighting

too many battles at once, just like lam."

38. Shortly after Plaintiffs employment began, Dr. Antell assigned

Plaintiff the lengthy task of reviewing and sorting a huge stack of Dr. AntclTs

documents that had accumulated.

39. In addition, regularly until sometime in 1995, and less frequently

thereafter, Plaintiff was required to open, sort and file Dr. AntelTs mail, and to file

documents that Dr. Antell would leave for Plaintiff to file.

40. In connection with her duties to open letters and sort and file

documents, Plaintiff was required to sort and file documents from Dr. Antell and a

small number of his close associates which referred to Jewish people as "Code 3".

41. Based on his interest in the KKK, his stated admiration of Adolph

Hitler, his obsession with Jewish people and his anti-Semitic statements and

behaviors, as well as the context in which the term appeared, Dr. Antell and his

very close associates wen, upon information and belief, using the term "Code 3"

to imply that Jews are die equivalent of a scourge or contagion or mat they are

loathsome.

42. In late 2002 or in 2003, Dr. Antell ordered Plaintiff to call the

anesthesiologist's office and instruct them not to send certain minorities to Dr.

Antcll's office.

43. Specifically, Dr. Antell ordered Plaintiff: "Tell them [i.e., the

anesthesiologist's office] no schwatoas, no Jews with yarmulkes or accents, no

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 15 of 53
towelheads, no chicks other than the chicks who have been here, no Chinese, no

camelJocktes."

44. Plaintiff was ashamed and embarrassed when she recited Dr.

AntelTs instruction* to the contact person at the anesthesiologist's office.

45. With respect to patients who had Jewish surnames or who he

perceived as having Jewish-sounding accents, Dr. Antell repeatedly warned

Plaintiff: "They're going to try to handle you dawn. Don't let them do it."

46. On several occasions, Dr. Antell purported to justify such

discriminatory warnings by telling the story from early in his medical career of a

man with a "Jewish accent" whose child was stitched up by Dr. Antell in the

emergency room, and who was paid by the insurance company but failed to remit

payment for the surgery.

47. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff sought to avoid being thought

of by Dr. Antell as Jewish and sought to downplay the fact mat she was Jewish.

48. Nevertheless, while speaking to Plaintiff, Dr. Antell often referred to

Jews as "you people" and, in a snide tone, often asked Plaintiff to explain or

justify the basis for Jewish customs.

49. In addition to the foregoing conduct, Dr. Antell made numerous

statements demonstrating bis hatred of Jews. By way of example, and not by way

of limitation:

(A) In a state of agitation, Dr. Antell approached Plaintiff and

demanded that she tell him whether a blue-eyed red-haired

8

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 16 of 53
employee named Alice Hafter was Jewish, asking "Is Alice

Jewish? She's not Jewish ia she?" When Plaintiff did not

respond, Dr. Antell continued demanding to know, "Is she

Jewish? Is she Jewish? h she Jewish?" over and over, in a

state of increasing agitation. Plaintiff was dumbfounded, and

continued to remain silent, at which point Dr. Antell said that

Ms. Hafter either "smells" like a Jew or "smells" like "an old

Jewish woman." Upset by Dr. Antell's anti-Semitic

obsession, Plaintiff yelled back at him "I don't know if she's

Jewish! Why don't you ask herr

(B) After being sued by a patient whose attorney had a Jewish

surname, Dr. Antell stood clutching and waving what was

presumably a summons and complaint, and angrily exclaimed

to Plaintiff "Look at that! Her lawyer's Jewish. He's a Jew

boy. I hate those Jew boys.i"

(C) On several occasions Dr. Antell pretended to imitate accented

Jewish workers at 47* Street Photo by waving his

outstretched palm and declaring in an exaggerated accent,

"Cash, Cash, Cash, Gimmie Cash, Cash, Cash".

(D) Regarding one of the attorneys from the firm representing Dr.

Antell in a federal investigation, and who has a Jewish

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 17 of 53
surname, Dr. Antcll informed Plaintiff "7 can't use htm

because he's one of those."

(E) Upon learning that a patient named Marsha Johnson with

whom he waa Mends was apparently engaged to many a man

with the last name "Berger," Dr. Antcll said to Plaintiff "She

wouldn 't many a Jew -would she? I can't believe she -would

many a Jew"

(F) After telling Plaintiff that he went to a party hosted at a

Jewish person's mansion with a large art collection and an

underground parking lot with fancy cars, Dr. Antell

demanded that Plaintiff explain to him, "How does a Jew tret

all of that?"

(G) On several occasions Dr. Antell made derisive comments

about the fact that his physician's assistant was engaged to

marry a Jewish man.

SO. The hostility of Plaintiff's work environment was also exacerbated

by Dr. AntelTs unlawful discrimination against other minorities and especially by

Dr. AntelTs requests that Plaintiff cany out his discriminatory orders.

5 l.For example, on numerous occasions Dr. Antell told Plaintiff**/

don't -want any schwatzas [i.e., African-Americans] in the waiting room" and told

her to put such patients in exam rooms so mat his other patients would not see

them.

10

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 18 of 53
52. In addition, while Dr. Antell sought to generate positive publicity for

his practice by participating in certain programs designed to help underprivileged

and largely African-American children, when such African-American children

showed up at his office Dr. Antell ordered Plaintiff to segregate them from the

other patients by promptly and prematurely moving them to exam rooms so they

would not be seen by other patients.

53. Dr. Antell repeatedly told Plaintiff that such children were

"pickaninnies" - a term that is a racist relic of the Jim Crow era and is seldom

used today except, upon information and belief, by hard-core racists.

54. Dr. AntelTs racist instructions for segregating most African'

American patients from white patients placed emotional strain on Plaintiff, who

generally acted aa though she was going to comply, and on those occasions when

it was obvious to Dr. Antell mat Plaintiff had not followed instructions, Plaintiff

pretended to have forgotten to do so.

