Case 7:1gijEv-oa296-KMK Documentl Filed 06/04/15 UNITED STATE DISTICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VALERIE RUSSELL, Plaintiff, ?against? COMPLAINT COUNTY OF DAY, in his of?cial capacity as Rockland County Executive; LOUIS FALCO individually and in his of?cial capacity as Sheriff of the COUNTY OF some Wining and ANTHONY VOLPE, $532 12:: individually and in his of?cial capacity as CHIEF OF ROCKLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL ?st: FACILITY, Defendants." Plaintiff Valerie Russell, by her attorneys Ranni Law Firm, hereby complains of the Defendants as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Valerie Russell (hereinafter ?Russell? or ?Plaintiff?), is an individual who resides in the Town of Nyack, County of Rockland, State of New York. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rockland County (hereinafter ?Rockland County? or ?Defendant?), is a governmental entity and maintains its county seat and principal of?ces in New City, New York. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ed Day (hereinafter is the Rockland County Executive and maintains his principal of?ce at 11 New Hempstead Road, New City, New York. 9% lie-331 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page'g-of 19 {a a- a; 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Louis Falco, is the Rockland County Sheriff and responsible for the operation of the Rockland County Correctional Center (a/k/a ?County Jail?) located at 55 New Hempstead Road, New City, New York. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Anthony Volpe is the Chief of the Rockland County Correctional Facility located at 5 3 New Hempstead Road, New City, New York. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983, and supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff?s state law claims pUrsuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 7. Venue is based on the place of business of Defendant Rockland County Correctional Center and the location of the. acts that form the basis of the Complaint. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rockland County is an employer as defined by the relevant statutes and employs more than the minimum necessary to proceed herein. 9. Plaintiff duly filed a Notice of Claim on November 3, 2014, and this action was timely commenced pursuant to New York General Municipal Law 10. Plaintiff duly ?led a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), received her Right to Sue Letter, and this action is commenced within ninety (90) days or Plaintiff receipt thereof. 11. Plaintiff alleges claims of gender discrimination including sexual harassment; sexually hostile work environment; disparate treatment on the basis of gender; and retaliaiton as Case Documentl Filed 06/04/15 Pagefsro: 19 a result of Defendants? conduct jointly and severally, that violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights under color of state law pursuant to federal and state law including 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. Plaintiff began employment with Defendant County on or about December 16, 2011 as a Correctional Of?cer under the authority and direction of Defendants Day, Falco, and Volpe at the County Jail, and continued in that capacity until her constructive discharge on October 17, 2014. 13. At all times, Plaintiff performed her position in an at least, if not more than satisfactory manner. 14. While Plaintiff was employed with Defendants, male correctional of?cers frequently made sexually offensive comments and references to or about Plaintiff. As such conduct occurred both by and in front of senior of?cers, there was no reasonable avenue of complaint for Plaintiff. Plaintiff felt compelled to tolerate or participate in such remarks or suffer negative consequences. Such negative consequences were both tacit as well as overt. 15. After Plaintiff began working for Defendants, she was called the ?new jailhouse - Whore? by co?workers in front of other of?cers and inmates; received numerous comments about the way her uniform pants ?t her; had a male of?cer comment about what he and other male of?cers would do ?to that ass? because it looked so ?good;? and had male of?cers in her presence refer to females they regarded as unattractive as ?slam pigs.? Of?cer took pictures of Plaintiffs buttocks and up her skirt, and showed the pictures to Plaintiff against her will, to which she objected both verbally and though non~verbal communication. Plaintiffs co? Case Documentl Filed 06/04/15 0:19 workers repeatedly told Plaintiff that there is a ?List? that had been compiled by correctional of?cers that consisted of of?cers that Plaintiff had purportedly engaged in sexual relations with. Plaintiff had been asked by other male correctional of?cers with whom she worked, what they needed to do to ?be on the List.? Other of?cers that were rumored to be on the ?List? already, jokingly questioned her how they ?performed in bed.? Plaintiff co-workers would make ?bets? about who was going to sleep with her. Plaintiff was also told that she would never get elected to the Union because of her ?reputation.? 16. Although Plaintiff was told that the ?List? consisted of at least thirteen (13) correctional of?cers, Plaintiff had no interaction with the majority of them outside of work. 17. In or about late 2012-, Of?cer and Of?cer asked a Of?cer in the presence of Plaintiff why ?date a girl, when you can just fuck her.? 18. In late 2012 Of?cer told Plaintiff about a vacation that he took with Of?cer and Of?cer in the Summer of 2012 wherein he' described ?getting He also told her that during the trip, Of?cer ejaculated on a female that he was with and used a towel to wipe himself off. Of?cer then told Plaintiff that later that evening Of?cer unknowingly used that same towel to wipe his face off. Of?cer described how thereafter Of?cer who used the towel was referred to as ?Louie Loads.? 