Preview
INDEX NO. 151646/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/25/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ao+. nennnn, -X Plaintiff Designates
RAJIV RAMIJAS, NEW YORK COUNTY
As the Place of Trial
Plaintiff,
-against- SUMMONS
PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX The basis of the venue is
WHOLESOME FOODS, 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, Defendants’ Principle Place of
LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE Business located at:
BAKE CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME 520 Eighth Avenue
FOODS, EDEL LUCERO, individually, and New York, New York 10018
ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, individually,
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 complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a
notice of appearance, on the plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of 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 case
of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the
inconvenience relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: February 25, 2014
New York, New York
The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer
By a
Jacob Aronauer
225 Broadway, Suite 307
New York, NY 10007
T: (212) 323-6980
F: (212) 233-9238
jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Defendants' Addresses:
PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and
d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS
~ Via Secretary of State
520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, LLC, individually and
d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE CORP, and
d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS,
~ Via Secretary of State
ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS.
~ Via Place of Employment
1776 Broadway, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10019
EDEL LUCERO
~ Via Place of Employment located at:
520 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
xX
RAJIV RAMJAS,
Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX Plaintiff Demands a Trial
WHOLESOME FOODS, 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, By Jury
LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE
CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS,
EDEL LUCERO, individually, and ALEXANDER
XENOPOULOS, individually,
Defendants.
aoe
Plaintiff by his attorneys, The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer, hereby complains of the
Defendants, upon information and belief, as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Rajiv Ramjas (“Plaintiff”), complains pursuant to the laws of the State of New York
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, seeking damages to redress the
injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being harassed and discriminated against by his
former employer on the basis of his actual and/or perceived race, color, national origin, and
religion, together with retaliation and unlawful termination.
Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Queens.
Plaintiff is of Guyanese national origin, of dark skin color, of Native American Race, and of
the Christian religion.
At all times material, Defendant PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX
WHOLESOME FOODS, (herein also referred to as “PAX VENTURES”) was and is a
domestic limited liability company, duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New
York.
At all times material, Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, LLC, individually and d/b/a 520
EIGHTH AVE BAKE CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, (herein also referred
to as “520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE”) was and is a domestic limited liability company, duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.
Defendant PAX VENTURES and Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE are also herein
collectively referred to as “PAX WHOLESOME FOODS.”
At all times material, Defendant ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS (herein also referred to as
“XENOPOULOS”) was and is the owner of Defendant PAX VENTURES.
At all times material, Defendant XENOPOULOS was and is the owner of Defendant 520
EIGHTH AVE BAKE.
At all times material, Defendant EDEL LUCERO (herein also referred to as “LUCERO”)
was and is a resident of the State of New York.
10. At all times material, Defendant LUCERO was and is an employee of Defendants PAX
WHOLESOME FOODS.
11. Defendant PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, Defendant LUCERO, and Defendant
XENOPOULOS are also herein collectively referred to as “Defendants.”
12. At all times material, Plaintiff was an employee for Defendants.
13. At all times material, Defendant LUCERO was Plaintiffs supervisor and/or had supervisory
authority over Plaintiff.
MATERIAL FACTS
14. On or about March 16, 2011, Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a “Food Handler” at
Defendant Pax’s 303 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016 location.
15. Defendant Lucero did not interview Plaintiff for the position of “Food Handler.” Defendant
LUCERO also did not have any influence on whether Plaintiff was hired by Defendant PAX.
16. Shortly thereafter, in or around April 2011, Plaintiff was trasnsferred to Defendants’ 520
Eighth Avenue New York City location. Defendant LUCERO became Plaintiff's immediate
supervisor.
17 Defendant Lucero is of Spanish origin.
18 Immediately after Plaintiff's transfer, Defendant LUCERO as the Plaintiffs immediate
supervisor began to harass an discriminate against Plaintiff.
19. On a near daily basis, Defendant LUCERO would make a comment and/or reference to the
fact that Plaintiff was “not Spanish.”
20. By way example, Defendant LUCERO would tell Plaintiff, “You’re [Plaintiff] not Spanish.
You can’t work like us [Spanish]” and “We’re [Spanish] stronger. We’re [Spanish] smarter.
We’re [Spanish] faster.”
21 Defendant LUCERO would also tell Plaintiff, “You can’t work like Spanish people. You’re
lazy.”