55. On several occasions when speaking to Plaintiff Dr. Antell referred

to his Greenwich, Connecticut home as "the Plantation," and, upon information

and belief, had either one or two live-in domestic servants of African-American

descent working for him mere.

56. Dr. Antell also made discriminatory remarks about persons of other

races or ethnicities, and other minority groups.

57. For example, when Dr. Antell needed a new full-time receptionist,

Plaintiff and another employee repeatedly urged him to offer the position to the

11

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 19 of 53
temporary receptionist because she did an excellent job, was well qualified, and

was attractive. However, Dr. Antell refiised to offer her the job despite her

qualifications, as she was a dark-skinned woman of South American descent As

Dr. Antell explained to Plaintiff "That 'a not what I want at my front desk."

58. In addition, Dr. Antell often insinuated that Italian-Americans were

"mafia" or were connected to "the Mafia".

59. Dr. Antell also referred to gay men as "fogs," and declared that they

are "disgusting".

Dr. Antell Unlawfully Attempts to Shield

his Longstanding Misconduct from Judicial Scrutiny,

and From any Venue in Which Punitive Damages

Could be Imposed Agminst Him

60. After a Jewish employee named Alice Hafter sued him for

compensatory and punitive damages for unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and

extreme, offensive, egregious and outrageous infliction of emotional distress for

his workplace anti-Semitism, Dr. AntelTs civil lawyer (Brian Conneely, Esq.)

interviewed Plaintiff and. upon information and belief, one other employee.

61. When Mr. Conneely asked Plaintiff if Dr. Antell made anti-Semitic

statements, she answered him truthfully.

62. Upon information and belief, Ms. Hafter's lawsuit with Dr. Antell

was thereafter settled by Dr. Antell.

12

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 20 of 53
63. Referring to his legal dispute with Ms. Hafter that he had apparently

settled, Dr. Antell told Plaintiff "You should have lied to Mr. Comedy. Thanks a

tot. You just cost me a lot of money"

64. Thereafter, Dr. Antell sought to shield his longstanding pattern of

misconduct against Plaintiff and others from any tribunal to which the public

would have access, and which possessed authority to impose punitive damages

against him.

65. Specifically, Dr. Antell handed Plaintiff a one sentence document

purporting to be an arbitration agreement, and told her she would be fired if it wa»

not signed and returned by the following day.

66. Dr. Antell also ordered Plaintiff to give similar purported arbitration

agreements to other employees to sign.

67. Unable to risk losing her income, Plaintiff signed the purported

arbitration agreement.

68. The purported arbitration agreement was obviously not drafted by a

lawyer, and is a nullity for at least five separate reasons, namely: (a) it does not

identify the other party to the "agreement"; (b) it purports to be a unilateral

contract, enforceable only against Plaintiff; (o) no consideration was given by the

unnamed employer in exchange for Plaintiff signing it; (d) it was signed under

duress; and (e) it purports to insulate Plaintiff's unnamed employer from welldeserved punitive damages liability by requiring that any dispute be resolved by a

tribunal with no authority to impose punitive damages.

13

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 21 of 53
Dr. Antell'i Harassment of Plaintiff

After She Truthfully Answered Questions

Put to Her by Investigaton

69. Upon information and belief, as a result of his anger at Plaintiff for

being truthful with investigators, including Mr. Conncely, Dr. Antell began

harassing Plaintiff about supposed infractions of his attendance policy.

70. In response, Plaintiff carefully demonstrated to Dr. Antell that his

purported concern was baseless and that, if anything, she was spending more time

at work in a typical day that she was supposed to spend at work without receiving

any additional compensation.

71. In addition, Dr. Antell sought to demean Plaintiff and undermine her

authority as office manager by vesting the temporary receptionist with the

authority to require Plaintiff to impose unspecified punishments or reprimands on

employees who violated Dr. Antell's attendance rules, and without giving Plaintiff

authority to impose any actual discipline for attendance-related violations.

72. Shortly alter Defendants' billing manager announced that she would

be retiring soon, Dr. Antell informed Plaintiff that he would hire a new office

manager to replace Plaintiff and move Plaintiff to the position of billing manager,

effectively demoting Plaintiff. Plaintiff was thereafter required to interview the

candidates competing to take her job as office manager.

14

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 22 of 53
Dr. AateU'i Depraved, MltogynltOe

and Otherwise Sexist Conduct

73. At all material times herein, besides subjecting Plaintiff to virulent

anti-Semitism, Dr. Antell made Plaintiff's working conditions even more

intolerable by subjecting Plaintiff to an ongoing course of offensive speech and

conduct of an explicitly sexual and misogynistic nature and other gender-related

discriminatory conduct

74. On dozens of occasions Dr. Antell left hardcore pornography on his

computer screen and asked Plaintiff to go look something up on his computer or to

get something from his desk, thus deliberately or recklessly forcing her to be

confronted by vile sexual imagery.

75. Some of die imagery that Dr. Antell left up on his screen was

positively sickening, and consisted of female humans engaged in sex acts with

animals.

76. In addition, in connection with her periodic duties to open, sort and

file mail and other documents for Dr. Antell, Plaintiff was confronted with

extremely graphic sexual photographs to Dr. Antell from a small number of close

friends and associates.

77. On one occasion, the sexually explicit materials in question, which

Plaintiff opened in the normal course of business and which had been mailed to

Dr. Antell by a close Mend with a personal note inscribed thereon, were of such a

nature that Plaintiff was too afraid to pass them on to Dr. Antell because Dr.

IS

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 23 of 53
Antell would know that she had seen them. While Plaintiff also feared that Dr.

Antcll might infer that ahe had seen such materials because he never received

them, she was even more a&aid that Dr. Antell would think she perceived him to

be of a certain sexual persuasion, and would retaliate against her for having such a

perception of him.

78. On another occasion, the sexually explicit material consisted of a

personal note and a disturbing and sadistic photograph of a naked woman with her

arms tied behind her back suspended in air, with her face concealed from view.