19. In January 2013, an inmate told Plaintiff that he heard that she lived near a speci?c person in Valley Cottage, and even gave Plaintiff her address and detailed directions to her house. When Plaintiff questioned the inmate where he got this information from, the inmate stated he was told by another of?cer, the ex-boyfriend of Plaintiff? ?best?friend.? Plaintiff is best-friends Of?cer ex?girlfriend. 20. Plaintiff reported this to two senior supervisors, Sergeant and Lieutenant Case Documentl Filed 06/04/15 Page5 0&19 Plaintiff?s superiors instructed her to write her complaint in a memo, and thereafter Plaintiff verbally described the incident to Defendant Captain Volpe. Defendant Captain Volpe informed Plaintiff that he would investigate the occurrence. 21. In early February 2013, Defendant Captain Vol'pe reported to Plaintiff, with Captain King and Plaintiff? Union President Of?cer present, that upon completion of the investigation, he determined that Plaintiff complaint was unsubstantiated. Defendant Captain Volpe stated he did not believe Of?cer was ?smart enough? to fabricate his side of the incident, and that if he informed Defendant Sheriff Falco about ?everything,? Plaintiff ?would be ?red immediately.? Defendant Captain Volpe also stated that if Plaintiff ?wanted to play games with him, (he) could play them right back,? and that he didn?t want any more problems from Plaintiff. 22. In or about February 2013, Plaintiff learned that Of?cer had falsely told other correctional of?cers that she had engaged in a sexual relationship with a current inmate, whom Plaintiff had also known from high school. Said inmate later reported to Plaintiff that he was questioned by the administration regarding the purported relationship. As a result, Plaintiff was not assigned to the unit where the inmate was housed for the duration of his incarceration, even though Plaintiff had never engaged in any relationship with the inmate at any time in her life. 23. In or about May 2013, Plaintiff was told by one of her co?workers that he had overheard Of?cer tell two Sergeants that Plaintiff had sexual relations with Of?cer and that Plaintiff was purportedly ?supposed to have a ?threesome?? with both male of?cers. Plaintiff never had such a conversation nor engaged in any relationship with either of the male of?cers. Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 6 of 19 24. On or about December 1, 2013, Plaintiff was told by Of?cer that Sergeant (Plaintiff?s direct superior, and the father of Of?cer had asked Of?cer if he had ever had sex with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff immediately reported the incident to her Union Representative Officer and wrote a memo to another Union Representative, Of?cer Although her Union Representative told Plaintiff that he discussed the incident? with Sergeant upon information and belief, nobody was ever disciplined and no ?irther action was taken. 25. In or about mid 2014, Of?cer began writing Solo?eshcom in various areas of the building, including walls, and desks, and asked Plaintiff if she knew what ?Solo?esh? was. She responded that she did not. Upon information and belief, ?Solo?esh? is a masturbation devise that is fabricated as a lifelike rendition of female genitalia. 26. Commencing in or about July 2014, in enforcing the County Law ?652 provision wherein a female correction of?cer must be present and on duty in the jail whenever there is a female inmate incarcerated, Defendants disparater denied Plaintiff and other female of?cers their contractual right to bid for shifts, to use reciprocal shift switches, and to use their vacation accruals if no other females were scheduled for those hours. Although Plaintiff had a denial of a shift switch that she requested overturned after ?ling a grievance on or about September 8, 2014, Defendants continued to deny female of?cers shift switches in relation to County Law ?652. 27. In or about June 2014, Plaintiff applied to the Rockland County Sheriff? 3 Of?ce Patrol Division for a position as a Patrol Of?cer. Although two male correctional of?cers with less experience than Plaintiff were offered positions on the Sheriff?s Patrol Division, Plaintiff was never called upon. Plaintiff questioned Defendant Sheriff Falco as to why she was overlooked, and he responded that he would investigate with Undersheriff Mary Barbera. Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 7 01:19 Undersheriff Barbera stated that she was not made aware of any issues in Plaintiff?s background that would prevent her from being a viable candidate. Sheriff Falco stated that he knew that Plaintiff was also being investigated for employment with the Clark-stown Police Department and he didn?t want to ?waste his time? with a candidate who might go somewhere else. Plaintiff also questioned another Correctional staff member, Sergeant if he was aware of any impediments to her being given a job in the patrol division, and he told her that Defendant Sheriff alco did not want to remove any females from employment at the jail. 28. On or about August 10, 2014, Plaintiff was told by a co-worker that at the Union golf outing in September 2013, Of?cer had announced that he ?knew for a fact? that Plaintiff had ?slept with at least nine (9) other of?cers.? Plaintiff reported this to her Union, who instructed her to report this to her supervisor. On August 12, 2014, Plaintiff emailed Lieutenant to request that he have a formal conversation with Of?cer regarding what he had said at the golf outing, and state that if Of?cer did not cease his sexually charged conversations about her, she would ?le a formal complaint with the EEOC. 29. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff 8 email to Lieutenant was forwarded to the EEOC by Defendant Chief Volpe. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was contacted by the County EEOC of?ce. Although Plaintiff? complaint against Of?cer was supposed to be con?dential, Plaintiff learned that Sergeant Falco, the Sheriff? 8 son and a close friend of Of?cer had questioned Of?cer whether he knew anything about the harassment complaint that Plaintiff lodged against Of?cer Plaintiff reported this breach to Defendant Chief Volpe and the local EEOC of?ce. Upon information and belief, Sergeant Falco was not disciplined regarding his breach of con?dentiality and inquiry into a matter for which he had no authority. Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 8 of 19 30. Of?cer did not cease the sexual harassment of Plaintiff and in September 2014, he described to a group of of?cers, including Plaintiff, about a date he went on with a woman and while he was kissing her, he said he ejaculated in his pants. 31. In or about summer 2012, Plaintiff expressed to her Shift Supervisor Captain Anthony Volpe (currently Chief) that she wanted to be trained on the ?intake? desk. Although there was a similarly situated male probationary officer working on the intake desk at that time, Volpe told Plaintiff, ?We don?t train people who are on probation.? At no time during Plaintiff?s employment with Defendants was she ever selected for an intake training class, even after she had ceased being a probationary employee on December 23, 2013. 32. Plaintiff had continuously sought training opportunities. In or about August 2013, Plaintiff sought to attend specialty training Crisis Negotiation? class that was to be offered only once in November 2013. Plaintiff was interviewed for assignment to the training class on October 29, 2013 and was noti?ed shortly thereafter that she and another male of?cer were selected to attend the training. 33. On October 30, 2013, Plaintiff was noti?ed by Captain Jill King that due to the correctional of?cers? union ?ling a grievance regarding an unrelated issue, ?no of?cers will be receiving any training? until further notice, thereby cancelling Plaintiff? scheduled Crisis Negotiation? training. 34. On or about October 31, 2013, Plaintiff requested permission from Captain King to attend this training at her own expense and on her off hours using accrued vacation time. I After conferring with Chief Volpe, Captain King; granted Plaintiff permission to attend the training as a civilian. 35. The training took place the following week, November 4 thrOugh November 9, Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 9 01:19 2013. In order to attend the training, Plaintiff used 24 hours of accrued vacation time and went without pay for 16 hours. On the ?rst day of training, Plaintiff saw that a male correctional of?cer that she works with, Of?cer Was in attendance at the same training. Plaintiff immediately called her Union to question the circumstances of the Of?cer attendance. Notwithstanding that Captain King said all correctional of?cer training was being suSpended, and that Plaintiff attended on her own time and at her own expense, the Union investigated and discovered that Of?cer was being paid to attend the training as an employee. Furthermore, unlike Plaintiff, the Of?cer did not need to go through the interview and selection process prior to his attendance. 36. As a result of the Defendants? nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance, jointly and severally, the gender discriminatorin and sexually hostile environment was condoned, and rati?ed such that the conduct of co?workers continued unabated, and in fact, escalated. Defendants Falco and Volpe refused to take action despite actual and constructive knowledge. Under color of state law, and by virtue of their senior positions in a paramilitary organization, they allowed and participated in the discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff. The required chain of command was used to repress Plaintiff and despite senior of?cers having an af?rrnative responsibility to prevent discrimination, sexual harassment, and the creation of a hostile work environment, they knowingly or with callous disregard allowed such conduct to occur, depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional rights. 37. As a result thereof, no reasonable person would continue in Plaintiff?s work environment that was both subjectively and obj ectively offensive, causing Plaintiff to seek other employment and suffer a loss of wages and opportunity. 38. On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff resigned her position as Correctional Of?cer. Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 10 of 19 39. At all times, Defendants failed to maintain an effective complaint procedure; engage in the acceptance or investigation of complaints in good faith; or take appropriate corrective action until after Plaintiff left employment. At that time, the County EEO Office found parts of Plaintiff?s clair'ns substantial. No known corrective actiOn has been taken to date. AS AN FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 40. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated the Civil Rights Laws of the United States as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. 41. By virtue of the discriminatory, harassing, reckless, wrongful, willful, and malicious treatment of the Plaintiff by the Defendants because of Plaintiff?s gender and the denial of equal opportunity, terms, conditions, and perquisites of employment, the Defendants violated the laws of the United States as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. 