22 In addition to this abusive behavior, Defendant LUCERO also sought to embarrass Plaintiff
in front of other employees and customers. This included blaming Plaintiff for incidents that
were not his fault but, rather, the fault of Plaintiff's Hispanic co-workers. For example, one
of Plaintiff's co-workers failed to turn off an oven. Yet, Defendant LUCERO wrongly
blamed Plaintiff.
23. Defendant LUCERO would also chastise Plaintiff for not cleaning-up properly when it was
Plaintiffs Hispanic co-workers that had not properly cleaned their area.
24. Defendant LUCERO’s actions were intended to harass and discriminate against Plaintiff
because of Plaintiff's actual and/or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin.
25.In order to further harass and discriminate against Plaintiff, Defendant LUCERO would
constantly pull Plaintiff aside to chide Plaintiff and interrupt Plaintiff's work so that
Defendant LUCERO could then also reprimand Plaintiff for being behind in his work.
26.In order to further harass and discriminate against Plaintiff, Defendant LUCERO would
chastise Plaintiff and then send Plaintiff home early. This in turn reduced Plaintiffs
earnings.
27 In contrast, throughout Plaintiffs employment with the Defendants, Defendant LUCERO
never sent a Hispanic worker home early.
28 When Plaintiff asked Defendant LUCERO why he was continually picking on him and
unfairly criticizing his work, Defendant LUCERO responded, “because you’re not Spanish.”
29 In or around July 2011, Defendant LUCERO was standing around talking about political
affairs with other Hispanic employees when one of the employees asked, “Who do you think
the bad guys are?” Defendant LUCERO responded, “God knows. Maybe he’s a terrorist
right there (pointing directly at Plaintiff.)” “I have to check his locker for a bomb. It’s like
his kind of people that are doing it; Muslims and Indians.”
30. While Plaintiff walked away, Defendant LUCERO stated in reference to Plaintiff, “You’re
people are the people that are bombing the county.”
31. In or around August 2011, Defendant LUCERO began to physically assault Plaintiff.
32. Specifically, on two separate occasions in August 2011, Defendant LUCERO forcibly
shoved Plaintiff from behind while Plaintiff was at the top of the stairwell.
33. Also, in or around September 2011, Defendant LUCERO forcibly shoved Plaintiff from
behind while Plaintiff was on “the floor.”
34. On almost a daily basis, Defendant LUCERO would refer to Plaintiff as “Pendejo.” Pendejo
in Spanish stands for “Asshole” or “Jerk-off.”
35. Defendant LUCERO’s actions were intended to harass, discriminate against, and injure
Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived race, color, national origin and religion.
36. Plaintiff did not complain to any other supervisors about Defendant LUCERO’s unlawful
discrimination because Plaintiff believed it would be futile and that he would be retaliated
against.
37. Plaintiff believed that complaining would be futile and would ultimately cost his job because
of a prior instance of retaliation by the Defendants.
38. Specifically, one of Plaintiff's co-workers had previously complained to management that
Defendant LUCERO “[wa]s a racist” and “[did]n’t like anyone but his own people
(Spanish).”
39. The co-worker who voiced this complaint was removed from the store.
40. On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff.
41. When Plaintiff asked Defendant LUCERO why he was being terminated, Defendant
LUCERO replied, “It’s because of the way you look. I don’t like the way you look.”
42. On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his actual
and/or perceived race and color.
43. On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his actual
and/or perceived national origin.
44 On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his actual
and/or perceived religion.
45, On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff was “not
Spanish.”
46 Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and physical ailments because of the Defendants’
discriminatory and intolerable treatment.
47. 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 other non-pecuniary
losses. Plaintiff has further experienced severe emotional and physical distress.
48 As a result of the above, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdiction
limits of all lower Courts.
49. Defendant XENOPOULOS is personally liable for the discrimination under New York State
law as the owner of Defendant PAX VENTURES and Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE.
50. As Defendants’ conduct has been malicious, willful, outrageous, and conducted with full
knowledge of the law. As such, the Plaintiff demands punitive damages as against all the
Defendants, jointly and severally.
AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
DISCRIMINATION
51. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
52. 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
actual or perceived race, creed [religion], color, national origin . . . of any person, to refuse to
hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate
against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment."
53 Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of New York City
Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107(1)(a) by creating and maintaining discriminatory working
conditions, a hostile work environment, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff
because of his actual and/or perceived race, national origin, color, and religion.
AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
RETALIATION
54. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
55. New York City Administrative Code Title § 8-107(7) provides that:
"It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice for any person engaged 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..."
56. Defendants engaged in an unlawful and retaliatory discriminatory practice by retaliating, and
otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff, including, but not limited to terminating
Plaintiff's employment because Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ unlawful actions.
AS A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
INTERFERENCE WITH PROTECTED RIGHTS
57. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
58. New York City Administrative Code Title §8-107(19) Interference with protected rights. It shall
be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere:
with, or attempt to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with, any person in the exercise or
enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the
exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected pursuant to this section.
59. Defendants violated the section cited herein as set forth.
AS A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
SUPERVISOR LIABILTY
60. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs
of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
61 New York City Administrative Code Title §8-107(13) Employer liability for discriminatory
conduct by employee, agent or independent contractor.
a. An employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the
conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of any provision of this
section other than subdivisions one and two of this section.
b. An employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the
conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of subdivision one or two of
this section only where:
(1) the employee or agent exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or
(2) the employer knew of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct, and
acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
action; an employer shall be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's or agent's
discriminatory conduct where that conduct was known by another employee or
agent who exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or
(3) the employer should have known of the employee's or agent's discriminatory
conduct and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such discriminatory
conduct.
62. Defendants violated the section cited herein as set forth.
AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW
DISCRIMINATION
63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this
complaint.
64. Executive Law §296 provides that "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: "(a) For
an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived race, creed
[religion], color, national origin . . . of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to
discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in
compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
65. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by creating and maintaining
discriminatory working conditions, a hostile work environment, and otherwise discriminating
against the Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived race, national origin, color, and
religion.
66. Plaintiff hereby makes a claim against Defendants under all of the applicable paragraphs of
Executive Law Section §296.
AS A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION
UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW
AIDING & ABETTING
67. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this
complaint.
68. New York State 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 article, or attempt to do so."
69. 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment against the Defendants:
A. Declaring that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practice prohibited by the New
York Common Law, The New York City Administrative Code Title 8, §8 -107 et. Seq., the
New York Executive Law, and the New York common law; and that the Defendants harassed
10
and discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his actual and/or perceived race, national
origin, color, and religion;
Declaring that the Defendants assaulted and battered Plaintiff and/or caused Plaintiff to be
assaulted and battered.
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
termination of employment and to otherwise make Plaintiff whole for any losses suffered as a
result of such unlawful employment practice;
Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental, emotional and physical injury, distress,
pain and suffering and injury to reputation in a amount in excess of the jurisdiction of all lower
courts;
Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages;
Awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action;
Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable, just and.
proper to remedy the Defendant's unlawful employment practices.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues to be tried.
11
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally in
an amount to be determined at the time of trial plus interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees,
costs, and disbursements of action; and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 25, 2014
New York, New York
The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer
By: MEE te
flacob Aronauer
225 Broadway, Suite 307
New York, New York 10007
T: (212) 323-6980
F: (212) 233-9238
jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK
SS!
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Jacob Aronauer, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of
the State of New York states:
That I am the attorney for the Plaintiff Rajiv Ramjas in the within action, that
your affirmant has read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and knows the
contents thereof, and that the same is true to affirmant's knowledge, except as to the
matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those
matters affirmant believes it to be true.
That the reason why this verification is made by affirmant and not by the
Plaintiff is because the Defendant is not within New York County where your affirmant
maintains his office and that the source of affirmant's knowledge, and the grounds of
belief as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief are
correspondence and investigations which have been made concerning the subject
matter of this action, and which are in the possession of the said attorneys.
The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under
the penalties of perjury.
Dated: February 24, 2014
New York, New York
GL Gi
Jacob Aronauer
Index No. Year RJI No. Hon.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
RAJIV RAMIAS,
Plaintiff,
-against-
PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS,
520 EIGHTH
AVENUE BAKE CORP, and /d/b/a/ PAX WHOLESOME FOOD: S, EDEL LUCERO,
individually,
and ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, individually,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
BY: JACOB ARONAUER
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
Attorneys for Plaintiff Rajiv Ramjas,
225 BROADWAY, SUITE 307
NEW YoRK, N.Y. 10007
(212)323-6980
To PAX Ventures, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX Wholesome Foods,
520 Eighth Ave Bake Corp, and d/b/a PAX Wholesome Foods,
Edel Lucero, individually, and Alexander Xenopoulos,
individually
Se eee er
Printname beneath
Attorney(s) for N/A.
