Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No. .
COUNTY OF NEW YORK Date purchased:
----------------------------- ------ - -----------------X
EDNA SKINNER, Plaintiffdesignates:
NEW YORK County as the
Phintiff, place oftrial.
-against- The basis of the venue is .
Plaintiffs Residence
UNIFIED MARKETING LLC, FIRST AMMDED SUMMONS
PIRS CAPITAL, LLC, DANIEL LEDVEN, Plaintiffresides att
132nd
JACOB SHIMON, ALEXANDER PARSOL, 153 W Street, Apt. 5D
RUSSELL (last name currently unknown), KiOR New York, NY 10027
(lastname currently unknown), and
JAMES LAMBRIGHT a/k/a JIM LAMBRIGHT,
in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
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 corcplaint is not (served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the plaintiffs attorney within 20 days afterthe service of this sin==na, exclusive of
the day of service (orwithin 30 days a#er the service iscomplete ifthis summons isnot personally
delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer,
judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: Septenber 12, 2018
New York, New York .
Akin Law Group PLLC
/s/ Simi Bhutani
Simi Bhutani
Zafer A. Akin
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 825-1400
Facsimile: (212) 825-1440
simi dakinlaws.com
zafer(&akinlaws.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
1 of 23
.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
SUPREME COURT OFM STATE OE NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
...-------------------------..-------------------- ¬-X
EDNA SKINNER, Index No.
Plaintif1;
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded
UNIFIED MARKETING LLC,
PIRS CAPITAL, LLC, DANIEL LEDVEN,
JACOB SHIMON, ALEXANDER PARSOL,
RUSSELL (lastname currently unknown), IGOR
(lastname currently unknown), and
JAMES LAMBRIGHT a/kla JIM LAMBRIGHT,
in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
--------------------- X
Plaintiff Edna Skinner, by her attorneys, Akin Law Group PLLC, upon information and
belief; complains of the D4ndaz*s as follows:
1. Plaintiff Edna Skinner complains pursuant to the laws of the State of Neiv York and the
Ad±±"ative Code of the City of New York, seeking damages to redress the injuries
Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being of being sexually harassed, discriminated
against and retaliated against by her Tormer empbyer on the basis of her geirder/sex.
Upon complaining about the sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the
discrimination, the Plaintiff was sübjected to retaliation with further discrimination and
hostilities resulting in her wrongful ternisation.
2. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to the New York Labor Law Article 19 § 650; et
seq., New York Labor Law Article 6 §§ 190, et seq. ("NYLL"), 12 New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") § 142-2.2 to recover unpaid overtime wages and
(
2 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
Defendants'
spread-of-hours pay owed to Phintiff as well as dairages for failure to
furnish Phintiff with annual wage notices and wage statements as required under the
New York Labor Law.
3. Contemporaneously with the commencement of this action, a copy of this Complaint was
served both on the New York City Co=.ssion on Human Rights and the Office of the
Corpomfion Counsel of the of New York, the notice requirements
City thereby satisfying
of the New York City Administrative Code.
PARTIES
("Plaintiff"
4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Phintiff EDNA SKINNER or
"Plaintiff SKINNER") was and stillis a resident of the County ofNew York, State of
New York.
5. That at all times hereinafter mantianad, Defendant UNIFIED. MARKETING LLC
("UNIFIED MARKETING'¶ was and isa limited liabilitycompany duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the hws of the State of New York.
6. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING was and is a
limited liability company duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York.
7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING was and is
located at 40 Exchaiige Place, Suite 1606, New York NY 10Ò05.
8. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defend=t PIRS CAPITAL, LLC ("PIRS
CAPITÅL") was and is a anmestic limited liability company duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the hws of the State of New Yerk.
9. Thati at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL was and is a domestic
limited liabilitycompany duly aulliorize to conduct business in the State of New York.
3 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
10. That at all times hereinafter meiitioiled, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL was and is inthe
merchant cash advance and woëking capital business.
11. That at all times hereinafter meiitioiled, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL was and is located at
40 Fxchange Phee, Suite 1606, New York NY 10005.
12. Upon information and belie( Defendant DANIEL LEDVEN ("Dehdant LEDVEN") is
and was a resident ofthe State ofNew York.
13. That at alltimes hereinalter mentioned, Defendnnt LEDVEN was and is the owner and/or
has equity in Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defelidañt PIRS CAPITAL.
14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defeiidant LEDVEN was Plaintiff's supervisor
and/or manager during. her employment with Defendants.
15. That at all times hereiñãåer mentioned, Defeiidant LEDVEN possesses or possessed
operational control and policy making authority of Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING
and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
16. Defendant LEDVEN exercised the power and authority to hire and fire employees,
establish the rate and method of pay ofemployees, sign and issue paychecks, determine
work schedules, control labor relations and personnel policies, maintain employment
records and determine the terms and conditions ofempbyment of Phintiff SKINNER.
17. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Deandant LEDVEN isjointly and severally
liable for violations of the NYLL by Deniidaiit UNIFIED MARKETING and Deelidant
PIRS CAPITAL.