79. Pornographic magazines also appeared regularly at the office for Dr.

Antell.

80. In addition, upon information and belief Dr. Antell often sought to

intimidate and embarrass Plaintiff through sexual innuendo, and grinned about it

while relishing the obvious discomfort caused by his disgusting and offensive

speech and conduct

81. For example, on numerous occasions while Plaintiff was taking

dictation, Dr. Amell would often pronounce a letter of the alphabet and add a

gratuitous sexual reference or a gratuitous insult mat begins with the same letter.

82. For example, Dr. Antell would say "'5,' as in 'sex'," or "7V as in

'penis'" or '"$,' as in 'stupid'," or "'I.' as in 'idiot'.**

83. Upon information and belief, Dr. Antell made similar sexual

comments to other females employees, and also informed one or more of mem that

his penis "hangfs] to the left"

16

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 24 of 53
84. Dr. Antell often intimidated and embarrassed Plaintiff by requiring

her to look directly at him as he made overtly sexual gestures while Plaintiff filled

out the "fee sheet" listing the type of liposuction a patient was to have.

85. As to all but one of the liposuction procedures, Dr. Antell would

simply recite the area of the body that was to receive liposuction. However, when

the patient was to have liposuction on the "upper inner thighs," Dr. Antell was not

content to simply say "upper inner thighs". Instead, while he was standing up and

facing Plaintiff; who was seated, Dr. Antell would also gratuitously place his

hands on his upper inner thighs and rub vigorously, saying "Here, look at mt" or

"Here. She wants it right here "

86. In addition, after handing Plaintiff an innocuous looking "facial

vibrator" that he had ordered for plastic surgery patients, and that was too strong

for its intended use, Dr. Antell, in a sexually suggestive tone, told Plaintiff that she

should keep it and consider using it on other parts of her body.

87. Dr. Antell also routinely embarrassed Plaintiff by standing outside

the door to the women's bathroom, and talking to her through the door while she

was going to the bathroom. On at least two occasions, Plaintiff made it clear to

Dr. Antell that she considered such conduct to be inappropriate, but it had no

impact on Dr. AntelTs behavior.

88. Although Plaintiff was the office manager, and did not have cleaning

duties, Dr. Antell invented a demeaning cleaning duty by ordering Plaintiff and

another female employee on several occasions to "Polish my cannon." Dr. Antell

17

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 25 of 53
sometimes grinned while giving this order, or while me brass replica cannon on

his desk was being polished.

89. To further show his dominance, and further embarrass Plaintiff; Or.

Afitell often called Plaintiff into his office prior to going to the operating room and

began to partially undress himself hi her presence.

90. Calling attention to his every movement, Dr. Antell would begin by

removing watch, bis wedding ring, his pinky ring and cufflinks (when wearing

them), and would men unbutton his shirt all the way, often exposing his chest and

stomach, and would also often unbuckle his belt before allowing Plaintiff to be

excused.

91. Dr. Antell's disrespect for women and bis view of them as

subservient beings was also evidenced by the fact that, upon information and

belief; he had a policy of not providing married female employees with health

insurance available to other employees, including Dr. Antell himself, a married

male employee.

92. In addition, Dr. Antell tried to pressure Plaintiff into getting a

facelift in the hope mat Plaintiff would conform her appearance to Dr. Antell's

idea of what a female office employee should look like, and so that her "uplifted"

face could be used as a "prop" to help Dr. Antell sell facelift operations to his

female patients.

18

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 26 of 53
93. Upon information and belief; Dr. Antell directly or indirectly told at

least two people who depended on him for income that they should apeak to

Plaintiff about getting a facelift

94. In turn, these two people each spoke to Plaintiff on multiple

occasions about how Dr. Antell really wanted her to have a facelift

95. Moreover, in an attempt to pressure Plaintiff directly, Dr. Antell

asserted to Plaintiff mat "All -women over 40 are old bags"

96. Unwilling to have a facelift, but eager to placate Dr. Antell so that

the subject of her allegedly inadequate face would not remain a topic of

discussion, Plaintiff told Dr. Antell that she would have a facelift even though she

had no intention of having one.

97. To avoid a confrontation with Dr. Antell, Plaintiff then postponed

the scheduled facelift operation that she had no intention of actually undergoing.

98. Thereafter, in lieu of a facelift, Plaintiff asked Dr. Antell about

having breast augmentation surgery.

99. Dr. Antell told Plaintiff that if she had breast augmentation surgery,

it would serve as a selling point for his plastic surgery services.

100. However, upon information and belief, Dr. Antell liked the

idea of a breast augmentation operation on Plaintiff even more man the idea of a

facelift because he could use it as an opportunity to perform unauthorized

experimental surgery.

19

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 27 of 53
101. Upon information and belief Dr. Antell targeted Plaintiff for

unauthorized experimental surgery once the opportunity presented itself because

he views women as weak in general and viewed Plaintiff as a woman who was

particularly weak and who would be too non-confrontational to assert her rights if

the unauthorized experiment turned out badly.

102. Accordingly, without telling Plaintiff mat he was performing

anything other man routine breast augmentation surgery, Dr. Antell performed a

rare and risky type of breast augmentation surgery which, upon information and

belief, he had never performed before and was not qualified to perform.

103. The result was a horribly botched operation, followed by a

horribly botched attempt to undo the experiment, requiring Plaintiff's admission to

the emergency room two days later and major surgery several months later by a

different physician who, after examining (he aftermath of Dr. AnteU'a experiment,

diagnosed Plaintiff as having "gross deformities of the breasts".

Circumstances Aggravating the Hostility

of Dr. AntelTs Discriminatory Conduct

104. The stress and anxiety experienced by Plaintiff was

heightened by an increase in the means through which Dr. Antell's hate and

depravity could find expression, and by me lurking fear of what could happen as a

result if workplace violence or some other unusual or threatening circumstances

occurred.