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.
Dated,
Please take notice
Ovonict
or mrey
that the within is a (certified) true copy of a
duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on
CO norice
of serene
thatan order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for
settlement to the HON. one of the judges
of the within named court, at
on at M
Dated, Yours, etc.
‘The Law Offices of Jacob Aronaver
To
Attorneys for Plaintiff Rajtv Ramjas
Office and Post Office Address
225 BROADWAY, SUITE 307
Attorney(s) for
NEW YorK, N.Y. 10007
Preview
INDEX NO. 151646/2014 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/25/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ao+. nennnn, -X Plaintiff Designates RAJIV RAMIJAS, NEW YORK COUNTY As the Place of Trial Plaintiff, -against- SUMMONS PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX The basis of the venue is WHOLESOME FOODS, 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, Defendants’ Principle Place of LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE Business located at: BAKE CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME 520 Eighth Avenue FOODS, EDEL LUCERO, individually, and New York, New York 10018 ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, individually, 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 complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of 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 case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the inconvenience relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: February 25, 2014 New York, New York The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer By a Jacob Aronauer 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 T: (212) 323-6980 F: (212) 233-9238 jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com. Attorneys for Plaintiff Defendants' Addresses: PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS ~ Via Secretary of State 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, ~ Via Secretary of State ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS. ~ Via Place of Employment 1776 Broadway, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10019 EDEL LUCERO ~ Via Place of Employment located at: 520 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK xX RAJIV RAMJAS, Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX Plaintiff Demands a Trial WHOLESOME FOODS, 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, By Jury LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, EDEL LUCERO, individually, and ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, individually, Defendants. aoe Plaintiff by his attorneys, The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer, hereby complains of the Defendants, upon information and belief, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rajiv Ramjas (“Plaintiff”), complains pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, seeking damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being harassed and discriminated against by his former employer on the basis of his actual and/or perceived race, color, national origin, and religion, together with retaliation and unlawful termination. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Queens. Plaintiff is of Guyanese national origin, of dark skin color, of Native American Race, and of the Christian religion. At all times material, Defendant PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, (herein also referred to as “PAX VENTURES”) was and is a domestic limited liability company, duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. At all times material, Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE CORP, and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, (herein also referred to as “520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE”) was and is a domestic limited liability company, duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. Defendant PAX VENTURES and Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE are also herein collectively referred to as “PAX WHOLESOME FOODS.” At all times material, Defendant ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS (herein also referred to as “XENOPOULOS”) was and is the owner of Defendant PAX VENTURES. At all times material, Defendant XENOPOULOS was and is the owner of Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE. At all times material, Defendant EDEL LUCERO (herein also referred to as “LUCERO”) was and is a resident of the State of New York. 10. At all times material, Defendant LUCERO was and is an employee of Defendants PAX WHOLESOME FOODS. 11. Defendant PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, Defendant LUCERO, and Defendant XENOPOULOS are also herein collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 12. At all times material, Plaintiff was an employee for Defendants. 13. At all times material, Defendant LUCERO was Plaintiffs supervisor and/or had supervisory authority over Plaintiff. MATERIAL FACTS 14. On or about March 16, 2011, Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a “Food Handler” at Defendant Pax’s 303 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016 location. 15. Defendant Lucero did not interview Plaintiff for the position of “Food Handler.” Defendant LUCERO also did not have any influence on whether Plaintiff was hired by Defendant PAX. 16. Shortly thereafter, in or around April 2011, Plaintiff was trasnsferred to Defendants’ 520 Eighth Avenue New York City location. Defendant LUCERO became Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. 17 Defendant Lucero is of Spanish origin. 18 Immediately after Plaintiff's transfer, Defendant LUCERO as the Plaintiffs immediate supervisor began to harass an discriminate against Plaintiff. 19. On a near daily basis, Defendant LUCERO would make a comment and/or reference to the fact that Plaintiff was “not Spanish.” 20. By way example, Defendant LUCERO would tell Plaintiff, “You’re [Plaintiff] not Spanish. You can’t work like us [Spanish]” and “We’re [Spanish] stronger. We’re [Spanish] smarter. We’re [Spanish] faster.” 