18. Upon information and belie( Defendant JACOB SHIMON ("Defendant SHIMON") is
and was a resident of the State ofNewYork.
4 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
19. That at all times herck;aner mentioned, Defendant SHIMON was and is the owner and/or
has equity in Deåñdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and Deferdent PIRS CAPITAL.
20. That at at times hereinafter mentioned, Deendant SHIMON was Plaintiff's supervisor
and/or rearsger during her empbyment with Defendants.
21. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant SHIMON possesses or possessed
operational control and policy making authority of Deññdañt UNIFIED MARKETING
and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
22. Defendäñt SHIMON exercised the power and authority to hire and fre employees,
establish the rate and method of pay of empbyees, sign and issue paychecks, determine
work schedules, control labor rehtions and personnel policies, maintain employment
records and determine the terms and condkbns of empbyment of Phintiff SKINNER.
23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant .SHIMON isjointly and severally
liable for viobtions of the NYLL by Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Deferdant
PIRS CAPITAL.
24. Upon information and beliet Defendant ALEXANDER PARSOL ("PARSOL") is and
was a resident of the State of New York.
25. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant PARSOL was and isthe owner and/or
has equity in Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
26. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendain PARSOL was Plaintiff s supervisor
and/or manager during her employment with Defendants.
27. That at alltimes hereinafter nentioned, Defendant PARSOL possesses or possessed
operational control and policy making of Deferdâñt UNIFIED MARKETING
authority
and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
5 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
28. Defendant PARSOL exercised the power and authority to hire and fre employees,
establish the rate and.method of pay of empbyees, sign and issue paychecks, determine
work schedules, control labor relations , and persoññel policies, maintain employment
records and determine the terms and coñditions of employment of Plaintiff SKINNER.
29. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant PARSOL is jointly and severally
liable forviolations of the NYLL by Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant
PIRS CAPITAL Upon information .and belief; Deâñdañt RUSSELL (lastname currently
unknown) ("Defendant RUSSELL") is and was a resident of the State of New York.
30. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant RUSSELL was and isthe owner
and/or has equity in Deandant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS
CAPITAL.
31. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Deâñdast RUSSELL was Plaintiff s supervisor
and/or manager during her empbyment with Defendants.
32. That at all times hereisafter mentioned, D4Mant RUSSELL possesses or possessed
operational control and policy making authority of Deandant UNIFIED MARKÈTING
and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
33. Defendant RUSSELL exercised the power and authority to hire and fre empbyees,
establish the rate and method of pay of empbyees, sign and issue paychecks, determine
work schedules, control labor relations and personnel policies, maintain empbyrnent
records and detennine the terms and conditions of employment of Plaintiff SKINNER.
34. That at alltimes hercinafter mentioñcd, D4ndent RUSSELL is jointly and severally
liable for violations of the NYLL by Defendart UNIFIED MARKETING and Defeiidañt
PIRS CAPITAL.
6 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
35. Upon. information. and belieL Defendant IGOR (hst name currently unknown)
("Defendant IGOR") isand was a resident of the State of New York.
36. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Deendant IGOR wds and is the owner and/or has
equity in Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and PIRS CAPITAL.
37. That at all times hereinafter ñieñtioned, Defendant IGOR was Phintiff's supervisor
and/or manager during her empbyment with Defendants.
38. ht at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Dehdant IGOR possesses or possessed
operational control and policy making authority of Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING
and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
39. Defendant IGOR exercised the power and authority to hire and fre employees, establish
the rate and method of pay of employees, sign and issue paychecks, determine work
scliedules, control labor relations and personnel policies, maintain employment records
and determine the terms and conditions of employment of Plaintiff SKINNER.
40. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defèñdant 1GOR isjointly and severally liable
for violations of the NYLL by Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Dehisñt PIRS
CAPITAL. .
41. Each Defendañt had substantial control over Plaintiff SKINNER'S conditions
working
and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
42. That at alltimes hereinafter Entioned, Deâñdañt JAMES LAMBRIGHT /k/a JIM
LAMBRIGHT ("Defendant LAMBRIGHT") was and h a esident of the State of New
York.
43. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Desñdañt LAMBRIGHT was and is employed
by Defendant WIFIED MARKETING.
7 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
44. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Denñdãñt LAMBRIGHT was and is employed
by Defendant PIRS CAPITAL.
45. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defeñdãñt LAMBRIGHT was and is a Senior
Funding Advisor / Broker with the Defendants.
46. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defeñdañt LAMBRIGHT worked with the
Defêñdants at 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1606, New York NY 10005.
47. That at alltimes herein relevant, Phintiff SKINNER has been an employee of Defendants
within the meaning of the NYLL.
48. That at all times herein relevant, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING, Desñdâñt PIRS
CAPITAL, Defendant LEDVEN, Défeñdeñt SHIMON, Defendant PARSOL, Defendant
RUSSELL, and Deññdãñt IGOR have been empbyers of Phintiff SKINNER within the
meaning of the NYLL.