20

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 28 of 53
105. For example, besides possessing an apparently loaded

handgun in his office, Dr. Antell, upon information and belief; often injected

himself with unprescribed narcotics.

106. Dr. Antell's ability to exercise any level of control over his

vile and discriminatory impulses depended on his ability to engage in rational

decision-making, and that ability was, upon information and belief, diminished by

his apparent use of unprescribed narcotics.

107. As a result, the hostility of die work environment to which

Plaintiff and other of Dr. Antell's employees were subjected was increased,

because Dr. Antell's vile and discriminatory impulses were more likely to be

expressed in the context of severe mood swings and highly erratic behavior.

108. For example, when Plaintiff told Dr. Antell that the doctor

from the adjacent office was using the top drawers of a shared filing cabinet, Dr.

Antell, while standing too close for comfort (about two or three feet from

Plaintiff)* exploded in a red-faced rage, physically and verbally cursing by

alternately pumping his right and left arms in the air with his middle fingers

extended and angrily exclaiming "FUCK HIM! FUCK HIM! FVCKHlMr

109. In addition, besides experiencing the extreme fear and anxiety

of what might happen to an innocent patient or to Dr. Antell himself, Plaintiff was

effectively forced to wrap her arms around her perverted employer's torso and

walk him around the office while physically supporting him because Dr. Antell

21

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 29 of 53
collapsed to his kneea shortly after leaving the operating theater and told Plaintiff

that he would die if he lied down.

110. Even more disconcerting to Plaintiff was Dr. AntclTs deeply

malevolent character, as it added to a lurking fear of what could happen to the

objects of Dr. Antell'i discrimination (for example, Plaintiff) if workplace

violence were to erupt or some other unusual or threatening circumstance were to

occur.

111. Dr. AntelTs malevolence was evidenced by, among other

things, the perverse pleasure he derived from the suffering of others, especially

people he envied, members of minority groups he despised, and people he could

oppress at little or no risk to himself.

112. For example, upon information and belief, in May 2004,

shortly after an American Jewish hostage named Nick Berg was beheaded by

Islamic militants, the actual footage of which was said to have been released on

the internet through an extremist website, Dr. Antell asked a temporary worker to

go online and find him the decapitation video.

113. The temporary worker then asked Plaintiff for her help in

finding the decapitation video for Dr. Antell. When both women told Dr. Antell

that they found the video of die beheading that he requested, Dr. Antell suddenly

became self-conscious and began denying that he requested it

22

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 30 of 53
114. In addition, Dr. Antejl interrupted Plaintiff's work duties for

the purpose of telling her — with a gleam in his eye and a demented grin — about

how one of his wealthy neighbors died of a brain tumor.

115. Dr. Antell also interrupted Plaintiff's work duties to tell

Plaintiff that a very highly regarded plastic surgeon (whom he was very jealous of)

tried to commit suicide. Dr. Antell men declared with exuberance "Another one

bites the dustl" and proceeded to compose a letter to the surgeon offering to take

his patients off of his bands.

116. Dr. Antell also interrupted Plaintiff's work duties to tell

Plaintiff that another plastic surgeon was diagnosed with cancer, and to declare

with exuberance "Another one bites the dtatr

117. Thereafter, Dr. Antell again composed a letter offering to

relieve that surgeon of his patients.

118. When Plaintiff informed Dr. Antell that one of his patients

began crying to Plaintiff because her husband had committed suicide by jumping

out of a window after making a bad investment, Dr. Antell looked at Plaintiff and

responded, without any trace of emotion, "He did the right thing"

119. In addition, on those occasions when a given female

employee (including Plaintiff, among others) was sick or not feeling well, Dr.

Antell often took advantage of the employee's weakened state by standing over

her and gratuitously hounding her.

23

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 31 of 53
120. In addition, upon information and belief, Dr. Antell ordered a

book through Amazon about medical experiments that the Nazis performed on

twins.

121. After telling Plaintiff that he had ordered this book through

Amazon, Dr. AnteU's face lit up and he told Plaintiff, in a tone of enthusiasm and

wide-eyed anticipation, about how he could not wait for the book to arrive.

122. In the same tone of excited anticipation, Dr. Antell told

Plaintiff that Nazi experimenters used to make people have sex with animals, and

that they injected people with bleach to see what would happen.

123. Upon further information and belief, such Nazi medical

experiments did not constitute legitimate medical science, and would not have

been necessary for Dr. Antell to study in order to further his clinical understanding

of medical issues relating to his patients who are twins.

124. With his record of blatant anti-Semitism, it seems

inconceivable that Dr. Antell's fervent interest in Nazi medical experiments

stemmed from any humanistic impulse on Dr. Antell's part to understand how

men could have committed such atrocities. Rather, under the circumstances it

seems very likely mat Dr. Antell's excitement about Nazi medical experiments

stemmed from his being enthralled with the very fact that Jews and other

supposedly undesirable people were subjected to cruel and bizarre medical

experimentation by the Nazis.

24

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 32 of 53
125. The fact that racial factors would likely affect Dr. AnteU'a

judgment in an extreme or unusual situation was also apparent from Dr. Antcll's

conduct following the attacks of September 11th.

126. Dr. Antell, who identifies himself as being Polish, showed

Plaintiff two gas masks he ordered in the event of a future terror attack, and told

Plaintiff "You don'/ get one. Eva [another employee] gets one because she '3

Polish."

127. The lurking fear of what could happen to the objects of Dr.

Aatell's discrimination (fin: example, Plaintiff) if workplace violence were to erupt

or some other unusual or threatening circumstance were to occur was also

heightened by the knowledge that Plaintiffs life and well-being had no value

whatsoever to Dr. Antell.

128. For example, when a patient furious with the outcome of her

surgery threatened violence against Plaintiff after Dr. Antell refused to speak to

her and locked himself in his office, Dr. Antell ignored Plaintiffs pleas for help

and left Plaintiff to fend for herself and bear the wrath that was intended for Dr.

Antell.

