Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
-against-
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Phillips & Associates, PLLC hereby complains of the
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff complains pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42
U.S.C. 2000e et. Seq. (Title VII) and to remedy violations of the Executive Law of the
State of New York and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, based upon the
supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Gibb, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) and 28 U.S.C.
1367, seeking damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being
harassed and discriminated against by the Defendants on the basis of her sex/gender,
pregnancy, actual and/or perceived disability, and caregiver status, failure to engage in the
interactive process, together with creating a hostile work environment and unlawful
termination.
1
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
2. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343 and supplemental jurisdiction
thereto.
4. Venue is proper in this district based upon the fact that a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within the Eastern District of the State of New
5. On or about November 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
6. On or about April 21, 2017, Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.
7. This action is being brought within ninety (90) days of said Notice of Right to Sue letter.
PARTIES
individually and d/b/a STAGG STREET CENTER FOR CHILDREN (hereinafter also
10. Defendant STAGG STREET is a day care facility located at 77-83 Stagg Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11206.
11. At all times material, Defendant IRMA VARNER (hereinafter also referred to as
12. At all times material, Defendant VARNER was and is an employee of Defendant STAGG
STREET.
2
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
13. At all times material, Defendant VARNER was Plaintiffs supervisor and/or had supervisory
14. At all times material, ROBERT CAMACHO (hereinafter also referred to as CAMACHO)
15. At all times material, Defendant CAMACHO was and is an employee of Defendant STAGG
STREET.
16. At all times material, Defendant CAMACHO was Plaintiffs supervisor and/or had
17. At all times material, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant STAGG STREET.
MATERIAL FACTS
18. On or about July 5, 2015, Plaintiff began working as a Junior Counselor at Defendant
STAGG CENTERs 77-83 Stagg Street, Brooklyn, NY 11206 location for the summer.
Plaintiffs duties included supervising children, teaching them how to read, and providing
feedback to parents about their childrens progress. Plaintiff was praised for her performance
throughout her summer working for Defendant STAGG STREET. As a result, Defendant
STAGG STREETs Director, Rhonda Webb, asked Plaintiff to interview for a full-time
19. In or around the end of April 2016, Plaintiff returned to Defendant STAGG STREET for an
Defendant STAGG STREETs Vice Chairperson, Defendant CAMACHO, Ms. Webb, and
a faculty member (name currently unknown). Plaintiff was five months pregnant at the time.
3
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
20. During the interview, Defendant VARNER asked Plaintiff to talk about herself and her
qualifications. Plaintiff did not immediately disclose her pregnancy to Defendant VARNER
21. On or about May 25, 2016, Plaintiff was hired as a full-time Teacher Aid for Defendant
STAGG STREET.
22. Plaintiff continued to receive praise for her performance from her supervisor, Ms. Webb, as
23. On or about June 13, 2016, Plaintiff met with Defendant VARNER and inquired about the
companys policy and procedures for maternity leave. Plaintiff then informed Defendant
VARNER that she was pregnant and her due date was on August 28, 2016. Defendant
disappointed to hear this. If you had mentioned your pregnancy the day of your
interview, I would have made a different decision. I need workers who can work.
Plaintiff was humiliated and explained, I was afraid to talk about it then, I didnt want to be
discriminated against. Defendant VARNER replied, I understand, but I still need people
to work. Again, I am disappointed. I dont know what to say at this moment. I will get
24. The next day, Defendant VARNER and Defendant CAMACHO called Plaintiff into a
meeting. Defendant VARNER and Defendant CAMACHO then gave Plaintiff a termination
letter effective June 17, 2016. When Plaintiff asked why she was being terminated, she was
informed that her request for leave information would not be entertained due to her purported
probationary status. Plaintiff was terminated a mere one (1) day after revealing her
pregnancy to Defendant.
4
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
25. Defendant CAMACHO clarified that Plaintiff would have been terminated for her pregnancy
status even after completing her probationary status. When Plaintiff asked, What would
have happened if I waited til (sic) August to say, Defendant CAMACHO interrupted,
You would have left, we would have terminated you. Then you really cant get a job.
Because under the FMLA we cant, we gotta terminate you, cause we need you here.
26. Plaintiff rebutted stating that she had a normal pregnancy, and she could continue working
until her due date. Plaintiff again asked, So theres no way I could even finish like
27. Defendant VARNER and Defendant CAMACHO then told Plaintiff that she could re-apply
for a position with Defendant STAGG STREET after giving birth, if one was available at the
regarding her childcare and caregiving responsibilities once her baby was born.
28. For example, Defendant CAMACHO told Plaintiff, When you give birth and you come
back, and theres a position, you come back but make sure youre ready to complete
your probation. Defendant VARNER said, Make sure that you have someone whos
gonna be able to take care of the baby, because youre gonna be in and out, in and out,
29. Defendant CAMACHO also informed Plaintiff that she (Plaintiff) would have been
terminated if she had hidden her pregnancy until her due date. Defendant CAMACHO said,
It would have been worse if you had said nothing, because you would have stayed here
until August, you would have given birth, and you didnt pass your probation, then
wed have to terminate you, and then you would have never come back.