49. At allrelevant times, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL,
Defendant LEDVEN, Deendant SHIMON, Defendant PARSOL, Defendant RUSSELL,
Defendant IGOR and Defendant LAMBRIGHT are collectively referred to as
"Defendants."
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
50. On or about July 2013, Plaintiff SKINNER conrñcñced employment with the
Defendants.
51. Plaintiff SKINNER was employed as a Senior Account Mmager / Telemarketer.
52. Plaintiff SKINNER's job duties and respnnaibilities, included but were not limited to
cold calling merchants to discuss the company and itsproduct.
53. Defendants paid Plaintiff SKINNER $481.00 per week plus commission.
8 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
54. Phintiff SKINNER was a non-exempt employee. She had no authority to hire, fre,
promote or discipline empbyees or otherwise control the terms and conditions of their
employment.
55. Plaintiff SKINNER worked for the Defendants at 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1606, New
York NY 10005.
56. During the entirety of her employment with Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and
Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER reguhrly worked from.890 a.m. to 690
p.m., five days per week, for approximately 50 hours per week. Approximately three
days per week, Plaintiff SKINNER worked from approximately 800 a.m. to 7:00 p.m,
for approximately 53 hours per week.
57. During the entirety of her empbyment with Defendañt UNIFIED MARKETING and
Deibñdañt PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER worked in excess of forty (40) hours per
work week, but was not paid overtime pay at the time-and-one-half rate for each hour
worked over 40.
58. During the entirety of her employment with Defeñdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and
Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER reguhrly worked over ten (10) hours in
a single shift,but was not paid spread-of-hours compensation.
59. During the entirety of her employment with Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and
Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNERwas not furnished with wage statements
listing the time period covered by each wage payment, hours worked,.rate of pay,
overtime rate of pay, overtime hours worked, deductions taken (i.e.,tax deductions) and
other information as required by the NYLL and supporting regulations.
9 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
60. During the entirety other employment with Defèñdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and
Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER was not furnished with a wage notice at
1st
the time of hiring or on or before February of each year, as required by the NYLL and
supporting reguhtions. During the course of Phintiff SKINNER's empbyment, the
DeL.ants subjected her to acts of sexual harassment, unhwful discrimination, unhwful
retaliation and unhwful empbyment practices.
61. In 2015, Plaintiff SKINNER returned from lunch and saw a Traders Express Deli $5 Off
Dick."
card at her desk. Next to the $5 Off in black marker was written ''Some
62. In approximately February 2016, Dafendant LAMBRIGHT told Plaintiff SKINNER, "I
"
have been waiting for you to say something, suck my dick
63. Plaintiff SKINNER was highly offended by Defcñdait LAMBRIGHT's inappropriate
sexual remark.
64. On or about February 5, 2016, Plaintiff SKINNER mustered the courage to cor hiñ to
(Defendants'
Andrew Mallinger HR), specifically writing, "I Edna Skinner have a
complaint to file against Jim Lambright. This individual told me to suck his dick and I
do."
feel very uncomfortable and need to know what to
65. No ramedh! action was taken in response to Plaintiff SKINNER's complaint of sexual
harassment.
66. Rather, the Defendants openly retaliated against Plaintiff SKINNER for having the gall to
complain in the firstplace.
67. Defbñdait LAMBRIGHT continued to farcract with Plaintiff SKINNER pn a daily basis .
(the two sat.very cbse to one another; and were not separated).
10 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
68. On or about March 1, 2016, Plaintiff SKINNER compkined of the harassment once
again - this to Mr. MaHinger and Daniel Ledven (a part-owner and Phintiff's
time,
immediate supervisor). Plaintiff SKINNER inforrsed the company that Defer-Jeet
LAMBRIGHT was stillbothering her and questioned why she isstiltgetting harassed by
Defendant LAMBRIGHT and nothing was done about it.
69. Once again, no remedial action was taken in response to Plaintiff SKINNER's corrplaiñt
ofharassment.
70. On or about April 1, 2016, Phintiff SKINNER was terminated.
71. Plaintiff SKINNER was terñ sted by theDeferdarta in retaliation for her coroplaints of
sexual harassment.
72. Phintiff SKINNER was terminated the Deferdants just one month after her second
by
formal complaint of discrimination.
73. The De¼ñdañts protected and, upon sincere information and belief; continue to employ
the male sexual harasser - Deândânt while terminated the female
LAMBRIGHT, they
sexual harassment victim - Plaintiff SKINNER.
74. Defendants uñlawfully harassed, discriminated against and retaliated against Plaintiff
75. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently hecause of her gender / sex.
76. Plaintiff's position at her job was intolerable as a result of the discrimination by the
Defendants to which she was subjected,. and no reasonable person in Plairitiff'sposition
could be expected to continue working under those conditions.
Deâñdañts'
77. unwanted hostile actions created a hostile working environment which no
reasonable person could be eg,ccted to tolerate.