129. The danger did not subside until Plaintiff managed to

surreptitiously call the police, who came shortly thereafter to remove the patient,

after which time Dr. Antell emerged from his office and began grinning about the

perilous situation to which he had subjected Plaintiff.

25

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 33 of 53
130. Upon information and belief, Dr. Antcll would have

responded differently to the threat of violence if Plaintiff, instead of being a socalled "Code 3" (a Jew), was of a racial pedigree that Dr. Antell valued.

131. Plaintiff expected that Dr. Antell would again use her to

absorb the wrath of an angry patient if another such situation were to occur, and

Dr. Antell himself feared violence from one or more of hia other angry patients,

which is why he kept an apparently loaded handgun in his office.

132. Likewise, just as he thought Plaintiff should subject herself to

government monitoring by logging onto the KICK website so that he could receive

that organization's hate literature, Dr. Antell also thought that Plaintiff should

subject herself to potential federal prosecution and incarceration if doing so would

provide even a minimal benefit to Dr. Antell.

133. Specifically, when Dr. Antell learned through his attorneys

that Plaintiff was approached and questioned by federal agents about some of hia

business practices, and the agents warned her mat she could go to jail if she told

him they had questioned her, Dr. Antell told Plaintiff that she should have told him

anyway, even if it meant that she would go to jail.

26

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 34 of 53
Circumstance! Surrounding Plaintiff** Separation

from Employment

134. Dr. Antell. through lis counsel, volunteered to reimburse

Plaintiff and another employee for whatever legal fee* they incurred in connection

with their expected testimony in another matter involving Dr. Antell.

135. Plaintiff and the other employee each accepted Dr. AntelTs

offer.

136. Several months later, after Dr. Antell informed Plaintiff mat

she was to be replaced as office manager, another physician offered Plaintiff a job

with comparable compensation.

137. Plaintiff immediately accepted the offer and gave Dr. Antell

three week's notice.

138. When Plaintiff was preparing to depart the office at or about

5:00 pjn. on her last day of work, Dr. Antell approached her after she picked up

her purse, and said "not so fast"

139. He then held up a check in one hand and a purported release

in the other.

140. Dr. Antell told Plaintiff that the check was for fees charged

by the law firm mat represented Plaintiff in connection with the above-referenced

matter involving Dr. Antell (and which Dr. Antell had previously promised to

pay).

27

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 35 of 53
141. Looking at the purported release he was holding in his hand,

Dr. Antell told Plaintiff "Ifyou don't sign this form, this check's getting ripped up,

your attorney's fees -won't get paid, and you won'/ get your pay, or your pension

or anything else"

142. Plaintiff lacked the resources to file aiid prosecute a lawsuit

against Dr. Antell to receive her pay, her pension, or her reimbursement of legal

fees. Accordingly, she signed die purported release.

143. The purported release was and is invalid because, arnong

other tilings, it was procured through blatant economic coercion and duress.

28

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 36 of 53
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ("NYCHRL^ 6 8-107. at sea.

144. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1

-143 as if set forth herein.

145. At all times during her employment as referred to herein.

Plaintiff was an "employee" as that term is used in the New York City Human

Rights Law.

146. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unwelcome race-based,

religious-based and gender-based discrimination, intimidation, ridicule and insult.

147. While Dr. Antell subjected Plaintiff to such behavior in part

because he perceived her as weak, he did. on numerous occasions, subject other

female and minority employees to offensive speech, conduct and discrimination,

and such behavior added to the hostility of Plaintiff's work environment and

reinforced the sense that it was hopeless to think that Dr. Antell would ever cease

his hostile and discriminatory behavior.

148. In addition, while she was generally intimidated by Dr. Antell

and generally lacked the courage, confidence or fortitude to stand up for herself

and directly challenge him on his vile, misogynistic and discriminatory conduct, in

many instances Plaintiff clearly did express to Dr. Antell her disapproval to his

conduct, and she did so in a variety of ways, including, for example, by getting up

and walking away (e.g., when Dr. Antell told her to "Get the Jew on the phone'*),

29

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 37 of 53
by yelling at Dr. Antell (eg., after Dr. Antcll said that Ms. Hafter "even smells like

a Jcw?\ by refusing to follow Dr. Antell'* instructions (e.g., when she refused to

log onto the KKK's website), by defending herself against Dr. Aniell's retaliatory

accusations (e.g,, after Dr. Antell harassed her about supposed infractions of Dr.

AntelTs attendance policy), by pleading with Dr. Antell not to leave her in danger

(e.g., after Dr. Antell left Plaintiff to bear the risk of violence from an out-ofcontrol patient), by looking away (e.g., on the many occasions when Dr. Antell

placed his hands on his groin area, and the many occasions when Dr. Antell

partially undressed himself in her presence), by verbally telling Dr. Antell in

substance mat his behavior was inappropriate (e.g,t when she tried to get Dr.

Antell to stop his practice of speaking to her while she was going to the

bathroom), by responding in a tone of disapproval (on numerous occasions), and

by responding with facial gestures indicating her disapproval (on numerous

occasions).

149. Every one of the challenged statements and actions alleged

herein was made by Dr. Antell, the highest decision-maker of each of the other

Defendants.

150. The unwelcome conduct alleged herein was severe enough to

create an objectively hostile work environment and Plaintiff perceived it as such.

151. Said unwelcome conduct was also pervasive enough to create

a hostile work environment, and Plaintiff perceived it as such.

30

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 38 of 53
152. Said unwelcome speech and conduct was also sufficiently

frequent and ongoing throughout the duration of Plaintiff's employment as to

constitute a continuing violation.

153. As a result of said unwelcome conduct, Plaintiff experienced

intimidation, diminished self-esteem, fear, humiliation, embarrassment,

degradation, anxiety and feelings of anger, sadness and stress comparable to what

another Jewish female in Plaintiffs position would be expected to experience

under the circumstances described herein.