42. As a result of Defendants? discriminatory, harassing, reckless, unlawful, wanton, and malicious conduct, Plaintiff was forced to endure the known discrimination of the Defendants in violation of 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq, and she suffered non?economic and economic damages. 43. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks af?rmative relief which may include, but is not limited to, requiring Defendants to post the avenues to address complaints of workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; requiring Defendant?s employees and Defendants to undergo sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation training, and any other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate, compensatory damages, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements of this action. 10 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 11 of 19 44. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their violation of 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq, Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein. 46. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated the Civil Rights Law of the United States as set forth in 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq. 47. The discriminatory, harassing, reckless, wrongful, willful and malicious treatment of the Plaintiff by the Defendants because of her gender and the denial of equal Opportunity, terms, conditions, and perquisites of employment created a hostile work environment of sexual harassment and were in Violation thereof. 48. As a result of Defendants? discriminatory, harassing, reckless, unlawful, wanton and malicious conduct, and the sexually hostile environment she was forced to endure, Plaintiff suffered emotional, non-economic and economic darnage. 49. Plaintiff seeks af?rmative relief which may include, but is not limited to, requiring Defendants to post the avenues to address complaints of workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, requiring Defendant?s employees and Defendants to undergo sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation training, and any other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate. 11 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 12 of 19 50. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their violation of 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s. fees, costs and disbursements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION OF RETALIATION 51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if more ?illy set- forth herein. 52. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff and violated Civil Rights Laws of the United States as set forth in 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq. 53. The harassing, reckless, wrongful, willful and malicious treatment of the Plaintiff by the Defendants solely because the Plaintiff made a complaint of discrimination, objected to discriminatory conduct, participated in a claim of discrimination, and was a witness to discrimination, constitutes denial of equal opportunity, terms, conditions, and perquisites of employment and is retaliation with the meaning of the law of the United States violating 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq. 54. As a result of Defendants? harassing, reckless, unlawful, wanton and malicious retaliatory conduct Plaintiff suffered non?economic and economic damages. 55. Plaintiff seeks af?rmative relief which may include, but is not limited to, requiring Defendants to post the avenues to address complaints of workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, requiring Defendant?s employees and Defendants to undergo sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation training, and any other equitable relief as the 12 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 13 of 19 Court deems appropriate, compensatory damages, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements of this action. 56. By reason of the Defendants? retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements of this action and such other and ?thher relief as to the Court seems just and proper. 57. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their violation of 42 U.S.C. ?2000e et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION OF YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW 296 et seq. 58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 59. By reason of the foregoing, the discriminatory treatment of plaintiff by defendants was due, in Whole or in part, to gender, in violation of the Human Rights Law of the State of New York ?296, et seq. 60. The discriminatory, harassing, reckless, wrongful willful and malicious treatment of the plaintiff by defendants because of gender, and the denial of equal opportunity, terms, conditions, and perquisites of employment were in Violation thereof. 61. As a result of defendants? discriminatory, harassing, reckless, unlawful, wanton and malicious conduct, plaintiff suffered emotional, non-economic and economic damage. 13 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 14 of 19 62. By reason of defendants? conduct, plaintiff is entitled, but not limited to, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, costs and disbursements or any other remedy to which she may be entitled by relevant statute. 63. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their violation of NYS Executive Law ?296, Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW ?296 et seq. - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein. 65. By reason of the foregoing, defendants have violated the Human Rights Law of the State of New York ?296, et seq. 66. The discriminatory, harassing, reckless, wrongful, willful and malicious treatment of the plaintiff by the defendants because of gender and the denial of equal opportunity, terms, conditions, and perquisites of employment created a hostile work environment of harassment and were in violation thereof. 