11 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
78. Throughout Plaintiff s empbyment with the Defenda±, Phintiff would protest and
complain to Defendants about this unlawful conduct.
79. Despite said complaints and protests, Defendañts continued to unhwfully discriminate
against and harass the Phintiff
80. During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendads, Phintiff was and cowmued to be
regularly exposed to a discriminatory, offensive, and hostile work environment.
Defendants'
81. actions and conduct were intentional and intended to harm the Plaintiff.
82. A#er Phintiff protested to the Defendants, Plaintiff became the šübject of retaliation by
the Defendants.
83. The Plaintiff has been unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against, was humiliated,
and has been degraded and belittled; and as a resuk, suffers the loss of rights, emotional
distress, bss of income, earnings and sustained personal injuries.
84. As a result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiff felt extremely humiliated, degraded,
victimized, embarrassed and emotionally distressed.
85. As a resuk of the Defendm*s discriminatory and intolerable treatment, Plaintiff suffered
severe emotional distress.
86. As a result of the acts and còñdüct coñ-laiñcd of herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer the loss of income, the bss of a salary, bonuses, benef*s, and other
compensation which such employment entails, and Plaintiff has alsò suffered future
pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and
other non-pecuniary losses. Plaintiff has further experienced severe emotional and
physical distress.
12 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
87. As a resuk of the above, Phintiff has been dañmged in an amount which exceeds the
jurisdictional limits of all bwer Courts.
88. As Defeñdañts conduct has been willful, reckless, outrageous, intentional, and/or
malicious, Plaintiff also demands punitive damages in an amount which exceeds the
jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination in Vic'id:s of New York State Human Rights Law)
89. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in allof the preceding
paragraphs as if fullyset forth herein.
90. New York State Executive Law § 296 provides that itshall be unlav#ál "(a) For an
employer or licensing agency, because of the age, race, creed, cobr, national origin,
sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, genetic predisposition or carrier status,
or marital status of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge
fmm employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in
employment."
compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of
91. Deféndañts engaged in an uñlav#á1 discriminatory practice in viohtion ofthe New York
Executive Law by terminating the Plaintiff; creating and maintaining discriminatory
working conditions and discriminating. against the Plaintiff because of her geñder/sex.
92. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which
exceeds.the jurisdictional fimits.of bwer Courts.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Hostile Work Environment in Violation .ofNew York State.Human Rights Law)
93. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
13 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
94. Executive Law § 296 provides for a hostile work environment claim where Plaintiff
shows that her work enviroñmeñt involved serious or pervasive harassment... of such
quality or quantity that a reasonable empbyee would find the conditions of her
employment altered for the worse.
95. Phintiff found her work enviroñmeñt to involve serious or pervasive harassment based on
her gender.
96. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been dairaged in an amount which
exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all bwer Courts.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Vi n of New York State Human Rights Law)
97. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
98. New York State Executive Law § 2,96(7) provides that is shallbe an unlawful
discriminatory practice: "For any person erggiged in any activity to which this section
applies to retaliate or discriminate against any person because [s]he has opposed practices
article."
forbidden under this
99. Defendants engaged in an uriv al discriminatory practice by retaliating, continuing
and escalating . thediscrimination and hostile work environment to which the Plaintiff
was .subjected, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs
opposition to the urewful empbyment practices of Denndãin.
100. Defendants er.gaged in an uriv#al discriminatory practice by retaliating against the
DefêñdêMs'
Plaintiff for coñptining about violation of the New York State Executive
Law.
14 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
101. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Phintiff has been damaged in an amount which
exceeds the jurisdictional limits .of allbwer Courts.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrùrd=±r in Vieistisñ of New York Human Rights Law)
City
102. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
103. The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-10711] provides that,."It shall
be an unlawful discriminatory practice: "(a) For an empbyer or agent thereof because
of the actual or perceived age, race, creed, cobr, national origin, j¡q¡¡d,êr,disability,
marital status, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status of any person, to
refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to .discharge fmm cmplctment such person or to
discri=in=w against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges
ofemployment."
104. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory .practice in violation of the New
York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107(a) by terminating the Plaintif(
creating and maintaining discriminatory working condithns and discriminating against
the Plaintiff because of her gender.
105. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been daireged in an amount which
exceeds the jurisdictional limits of alllower Courts.
FIFI'H CAUSE OF ACTION
(Hostile Work Eñvimñment in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law)
106. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in allof the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
15 of 23
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018
107.. Pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code, a Phintiff can establish a hostile
work environment claim ifshe can show that was treated less well than other
employees because of her protected chss.
108. Plaintiff was treated less wel by the Defendants because of her gender.
109. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Phintiff has been damaged in an amount
which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of at lower Courts.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in ViGlatiõñ of New York City Human Rights Law)
110. Phintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in allof the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
111. The New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107(1)(e) provides that itshall
be an unlawful retaliâtory practice: "For an employer... to discharge... or otherwise
discriminate against any person because such person has opposed any practices
"
forbidden under thischapter..
112. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory. practice in violation of the New
York City Admjhispative Code Title 8, § 8-107(1)(e)by retaliating, continuing and
escalating the gender and disability discrimination and hostile work environment to
which the Phintiff was subjected, and otherwise discnminating against the Plaintiff .
because of Phintiff's opposition to the unlawful emphyment practices of Defendants
113. Defendants engaged in an unhwful discriminatory practice by retaliating against the
Defendants'
Plaintiff for making a complaint regarding violation of the New York
City Administrative Code.
114. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount
which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No. . COUNTY OF NEW YORK Date purchased: ----------------------------- ------ - -----------------X EDNA SKINNER, Plaintiffdesignates: NEW YORK County as the Phintiff, place oftrial. -against- The basis of the venue is . Plaintiffs Residence UNIFIED MARKETING LLC, FIRST AMMDED SUMMONS PIRS CAPITAL, LLC, DANIEL LEDVEN, Plaintiffresides att 132nd JACOB SHIMON, ALEXANDER PARSOL, 153 W Street, Apt. 5D RUSSELL (last name currently unknown), KiOR New York, NY 10027 (lastname currently unknown), and JAMES LAMBRIGHT a/k/a JIM LAMBRIGHT, in their individual capacities, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------X 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 corcplaint is not (served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiffs attorney within 20 days afterthe service of this sin==na, exclusive of the day of service (orwithin 30 days a#er the service iscomplete ifthis summons isnot personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Septenber 12, 2018 New York, New York . Akin Law Group PLLC /s/ Simi Bhutani Simi Bhutani Zafer A. Akin 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825-1400 Facsimile: (212) 825-1440 simi dakinlaws.com zafer(&akinlaws.com Counsel for Plaintiff 1 of 23 . FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 SUPREME COURT OFM STATE OE NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ...-------------------------..-------------------- ¬-X EDNA SKINNER, Index No. Plaintif1; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demanded UNIFIED MARKETING LLC, PIRS CAPITAL, LLC, DANIEL LEDVEN, JACOB SHIMON, ALEXANDER PARSOL, RUSSELL (lastname currently unknown), IGOR (lastname currently unknown), and JAMES LAMBRIGHT a/kla JIM LAMBRIGHT, in their individual capacities, Defendants. --------------------- X Plaintiff Edna Skinner, by her attorneys, Akin Law Group PLLC, upon information and belief; complains of the D4ndaz*s as follows: 1. Plaintiff Edna Skinner complains pursuant to the laws of the State of Neiv York and the Ad±±"ative Code of the City of New York, seeking damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being of being sexually harassed, discriminated against and retaliated against by her Tormer empbyer on the basis of her geirder/sex. Upon complaining about the sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the discrimination, the Plaintiff was sübjected to retaliation with further discrimination and hostilities resulting in her wrongful ternisation. 2. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to the New York Labor Law Article 19 § 650; et seq., New York Labor Law Article 6 §§ 190, et seq. ("NYLL"), 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") § 142-2.2 to recover unpaid overtime wages and ( 2 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 Defendants' spread-of-hours pay owed to Phintiff as well as dairages for failure to furnish Phintiff with annual wage notices and wage statements as required under the New York Labor Law. 3. Contemporaneously with the commencement of this action, a copy of this Complaint was served both on the New York City Co=.ssion on Human Rights and the Office of the Corpomfion Counsel of the of New York, the notice requirements City thereby satisfying of the New York City Administrative Code. PARTIES ("Plaintiff" 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Phintiff EDNA SKINNER or "Plaintiff SKINNER") was and stillis a resident of the County ofNew York, State of New York. 5. That at all times hereinafter mantianad, Defendant UNIFIED. MARKETING LLC ("UNIFIED MARKETING'¶ was and isa limited liabilitycompany duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the hws of the State of New York. 6. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING was and is a limited liability company duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING was and is located at 40 Exchaiige Place, Suite 1606, New York NY 10Ò05. 8. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defend=t PIRS CAPITAL, LLC ("PIRS CAPITÅL") was and is a anmestic limited liability company duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the hws of the State of New Yerk. 9. Thati at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL was and is a domestic limited liabilitycompany duly aulliorize to conduct business in the State of New York. 3 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 10. That at all times hereinafter meiitioiled, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL was and is inthe merchant cash advance and woëking capital business. 11. That at all times hereinafter meiitioiled, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL was and is located at 40 Fxchange Phee, Suite 1606, New York NY 10005. 12. Upon information and belie( Defendant DANIEL LEDVEN ("Dehdant LEDVEN") is and was a resident ofthe State ofNew York. 13. That at alltimes hereinalter mentioned, Defendnnt LEDVEN was and is the owner and/or has equity in Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defelidañt PIRS CAPITAL. 14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defeiidant LEDVEN was Plaintiff's supervisor and/or manager during. her employment with Defendants. 15. That at all times hereiñãåer mentioned, Defeiidant LEDVEN possesses or possessed operational control and policy making authority of Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 16. Defendant LEDVEN exercised the power and authority to hire and fire employees, establish the rate and method of pay ofemployees, sign and issue paychecks, determine work schedules, control labor relations and personnel policies, maintain employment records and determine the terms and conditions ofempbyment of Phintiff SKINNER. 17. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Deandant LEDVEN isjointly and severally liable for violations of the NYLL by Deniidaiit UNIFIED MARKETING and Deelidant PIRS CAPITAL. 