154. As the foregoing conduct violated NYCHRL § 8-107, et seq,,

Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined at trial, but which is believed to be not less man $1,000,000, together

with statutorily authorized punitive damages and attorneys fees. (NYCHRL § 8-

502)

155. In addition, in light of the willful, wanton and reckless nature

of Defendants' conduct as aforesaid, and the substantial public interest in deterring

and punishing such reprehensible conduct, punitive damages should be imposed

against Defendants under common law in an amount sufficient to punish

Defendants and to deter Defendants and other employers from engaging in similar

misconduct in the future.

31

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 39 of 53
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 8 1981

156. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegation* of paragraphs 1

- 155 as if set forth herein.

157. Dr. AntelTs racially discriminatory conduct as aforesaid

created a hostile work environment and deprived Plaintiff of an equal right to the

making, performance, modification, and termination of her at will employment

contract, and to the benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of said contractual

relationship.

158. As the perpetrator of such conduct. Dr. Antell is liable under

42 U.S.C § 1981 for his actionable conduct, as are each of the Defendants that

constituted Plaintiffs legal employer or legal joint employer.

159. A« a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an

amount to be determined at trial, but which is believed to be not less than

$1,000,000.

160. fin addition, in light of the willful, wanton and reckless nature

of Defendants' conduct as aforesaid, and the substantial public interest implicated

by Defendants' conduct, punitive damages should be imposed against Defendants

in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and to deter similar misconduct by

Defendants and other employers.

32

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 40 of 53
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in an amount to

be determined at trial, but which la believed to be not less than SI .000,000, plus

attorney's fees, punitive damages, interest and costs, computed as follows:

(a) On her first cause of action, in an amount to be determined at trial,

but which is believed to be not less than $1,000,000, together with

attorney's fees, costs, disbursements and interest at the legal rate,

and the imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to

punish Defendants and to deter similar misconduct by Defendants

and other employers;

(b) On her second cause of action, in an amount to be determined at

orial, but which is believed to be not less than $1,000,000, together

with attorney's fees, costs, disbursements and interest at the legal

rate, and the imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient

to punish Defendants and to deter similar misconduct by Defendants

and other employers; and

(c) such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

March 26,2007

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. LUCAS

The Lincoln Building - Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

(212) 573-6906

Attorneys for Plaintiff'Barbarp Rocbnore

Bv ^QjUaMT JJ^fA^^

Scott A. Lucas

33

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 41 of 53
-• r -m

STATE OF NEW YORK )

SS.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

BARBARA ROCKMQRE, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am the Plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Complaint, and

know the contents thereof; and (hat die same are true to my knowledge, except for

those matters stated to be on information and belief, and as to those matters, I

believe them to be true.

MJ& ^tit&jruQu.

BARBARA ROCKMORE

Sworn to before me this

26th day of Ninth 2007,

Notary Public

SCOTT LUCAS

Notary Public. Sau erf N«w Vtofk

No 03LU50490B1

Oualiflcd-in Kings County 3-..^

Commiuion Cxpira* SaptarafeM1 S. 00CTJ

34

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 42 of 53
"'.-; - ' Page2of2

IRS Circular 230 Notice; Any Mac advice in tfaiimemge or in any attachment (1) is not inmded or written to be wd, and

cannot be uwd, by any taxpayer for the poipow of avoiding toy tax poultiai that may be imposed by the IJLS. and (ii)

thould not be uaad in promoting, marketing or recommending to anofter party airy nutwaddrewcd herein.

4/272007

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 43 of 53
Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 44 of 53
1THfi A JL JL JS

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 45 of 53
LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Christina L. Feege, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BARBARA ROCKMORE, j Civil Action No.

Plaintiff, I

-against- j

DARRICK E. ANTELL, 1

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., I NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S. I FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and j

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C., |

I

i

Defendants.

TO: Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

Attorney for Plaintiff

The Lincoln Building - Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants in the action in the Supreme Court, State of

New York, have filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York on this 4th day of May 2007, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A copy of such

Notice is attached.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4, 2007 /

: .' !, /'/ - , ' ~

Christina Li Feege/(CL-1474)

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, New York 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 46 of 53
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BARBARA ROCKMORE,

Plaintiff,

-againstDARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS

I, Christina L. Feege hereby certify that on May 3, 2007, I caused a true and

correct copy of Defendants' Notice to State Court of Filing of Notice of Removal, Notice

of Removal of Civil Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (Federal Question), and Notice to

Adverse Party of Filing of Notice of Removal, to be served via Federal Express upon the

following:

Scott A. Lucas, Esq.

Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

Attorney for Plaintiff

The Lincoln Building - Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

(212) 573-6906

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Untied States of America

that the forgoing is true and correct.

Executed this 3rd day of May 2007 in New Yortf, New York.

. < . i /

Christina L. Feege (Cl-1474)

FtrT<wide:l2416210.1 054767.1001

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 47 of 53
BXHISrr 3

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 48 of 53
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

BARBARA ROCKMORE, |

Plaintiff,

-againstDARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

TO: Clerk of Court

Supreme Court of the State of New York

County of New York

60 Centre Street

New York, New York 10007

Index No. 06-118789

NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF

FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL

**vsr>t^

%>W

I\/OT^

^o^o

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 4, 2007, Defendants DARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

F.A.C.S. DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., and DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S.,

P.C., filed a Notice of Removal with the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York. A copy of the said Notice of Removal is annexed hereto.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4,2007

-^ \^s

Christina

/

IM/^

,. Feet

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Fax: 212.832.2719

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 49 of 53
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

STATE OF NEW YORK )

: ss:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

Christina L. Feege hereby affirms and states under penalty of perjury:

1. I am admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of New York. I am a

resident of the State of New York and am employed in New York, New York.

My business address is 885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, New York

10022. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-captioned

action.

2. On May 3, 2007,1 caused a true and correct copy of Defendants' Notice to State

Court of Filing of Notice of Removal, Notice of Removal of Civil Action Under

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (Federal Question), and Notice to Adverse Party of Filing of

Notice of Removal, to be served via Federal Express upon the following:

Scott A. Lucas, Esq.

Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

Attorney for Plaintiff

The Lincoln Building - Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

(212) 573-6906

3. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I understand

that if any of the foregoing is willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: New York, New York

May 3, 2007

Christian L

FtmwWt;82417377.1054767.1001

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 50 of 53
(IT 4

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 51 of 53
JS 44C/SDNY

REV. 12/2005 JVJOG V* *" Th.JS-4

E4

Sf\nS CIVIL COVERME0' 7* V (nVf

Th« J8-44 clvl cover «h««t and lh« Inter waHO" eo^te^»et>**»^ ^»'ff TpflM*

plMBdlngs or oltit" p*p«rt •• r«quu«d by !•• »«t»pl »t pte»tf»? t >

 ( sr»' l rwlr

JudlddConlcranc* ollh. Unix) st»l«l r- S»l>'»-!-«' l»'4 ti ..rtr.r 1-- *>*

Inlllillng lh« civil oockll lh»«l

raint«M«it!1Ml '--

SMtMkMCij" .•

||«Vl««r»ic»fll

HPW**»»ti«

tf9fi'Stn a»

3592

PLAINTIFFS

Barbara Rockmore

DEFENDANTS

DanME.'4r*" 0.

.IT M

iMUftiiFAC

Oanfcv.E.,

MlW,

|r4kE An'eH.MD, DO.S PC .

IjiJO D S . P C . F A C.S.;Darrick-E

Jod Oamck E Airten. MD, FACS.PC.

ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

Scott A. Lucas, Esq., 60 East 42nd Street

New York, NY 10165. (212) 573-6906

ATTORNEYS t'f KNOW)

Christina L Feege, Eiq.. Litt

885 3rd Ave - 16FI. New Yor

pr Mendelson, P.C.

<. NY 10022(212)583-9600

CAUSE OF ACTION (cne THE u s CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU AREH.*G A HP n»''E«B''iE'S'»'t(v€t'!i»c»usE)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981

Haa this or a similar case been previously died In SDNY at any time? NoB Yet? O .'_<7? P^evo-5 y Ass •5^

If yes. was INs case VolO Invol D Dismissed

(PLACE AN [x] IN ONE BOX ONLY)

NoD Yes D lives o'vetfsie

NATURE OF SUIT

*cr«o«» tmv)€«

**'""* ' ~ ' .'••. < f '• -' , 1 t , • .

!];.. .

|U;i

'•flj"^? 04^07 i

y ^. ~T~~~- 1

CASHlERj J

r OKFI nv»E» w«i rr l>»nm.»'CT OTH»» JT»TUIU

CONTRACT PERSONAL INJURY

| 1 110 INSURANCE 1 1 3«> AIRPLANE

| 1 120 MARINE 1 l»1» AIRPLANE PRODUCT

1 ) IN MILLER ACT LIABILITY

140 NEGOTIATE 1 1 '» ASSAULT. LIBEL «

INSTRUMENT SLANDER

| 1 190 RECOVERY OF I )3JO FEDERAL

OVERPAYMENT t EMPLOYERS

ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY

JUDGMENT | | 3« MARINE

| 1 151 MEDICARE ACT 1 1 '" MARINE PRODUCT

| 1 1S» RECOVERY OF LIABILITY

DEFAULTED 1 1 '*> MOTOR VEHICLE

STUDENT LOANS I | 35S MOTOR VEHICLE

(EXCL VETERANS) PRODUCT LIABILITY

| |1*3 RECOVERY OF 1) 3«0 OTHER PERSONAL

OVERPAYMENT OF INJURY

VETERANS BENEFITS

| | ISO STOCKHOLDERS SUITS

| 1 190 OTHER CONTRACT

j ) IIS CONTRACT PRODUCT

LIABILITY

| ) 1M FRANCHISE

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

REAL PROPERTY C'VIL R10HTS

|210 LAND CONDEMNATION 1 M" VOTING

(220 FORECLOSURE M«« EMPLOYMENT

1 230 RENT LEASE 4 1 1 443 HOUSINO

EJECTMENT ACCOMMODATIONS

) 240 TORTS TO LAND 1 1 444 WELFARE

) J4« TORT PRODUCT 1 1 445 AMERICANS WITH

LIABILITY DISABILITIES -

I )2M ALL OTHER EMPLOYMENT

REAL PROPERTY 1 ) 448 AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES -OTHER

| |440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS

Check f demanded In complaint:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P 23

DEMAND S 3,500,000 OTHER

PERSONAL INJURY i JfO AG-WCT.il 'V!

1 It ft fCCCIt*-.^

|)3«J PtRSONM IN.T.t»r j )»» P»lt5 •Ef'Ei;

MfDMM.PIWlCE !E!2VEC«

| )3«S PtRSONHJ, INJURY ' HHjU'ju'Mr

PRODUCT UABII1Y fl L'SC •«<

|)3S» ASBESTOS PERSON*!. ! ) «•» IC'.CIKJlS

INJURY PRODUCT 1 ] MO ""» 1 TH-;j'C:«

LIABILITY 1 ]*» A«LPi't "t'JS

I IfW OCtt'"«'1'Ci'i.»t

PERSONAL PROPERTY S.W E t • 'HE ti. ~"

| 1»«C CIVJH

I )370 OTHEHfRAUD

j J3H TRUTH IN LENDING

| |3SO OTM£« PEffSONAl LABOR

PROPERTY D»V»C£

|]J8i PROPtRT* D«.U<CE l)"f '"'"V*.*^0

PRODfCT LlABlf1» S'«.'O«.»T5 »C'

M '?? L»*C«.*'1SIW'

«H.«'-iCi>i'S i

I I'M L«*O».H*!J»r'

«t»t»*'iwa»

iwsciosn.'^t *c"

PRISONER PETITIONS

| J510 MOTIONS TO

VACATE SENTEKCE

3t USC JJ»

|SJO HABEAS CORPUS

]SJ5 DEATH PENALTY

) 540 MANDOJDUS t O-"-E R

J550 CIVIL RIIXTS

)555 PRISON OOHDITIOM

DO YOU CLAIM

IF SO, STATE

JUDGE

] ] no H».B.I1:»»L«,SiOP|».d

| 1'BP O^^iRL'SCIR

inmn'ioi1

! 1 t»i EVt-i »E«*C

KCXWIT ACT

H

 : r

• I I

•i t

' i 'i i

I '

" II «

'i J

1 p«J3 .«l»»t«.