67. As a result of defendants? discriminatory, harassing, reckless, unlawful, wanton and malicious retaliatory conduct and the hostile environment plaintiff was forced to endure she suffered emotional, non-economic and economic damage. 68. Plaintiff seeks af?rmative relief which may include, but is not limited to, requiring Defendants to post the avenues to address complaints of workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, requiring defendant?s employees and defendants to undergo 14 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 15 of 19 sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation training, and any other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate. 69. By reason of defendants? conduct, plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements or any other remedy to which the plaintiff may be statutorily entitled or which the Court deems just and prOper. 70. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their Violation of NYS Executive Law ?296, Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disburSements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW ?296 et seq.- RETALIATION 71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 72. By reason of the foregoing, the discriminatory treatment of plaintiff by defendants was due, in whole or in part, to retaliation, in Violation of the Human Rights Law of the State of New York ?296 et seq. 73. The harassing, reckless, wrongful willful and malicious treatment of the plaintiff by Defendants, and the denial of equal opportunity, terms, conditions, and perquisites of employment was retaliatory for plaintiff having engaged in protected conduct. 74. As a result of defendants? harassing, reckless, unlawful, wanton and malicious retaliatory conduct plaintiff suffered emotional, non-economic and economic damage. 15 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 16 of 19 75. By reason of defendants? retaliatory conduct, plaintiff is entitled, but not limited to back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, costs and disbursements or any other remedy to which she may be entitled by relevant statute. 76. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their Violation of NYS ExeCutive Law ?296, Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE ACTION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 78. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants? Falco and Volpe discriminatory treatment of plaintiff was in violation of 42 U.S.C. {$1983. . 79. As a result thereof, plaintiff suffered various severe injuries and damages. 80. By reason thereof, plaintiff is entitled, but not limited to back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements or any other remedy to which the Court may deem just and proper. 81. By reason of the defendants? conduct, plaintiff is entitled to back pay, compensatory damages, pension contribution, punitive damages, damages for emotional distress, front pay, costs and disbursements and such other relief as each may be entitled. 82. By reason of the Defendants? conduct and their violation of 42 U.S.C. ?l983, Plaintiff is entitled to front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional 16 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 17 Of 19 distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements and any other remedy to the Court deems just and proper. AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT 0F EMOTIONAL 83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 84. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants? treatment of plaintiff constituted negligent in?iction. of emotional distress. 85. As a result thereof, plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and has incurred damages thereby, in a sum to be determined at trial. 86. By reason thereof, plaintiff is entitled, but not limited to back pay, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements or any other remedy to which each may be entitled. AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION .OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS- 87. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 88. By reason Of the foregoing, all Defendants? treatment of plaintiff constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. 89. As a result thereof, plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and has incurred damages thereby, in a sum to be determined at trial. 17 Case Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 18 of 19 90. By reason thereof, plaintiff is entitled, but not limited to back pay, compensatory . damages, damages for emotional distress, attorney?s fees, costs and disbursements or any other remedy to which each may be entitled. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against the defendants for all wages, other compensation and lost bene?ts through the time of judgment, for compensatory damages, for lost. pension bene?ts, lost wages, emotional distress, reasonable attorney?s fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, punitive damages, the costs of this action to be taxed against the defendants, and for such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Plaintiff further seeks af?rmative relief including laws against discrimination be posted in Defendant?s premises and that a good faith complaint and investigation procedure be established with appropriate governmental oversight to ensure that such actions are taken, and such other af?rmative relief as may be just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. DATED: June 3, 2015 .. .. I LAW 1 3 North Florida, New York 10921 (845) 651-0999 18