18. Upon information and belie( Defendant JACOB SHIMON ("Defendant SHIMON") is and was a resident of the State ofNewYork. 4 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 19. That at all times herck;aner mentioned, Defendant SHIMON was and is the owner and/or has equity in Deåñdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and Deferdent PIRS CAPITAL. 20. That at at times hereinafter mentioned, Deendant SHIMON was Plaintiff's supervisor and/or rearsger during her empbyment with Defendants. 21. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant SHIMON possesses or possessed operational control and policy making authority of Deññdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 22. Defendäñt SHIMON exercised the power and authority to hire and fre employees, establish the rate and method of pay of empbyees, sign and issue paychecks, determine work schedules, control labor rehtions and personnel policies, maintain employment records and determine the terms and condkbns of empbyment of Phintiff SKINNER. 23. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant .SHIMON isjointly and severally liable for viobtions of the NYLL by Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Deferdant PIRS CAPITAL. 24. Upon information and beliet Defendant ALEXANDER PARSOL ("PARSOL") is and was a resident of the State of New York. 25. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant PARSOL was and isthe owner and/or has equity in Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 26. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendain PARSOL was Plaintiff s supervisor and/or manager during her employment with Defendants. 27. That at alltimes hereinafter nentioned, Defendant PARSOL possesses or possessed operational control and policy making of Deferdâñt UNIFIED MARKETING authority and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 5 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 28. Defendant PARSOL exercised the power and authority to hire and fre employees, establish the rate and.method of pay of empbyees, sign and issue paychecks, determine work schedules, control labor relations , and persoññel policies, maintain employment records and determine the terms and coñditions of employment of Plaintiff SKINNER. 29. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant PARSOL is jointly and severally liable forviolations of the NYLL by Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL Upon information .and belief; Deâñdañt RUSSELL (lastname currently unknown) ("Defendant RUSSELL") is and was a resident of the State of New York. 30. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defendant RUSSELL was and isthe owner and/or has equity in Deandant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 31. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Deâñdast RUSSELL was Plaintiff s supervisor and/or manager during her empbyment with Defendants. 32. That at all times hereisafter mentioned, D4Mant RUSSELL possesses or possessed operational control and policy making authority of Deandant UNIFIED MARKÈTING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 33. Defendant RUSSELL exercised the power and authority to hire and fre empbyees, establish the rate and method of pay of empbyees, sign and issue paychecks, determine work schedules, control labor relations and personnel policies, maintain empbyrnent records and detennine the terms and conditions of employment of Plaintiff SKINNER. 34. That at alltimes hercinafter mentioñcd, D4ndent RUSSELL is jointly and severally liable for violations of the NYLL by Defendart UNIFIED MARKETING and Defeiidañt PIRS CAPITAL. 6 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 35. Upon. information. and belieL Defendant IGOR (hst name currently unknown) ("Defendant IGOR") isand was a resident of the State of New York. 36. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Deendant IGOR wds and is the owner and/or has equity in Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and PIRS CAPITAL. 37. That at all times hereinafter ñieñtioned, Defendant IGOR was Phintiff's supervisor and/or manager during her empbyment with Defendants. 38. ht at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Dehdant IGOR possesses or possessed operational control and policy making authority of Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 39. Defendant IGOR exercised the power and authority to hire and fre employees, establish the rate and method of pay of employees, sign and issue paychecks, determine work scliedules, control labor relations and personnel policies, maintain employment records and determine the terms and conditions of employment of Plaintiff SKINNER. 40. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Defèñdant 1GOR isjointly and severally liable for violations of the NYLL by Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Dehisñt PIRS CAPITAL. . 41. Each Defendañt had substantial control over Plaintiff SKINNER'S conditions working and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein. 42. That at alltimes hereinafter Entioned, Deâñdañt JAMES LAMBRIGHT /k/a JIM LAMBRIGHT ("Defendant LAMBRIGHT") was and h a esident of the State of New York. 43. That at alltimes hereinafter mentioned, Desñdañt LAMBRIGHT was and is employed by Defendant WIFIED MARKETING. 7 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 44. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Denñdãñt LAMBRIGHT was and is employed by Defendant PIRS CAPITAL. 45. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defeñdãñt LAMBRIGHT was and is a Senior Funding Advisor / Broker with the Defendants. 46. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defeñdañt LAMBRIGHT worked with the Defêñdants at 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1606, New York NY 10005. 47. That at alltimes herein relevant, Phintiff SKINNER has been an employee of Defendants within the meaning of the NYLL. 48. That at all times herein relevant, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING, Desñdâñt PIRS CAPITAL, Defendant LEDVEN, Défeñdeñt SHIMON, Defendant PARSOL, Defendant RUSSELL, and Deññdãñt IGOR have been empbyers of Phintiff SKINNER within the meaning of the NYLL. 49. At allrelevant times, Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING, Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Defendant LEDVEN, Deendant SHIMON, Defendant PARSOL, Defendant RUSSELL, Defendant IGOR and Defendant LAMBRIGHT are collectively referred to as "Defendants." FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 50. On or about July 2013, Plaintiff SKINNER conrñcñced employment with the Defendants. 