21 Defendant LUCERO would also tell Plaintiff, “You can’t work like Spanish people. You’re lazy.” 22 In addition to this abusive behavior, Defendant LUCERO also sought to embarrass Plaintiff in front of other employees and customers. This included blaming Plaintiff for incidents that were not his fault but, rather, the fault of Plaintiff's Hispanic co-workers. For example, one of Plaintiff's co-workers failed to turn off an oven. Yet, Defendant LUCERO wrongly blamed Plaintiff. 23. Defendant LUCERO would also chastise Plaintiff for not cleaning-up properly when it was Plaintiffs Hispanic co-workers that had not properly cleaned their area. 24. Defendant LUCERO’s actions were intended to harass and discriminate against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's actual and/or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. 25.In order to further harass and discriminate against Plaintiff, Defendant LUCERO would constantly pull Plaintiff aside to chide Plaintiff and interrupt Plaintiff's work so that Defendant LUCERO could then also reprimand Plaintiff for being behind in his work. 26.In order to further harass and discriminate against Plaintiff, Defendant LUCERO would chastise Plaintiff and then send Plaintiff home early. This in turn reduced Plaintiffs earnings. 27 In contrast, throughout Plaintiffs employment with the Defendants, Defendant LUCERO never sent a Hispanic worker home early. 28 When Plaintiff asked Defendant LUCERO why he was continually picking on him and unfairly criticizing his work, Defendant LUCERO responded, “because you’re not Spanish.” 29 In or around July 2011, Defendant LUCERO was standing around talking about political affairs with other Hispanic employees when one of the employees asked, “Who do you think the bad guys are?” Defendant LUCERO responded, “God knows. Maybe he’s a terrorist right there (pointing directly at Plaintiff.)” “I have to check his locker for a bomb. It’s like his kind of people that are doing it; Muslims and Indians.” 30. While Plaintiff walked away, Defendant LUCERO stated in reference to Plaintiff, “You’re people are the people that are bombing the county.” 31. In or around August 2011, Defendant LUCERO began to physically assault Plaintiff. 32. Specifically, on two separate occasions in August 2011, Defendant LUCERO forcibly shoved Plaintiff from behind while Plaintiff was at the top of the stairwell. 33. Also, in or around September 2011, Defendant LUCERO forcibly shoved Plaintiff from behind while Plaintiff was on “the floor.” 34. On almost a daily basis, Defendant LUCERO would refer to Plaintiff as “Pendejo.” Pendejo in Spanish stands for “Asshole” or “Jerk-off.” 35. Defendant LUCERO’s actions were intended to harass, discriminate against, and injure Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived race, color, national origin and religion. 36. Plaintiff did not complain to any other supervisors about Defendant LUCERO’s unlawful discrimination because Plaintiff believed it would be futile and that he would be retaliated against. 37. Plaintiff believed that complaining would be futile and would ultimately cost his job because of a prior instance of retaliation by the Defendants. 38. Specifically, one of Plaintiff's co-workers had previously complained to management that Defendant LUCERO “[wa]s a racist” and “[did]n’t like anyone but his own people (Spanish).” 39. The co-worker who voiced this complaint was removed from the store. 40. On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff. 41. When Plaintiff asked Defendant LUCERO why he was being terminated, Defendant LUCERO replied, “It’s because of the way you look. I don’t like the way you look.” 42. On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived race and color. 43. On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived national origin. 44 On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived religion. 45, On or about September 19, 2011, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff was “not Spanish.” 46 Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and physical ailments because of the Defendants’ discriminatory and intolerable treatment. 47. 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 other non-pecuniary losses. Plaintiff has further experienced severe emotional and physical distress. 48 As a result of the above, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdiction limits of all lower Courts. 49. Defendant XENOPOULOS is personally liable for the discrimination under New York State law as the owner of Defendant PAX VENTURES and Defendant 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE. 50. As Defendants’ conduct has been malicious, willful, outrageous, and conducted with full knowledge of the law. As such, the Plaintiff demands punitive damages as against all the Defendants, jointly and severally. AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DISCRIMINATION 51. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 52. 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 actual or perceived race, creed [religion], color, national origin . . . of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment." 53 Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107(1)(a) by creating and maintaining discriminatory working conditions, a hostile work environment, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived race, national origin, color, and religion. AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RETALIATION 54. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 55. New York City Administrative Code Title § 8-107(7) provides that: "It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice for any person engaged 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..." 56. Defendants engaged in an unlawful and retaliatory discriminatory practice by retaliating, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff, including, but not limited to terminating Plaintiff's employment because Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ unlawful actions. AS A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERFERENCE WITH PROTECTED RIGHTS 57. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 58. New York City Administrative Code Title §8-107(19) Interference with protected rights. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere: with, or attempt to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with, any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected pursuant to this section. 