:» "J5C '«

( P4J'} iVvr»<o»M''« »4

;t'j»c 'i'

PROWTYRXJHTS

I prjij .:c«-»»:-D"TS

S [*!C I'AfWT

!, ' t*7 "JintUAP*

»!XJ«. IKURTTY

1 1 w M-AC wn*»i

j (»n ftACKifcHortJii

1 rM3 !!••«•: '«(-sii ii

j [»!3 t^WI»(4C*,||

1 f*M ss<i3 rnti xvt

j f W8 »Sl «1S|fI>

m»»'. TAX«UT»

| | III "MSS

I JIM •»»rwiio«>*«TY

^'.rjww

; 1

-H.

 : i

i • ;

,|. j, i

: f ;' . M

•i

i^i: J

• ' '' i

|

1 1

( |4OT STATE

BHAPPORTHXMENT

1 |4t o ANnmuv

•( JIM iANKS t BANKING

| |4M COMVSRCE/ICC

PATES/fTC

( I«M DEPORTATION

| I4?0 RACKETEER INHU

ENCEO 4 CORRUPT

OHGANtfATWH ACT

IRICOI

[ |««0 CONSUMER CREDIT

| I 4*J CA8LE/SATEILITE TV

| |«'0 SELECTIVE SERVICE

1 | IM SECURITIES/

COVMOOITIEV

EXCHANGE

1 |«'5 CUSTOMER

CHALLENGE

1IUSC WtO

( I«t AGRICULTURE ACTS

I |»« ECONOWC

STASII2ATIONACT

I |tn ENVIRONMENTAL

MATTERS

( |l«4 ENERGY

ALLOCATION ACT

I |M1 FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT

[ \9K APICAL O* FEE

OCtlRMMATION

LWOER EQUAL ACCESS

IO JUSTICE

| )B»1 CON8IITUTIONALITY

' OF tr^ATE STATUTES

| |BH OTHtR STATUTORY

•U*TlB71At^

flBblHJfRl

' i 1 !

THIS CASE 'S RELATTEOTOACiVtCASE NOW PENDING IN SO N Y 7

i

! '

.1 i

1"

_J DCJijJKET NUMBER

Check YES only If demanded In complaint

JURY DEMAND: D YES 12 NO

• ' • 1

NOTE Please subnet a' the t"~e cl f t>q «f exp'srarjoiT ol »*y cases are deemed related

(SEE REVERSE)

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 52 of 53
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) ORIGIN

LJ 1 Original B 23. Rtmovid Iron L~D 3 R«m.r>s.s liom D 4 B»'"it«l»«

Proceeding Slvf* Court Appvilai* Ceu't R«er»*»tf

I I 2b. Removed ^om Stele Court

AND *t Kill on* perty ll • pro M M'Benl

ei Q 5 TramfcrnM

(SMd*M

(Pl>\ce*A/ x IN ONE BOX ONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION I

D 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF Q 2 US. DEFENDANT 03 3 FEDERAL QUESTION Q4 OfVERSTTV,

(US NOT A PARTY) l| i ' ;

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES

(Place an |X) In one box (or Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)

R TF DEF

CITIZEN OF THIS STATE ||1 |J 1 CITIZEN OR SUBJEC T Of A

FOREIGN COUNT**

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE (]} (]i INCORPORATE D or PBtMC '"«l PL*C t

OF BUSINESS IN THIS STAT E

(FOR DIVERSITY'

; ! *

"T Cl» i

1 ! J 1 1 * 1HCO

OFH

t n in «'t«1

•»- c

kh»

CASE:

M«C"»r

writs;

BK •, «T

6

c

9

«

>M

M'j't'SHMtl Q 7 App»l to Ollklcl

llngil-jr JudJ« »0f"

Mig'iMk Judg*

Ju<tmi'il

/F O/VBRSmr, INDICA TE

CITIZENSHIP BELOW.

(18 USC 1332. 1441)-

>NLY)

PTF OEF

^PRinCIPAl. PWCt ||S ||5

INO'HCK STATE

1 l« 1 l«

PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTRIES)

BARBARA ROCKMORE

C/0 LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. LUCAS

THE LINCOLN BUILDING - SUITE 1001

60 EAST 42ND STREET

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10165

(212)573-6906

NEW YORK COUNTY

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

DARRICK E. ANTELL, DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D . D.D.S.. PC . DARRICK E ANTELL. M D.. DOS . P.C . F A.C.S..

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D.. F.A.C.S. and DARRICK E ANTELL. M D . F.A.C.S.. PC

850 PARK AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021

(212) 988-4040

NEW YORK COUNTY

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN

REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT. AT THIS TIME. I HAVE BEEN UNABLE WTH REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE

RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS

Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: Q WHITE PLAINS

(DO NOT check either box If this a PRISONER PETITION )

B, FOLEY SQUARE

DATE

APRIL 4. 2007

RECEIPT*

Magistrate Judge

Magistrate Judge

J Michael McMah

SIGNATUr/E/OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD ADMTTOD TO PRA(

C,rM^ u&u^c.

^-^\\Ly K ABomnBwCo«f«*

'" . i

is to be designated by the Clerk of the Court j

; i ..

! i

on. Clerk of Court by Deputy Clerk. DATED ; L 1

i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN) j

i

I

i

TICE IN THIS DISTRICT

ntED MO ID Yr.fJT i

Ct-1474

> Designated.

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 53 of 53