51. Plaintiff SKINNER was employed as a Senior Account Mmager / Telemarketer. 52. Plaintiff SKINNER's job duties and respnnaibilities, included but were not limited to cold calling merchants to discuss the company and itsproduct. 53. Defendants paid Plaintiff SKINNER $481.00 per week plus commission. 8 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 54. Phintiff SKINNER was a non-exempt employee. She had no authority to hire, fre, promote or discipline empbyees or otherwise control the terms and conditions of their employment. 55. Plaintiff SKINNER worked for the Defendants at 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1606, New York NY 10005. 56. During the entirety of her employment with Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER reguhrly worked from.890 a.m. to 690 p.m., five days per week, for approximately 50 hours per week. Approximately three days per week, Plaintiff SKINNER worked from approximately 800 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, for approximately 53 hours per week. 57. During the entirety of her empbyment with Defendañt UNIFIED MARKETING and Deibñdañt PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work week, but was not paid overtime pay at the time-and-one-half rate for each hour worked over 40. 58. During the entirety of her employment with Defeñdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER reguhrly worked over ten (10) hours in a single shift,but was not paid spread-of-hours compensation. 59. During the entirety of her employment with Defendant UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNERwas not furnished with wage statements listing the time period covered by each wage payment, hours worked,.rate of pay, overtime rate of pay, overtime hours worked, deductions taken (i.e.,tax deductions) and other information as required by the NYLL and supporting regulations. 9 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 60. During the entirety other employment with Defèñdañt UNIFIED MARKETING and Defendant PIRS CAPITAL, Phintiff SKINNER was not furnished with a wage notice at 1st the time of hiring or on or before February of each year, as required by the NYLL and supporting reguhtions. During the course of Phintiff SKINNER's empbyment, the DeL.ants subjected her to acts of sexual harassment, unhwful discrimination, unhwful retaliation and unhwful empbyment practices. 61. In 2015, Plaintiff SKINNER returned from lunch and saw a Traders Express Deli $5 Off Dick." card at her desk. Next to the $5 Off in black marker was written ''Some 62. In approximately February 2016, Dafendant LAMBRIGHT told Plaintiff SKINNER, "I " have been waiting for you to say something, suck my dick 63. Plaintiff SKINNER was highly offended by Defcñdait LAMBRIGHT's inappropriate sexual remark. 64. On or about February 5, 2016, Plaintiff SKINNER mustered the courage to cor hiñ to (Defendants' Andrew Mallinger HR), specifically writing, "I Edna Skinner have a complaint to file against Jim Lambright. This individual told me to suck his dick and I do." feel very uncomfortable and need to know what to 65. No ramedh! action was taken in response to Plaintiff SKINNER's complaint of sexual harassment. 66. Rather, the Defendants openly retaliated against Plaintiff SKINNER for having the gall to complain in the firstplace. 67. Defbñdait LAMBRIGHT continued to farcract with Plaintiff SKINNER pn a daily basis . (the two sat.very cbse to one another; and were not separated). 10 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 68. On or about March 1, 2016, Plaintiff SKINNER compkined of the harassment once again - this to Mr. MaHinger and Daniel Ledven (a part-owner and Phintiff's time, immediate supervisor). Plaintiff SKINNER inforrsed the company that Defer-Jeet LAMBRIGHT was stillbothering her and questioned why she isstiltgetting harassed by Defendant LAMBRIGHT and nothing was done about it. 69. Once again, no remedial action was taken in response to Plaintiff SKINNER's corrplaiñt ofharassment. 70. On or about April 1, 2016, Phintiff SKINNER was terminated. 71. Plaintiff SKINNER was terñ sted by theDeferdarta in retaliation for her coroplaints of sexual harassment. 72. Phintiff SKINNER was terminated the Deferdants just one month after her second by formal complaint of discrimination. 73. The De¼ñdañts protected and, upon sincere information and belief; continue to employ the male sexual harasser - Deândânt while terminated the female LAMBRIGHT, they sexual harassment victim - Plaintiff SKINNER. 74. Defendants uñlawfully harassed, discriminated against and retaliated against Plaintiff 75. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently hecause of her gender / sex. 76. Plaintiff's position at her job was intolerable as a result of the discrimination by the Defendants to which she was subjected,. and no reasonable person in Plairitiff'sposition could be expected to continue working under those conditions. Deâñdañts' 77. unwanted hostile actions created a hostile working environment which no reasonable person could be eg,ccted to tolerate. 11 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 78. Throughout Plaintiff s empbyment with the Defenda±, Phintiff would protest and complain to Defendants about this unlawful conduct. 79. Despite said complaints and protests, Defendañts continued to unhwfully discriminate against and harass the Phintiff 80. During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendads, Phintiff was and cowmued to be regularly exposed to a discriminatory, offensive, and hostile work environment. Defendants' 81. actions and conduct were intentional and intended to harm the Plaintiff. 82. A#er Phintiff protested to the Defendants, Plaintiff became the šübject of retaliation by the Defendants. 83. The Plaintiff has been unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against, was humiliated, and has been degraded and belittled; and as a resuk, suffers the loss of rights, emotional distress, bss of income, earnings and sustained personal injuries. 84. As a result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiff felt extremely humiliated, degraded, victimized, embarrassed and emotionally distressed. 85. As a resuk of the Defendm*s discriminatory and intolerable treatment, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. 