5
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
30. Plaintiff would not have been terminated but for her pregnancy.
31. On or about June 15, 2016, the next day, Plaintiff requested another meeting with Defendant
VARNER to understand why she could not continue to work until her due date. Defendant
VARNER informed Plaintiff that her termination was a final decision. Defendant VARNER
also said, I was deceived Plaintiff replied, So had I not mentioned my pregnancy, I
32. Defendant VARNER then stated, Well one of the things we asked you is tell us
something about yourself, and you told us everything you wanted us to know, you
didnt say, Im pregnant. Plaintiff replied, It was so early, and Im not entitled to share
that with anyone. Defendant VARNER then said, I guess if we had even noticed, you
know
33. On or about June 17, 2016, Defendant VARNER and Ms. Webb called Plaintiff into another
meeting. Ms. Webb was also in attendance. Realizing that they had acted unlawfully by
terminating Plaintiff, Defendant VARNER informed Plaintiff that she had spoken to the
other members of the board, and that Plaintiff would be permitted to continue working until
her due date. Nevertheless, Defendant VARNER continued to harass Plaintiff about her
pregnancy.
34. For example, Defendant VARNER said, I felt in the beginning from the way it went on
that I was deceived and the board was deceived by how it was handled, and um, so and
as you told me, we didnt have to know but it would have been nice of you to mention it
[Plaintiffs pregnancy] and we would have known where we were with you and you
would have known where we were with yourself, cause as you said, you gave up a part-
time job and you came here. If we had known you would nowand we didnt hire
6
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
you, you would not have given up your part-time job. You would have kept your part-
time job, you know. It was a deceive (sic) there. I was deceived and you deceived
yourself. Plaintiff was offended and replied that she did not feel that she deceived her
35. Defendant VARNER then said, We felt that you deceived us because you didnt mention
your pregnancy. And you didnt have to mention it, I understand that, you didnt have
to mention it but if I had known, I probably would not have even interviewed you, if I
had known we was (sic) bringing on someone pregnant. We need workers, we need
people who can work. I understand that you are a good worker but we cannot hire
36. Defendant VARNER then began to harass Plaintiff regarding her ability to provide care to
37. In a conversation Plaintiff recorded, Defendant VARNER stated, Now youre gonna have
a situation with the baby. When the baby comes, youre still gonna have to be here,
when its time for you to be at work, you need to be here. Cause that will cause another
problem, and theyre gonna be watching. Plaintiff clarified that she could work after the
38. Nevertheless, Defendant VARNER continued, Whos gonna take the baby to the doctors,
cause you know the baby needs to get injections, and checks, and treatments? Ms.
39. At the end of their conversation, Defendant VARNER added, I was honestly shocked, I
7
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
40. Plaintiff was humiliated and she felt that she would continue to experience harassing
comments about her pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities throughout her employment
42. Defendants terminated Plaintiff because they perceived her as disabled (due to her
pregnancy).
43. Defendants terminated Plaintiff because she put them on notice that she would need a
reasonable accommodation.
45. Although Defendants offered Plaintiff her job back, Defendants created a hostile work
47. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff felt, and continues to feel, extremely humiliated,
48. As a result of the Defendants discriminatory and intolerable treatment of Plaintiff, she
49. As a result of the acts and conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer the loss of income, the loss of a salary, bonuses, benefits and other
compensation which such employment entails, and Plaintiff has also suffered future
pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and
50. As Defendants conduct has been malicious, willful, outrageous, and conducted will full
8
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
51. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation made in the above
52. This claim is authorized and instituted pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 2000e et Seq., as amended, for relief based upon
53. Plaintiff complains of Defendants violation of Title VIIs prohibition against discrimination
54. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above
55. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) provides that it
Seq. by discriminating against Plaintiff with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of
9
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
57. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
58. Executive Law 296 provides that 1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For
an employer or licensing agency, because of the sex, pregnancy [or] disability of any
privileges of employment.
Plaintiff because of her sex, actual and/or perceived disability, pregnancy, together with
60. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above
61. New York State Executive Law 296(7) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory
practice:
For any person engaged in any activity to which this section applies to retaliate or
discriminate against any person because he has opposed any practices forbidden under
this article.
10
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
63. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
64. New York Executive Law 296(6) provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice,
For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any acts forbidden under this
65. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of New York State
Executive Law 296(6) by aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling and coercing the discriminatory
conduct.
66. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
67. The Administrative Code of City of NY 8-107(1) provides that It shall be an unlawful
discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the
68. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of New York City
conditions, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of her gender, pregnancy
11
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
69. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
70. New York City Administrative Code Title 8-107(7) provides that:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person in any activity to which this
chapter applies to retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any person because such
person has (i) opposed any practice forbidden under this chapter, (ii) filed a complaint,
testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter, (iii) commenced a civil action
alleging the commission of an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice
under this chapter
71. Defendants engaged in an unlawful and retaliatory practice by retaliating, and otherwise
discriminating against the Plaintiff because she opposed Defendants unlawful employment
actions.
A. Declaring that Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the New York Executive Law and the New
York City Administrative Code that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis
of her sex/gender, pregnancy, actual and/or perceived disability, and caregiver status,
together with failure to engage in the interactive process, creating a hostile work
B. Awarding damages to the Plaintiff, retroactive to the date of discharge, for all lost wages and
benefits, past and future, back pay and front pay, resulting from Defendants unlawful
discharge and to otherwise make Plaintiff whole for any losses suffered as a result of such
12
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1-1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1-2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 16
Yariza Martinez )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-3401
)
Bushwick Improvement Society, Inc., individually and )
d/b/a "Stagg Street Center For Children," Irma )
Varner, individually, and Robert Camacho, )
individually, )
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendants name and address) Bushwick Improvement Society, Inc. d/b/a
"Stagg Street Center for Children," Via Secretary of State
Irma Varner, via Place of Employment
77-83 Stagg Street, Brooklyn, NY 11206
Robert Camacho, via Place of Employment
77-83 Stagg Street, Brooklyn, NY 11206
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Silvia C. Stanciu, Esq.
Phillips & Associates, PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 620
New York, NY 10006
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:17-cv-03401-LDH-RML Document 1-2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address