59. Defendants violated the section cited herein as set forth. AS A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SUPERVISOR LIABILTY 60. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 61 New York City Administrative Code Title §8-107(13) Employer liability for discriminatory conduct by employee, agent or independent contractor. a. An employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of any provision of this section other than subdivisions one and two of this section. b. An employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of subdivision one or two of this section only where: (1) the employee or agent exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or (2) the employer knew of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct, and acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action; an employer shall be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct where that conduct was known by another employee or agent who exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or (3) the employer should have known of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such discriminatory conduct. 62. Defendants violated the section cited herein as set forth. AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW DISCRIMINATION 63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this complaint. 64. Executive Law §296 provides that "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: "(a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived race, creed [religion], color, national origin . . . of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” 65. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by creating and maintaining discriminatory working conditions, a hostile work environment, and otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived race, national origin, color, and religion. 66. Plaintiff hereby makes a claim against Defendants under all of the applicable paragraphs of Executive Law Section §296. AS A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW AIDING & ABETTING 67. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation made in the above paragraphs of this complaint. 68. New York State 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 article, or attempt to do so." 69. 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. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment against the Defendants: A. Declaring that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practice prohibited by the New York Common Law, The New York City Administrative Code Title 8, §8 -107 et. Seq., the New York Executive Law, and the New York common law; and that the Defendants harassed 10 and discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his actual and/or perceived race, national origin, color, and religion; Declaring that the Defendants assaulted and battered Plaintiff and/or caused Plaintiff to be assaulted and battered. 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 termination of employment and to otherwise make Plaintiff whole for any losses suffered as a result of such unlawful employment practice; Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental, emotional and physical injury, distress, pain and suffering and injury to reputation in a amount in excess of the jurisdiction of all lower courts; Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages; Awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action; Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable, just and. proper to remedy the Defendant's unlawful employment practices. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues to be tried. 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally in an amount to be determined at the time of trial plus interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements of action; and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: February 25, 2014 New York, New York The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer By: MEE te flacob Aronauer 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, New York 10007 T: (212) 323-6980 F: (212) 233-9238 jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK SS! COUNTY OF NEW YORK Jacob Aronauer, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York states: That I am the attorney for the Plaintiff Rajiv Ramjas in the within action, that your affirmant has read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to affirmant's knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters affirmant believes it to be true. That the reason why this verification is made by affirmant and not by the Plaintiff is because the Defendant is not within New York County where your affirmant maintains his office and that the source of affirmant's knowledge, and the grounds of belief as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief are correspondence and investigations which have been made concerning the subject matter of this action, and which are in the possession of the said attorneys. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: February 24, 2014 New York, New York GL Gi Jacob Aronauer Index No. Year RJI No. Hon. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK RAJIV RAMIAS, Plaintiff, -against- PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, 520 EIGHTH AVENUE BAKE CORP, and /d/b/a/ PAX WHOLESOME FOOD: S, EDEL LUCERO, individually, and ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, individually, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT BY: JACOB ARONAUER THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER Attorneys for Plaintiff Rajiv Ramjas, 225 BROADWAY, SUITE 307 NEW YoRK, N.Y. 10007 (212)323-6980 To PAX Ventures, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX Wholesome Foods, 520 Eighth Ave Bake Corp, and d/b/a PAX Wholesome Foods, Edel Lucero, individually, and Alexander Xenopoulos, individually Se eee er Printname beneath Attorney(s) for N/A. Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated, Please take notice Ovonict or mrey that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on CO norice of serene thatan order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named court, at on at M Dated, Yours, etc. ‘The Law Offices of Jacob Aronaver To Attorneys for Plaintiff Rajtv Ramjas Office and Post Office Address 225 BROADWAY, SUITE 307 Attorney(s) for NEW YorK, N.Y. 10007