86. As a result of the acts and còñdüct coñ-laiñcd of herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of income, the bss of a salary, bonuses, benef*s, and other compensation which such employment entails, and Plaintiff has alsò suffered future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. Plaintiff has further experienced severe emotional and physical distress. 12 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 87. As a resuk of the above, Phintiff has been dañmged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all bwer Courts. 88. As Defeñdañts conduct has been willful, reckless, outrageous, intentional, and/or malicious, Plaintiff also demands punitive damages in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Vic'id:s of New York State Human Rights Law) 89. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in allof the preceding paragraphs as if fullyset forth herein. 90. New York State Executive Law § 296 provides that itshall be unlav#ál "(a) For an employer or licensing agency, because of the age, race, creed, cobr, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or marital status of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge fmm employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in employment." compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of 91. Deféndañts engaged in an uñlav#á1 discriminatory practice in viohtion ofthe New York Executive Law by terminating the Plaintiff; creating and maintaining discriminatory working conditions and discriminating. against the Plaintiff because of her geñder/sex. 92. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds.the jurisdictional fimits.of bwer Courts. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Hostile Work Environment in Violation .ofNew York State.Human Rights Law) 93. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 13 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 94. Executive Law § 296 provides for a hostile work environment claim where Plaintiff shows that her work enviroñmeñt involved serious or pervasive harassment... of such quality or quantity that a reasonable empbyee would find the conditions of her employment altered for the worse. 95. Phintiff found her work enviroñmeñt to involve serious or pervasive harassment based on her gender. 96. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been dairaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all bwer Courts. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Vi n of New York State Human Rights Law) 97. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 98. New York State Executive Law § 2,96(7) provides that is shallbe an unlawful discriminatory practice: "For any person erggiged in any activity to which this section applies to retaliate or discriminate against any person because [s]he has opposed practices article." forbidden under this 99. Defendants engaged in an uriv al discriminatory practice by retaliating, continuing and escalating . thediscrimination and hostile work environment to which the Plaintiff was .subjected, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs opposition to the urewful empbyment practices of Denndãin. 100. Defendants er.gaged in an uriv#al discriminatory practice by retaliating against the DefêñdêMs' Plaintiff for coñptining about violation of the New York State Executive Law. 14 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 101. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Phintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits .of allbwer Courts. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrùrd=±r in Vieistisñ of New York Human Rights Law) City 102. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 103. The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-10711] provides that,."It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: "(a) For an empbyer or agent thereof because of the actual or perceived age, race, creed, cobr, national origin, j¡q¡¡d,êr,disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to .discharge fmm cmplctment such person or to discri=in=w against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges ofemployment." 104. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory .practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107(a) by terminating the Plaintif( creating and maintaining discriminatory working condithns and discriminating against the Plaintiff because of her gender. 105. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been daireged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of alllower Courts. FIFI'H CAUSE OF ACTION (Hostile Work Eñvimñment in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law) 106. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in allof the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 15 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/17/2018 07:37 PM INDEX NO. 160582/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/17/2018 107.. Pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code, a Phintiff can establish a hostile work environment claim ifshe can show that was treated less well than other employees because of her protected chss. 108. Plaintiff was treated less wel by the Defendants because of her gender. 109. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Phintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of at lower Courts. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in ViGlatiõñ of New York City Human Rights Law) 110. Phintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in allof the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 111. The New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107(1)(e) provides that itshall be an unlawful retaliâtory practice: "For an employer... to discharge... or otherwise discriminate against any person because such person has opposed any practices " forbidden under thischapter.. 112. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory. practice in violation of the New York City Admjhispative Code Title 8, § 8-107(1)(e)by retaliating, continuing and escalating the gender and disability discrimination and hostile work environment to which the Phintiff was subjected, and otherwise discnminating against the Plaintiff . because of Phintiff's opposition to the unlawful emphyment practices of Defendants 113. Defendants engaged in an unhwful discriminatory practice by retaliating against the Defendants' Plaintiff for making a complaint regarding violation of the New York City Administrative Code. 114. That as a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.