David N. Mair [DM-8883]
Robin H. Gise [RG-5592]
KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C.
20 Exchange Place
New York, New York 10005
(212) 338-9100
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
ANDREA T. PAYNE,

01 CV 1532 (ERK) (RL)

Plaintiff,
AMENDED COMPLAINT
-againstUNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE
GREGORY W. MEEKS and EMPLOYING
OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE GREGORY
MEEKS,

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, Andrea T. Payne, by her attorneys Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., as and
for her amended complaint alleges as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Plaintiff, Andrea T. Payne, is a resident of the State and City of New York,

County of Queens.
2.

Upon information and belief, defendant United States Representative

Gregory Meeks (“Representative Meeks”) is a resident of the State of New York, County
of Queens.
3.

Upon information and belief, defendant Employing Office of

 Representative Gregory Meeks is the personal office of Representative Meeks and is
an “Employing Office” within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. § 1301(9).
4.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has federal question jurisdiction

over this action, as claims herein arise under, inter alia, the Congressional
Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
201 at seq.
5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is properly laid in this District in

that it is the District in which defendant resides.
6.

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 1402 and 1403, plaintiff has completed counseling

and mediation through the Office of Compliance.

INTRODUCTION
7.

Plaintiff was a Congressional Aide in the office of Representative Meeks.

Plaintiff commenced a civil action against the spouse of an important campaign
supporter and fund raiser for Representative Meeks after she was sexually assaulted in
the spouse’s physical therapy clinic. This is an action to recover for damages sustained
by plaintiff when Representative Meeks violated her Constitutional rights by retaliating
against her, and ultimately terminating her employment, because of her sexual assault
lawsuit.

2

 FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
I.

Plaintiff’s Employment by Representative Meeks
8.

From in or about March 1998 until on or about October 23, 2000, plaintiff

was employed by the office of Representative Meeks as a Congressional Aide.
9.

At all times during her employment, the terms and conditions of her

employment were controlled by Representative Meeks.
10.

At all times during her employment, plaintiff performed her job duties in a

superior manner. Representative Meeks frequently received praise of plaintiff from
constituents whom she had assisted.

II.

The Sexual Assault on Plaintiff By a Therapist at Flowers Physical Therapy
11.

On or about February 14, 2000, plaintiff was seriously injured in an

automobile accident. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the accident, plaintiff
sought physical therapy at the Flowers Physical Therapy facility.
12.

The Flowers Physical Therapy facility was and is owned by Neville A.

Flowers.
13.

Mr. Flowers is married to Joan E. Flowers, Esq., who is an important

campaign supporter and fund raiser for Representative Meeks.
14.

On or about April 20, 2000, while receiving physical therapy at the Flowers

Physical Therapy facility, plaintiff was sexually assaulted by one of the physical
therapists at the facility.
15.

In or about May 2000, plaintiff commenced a legal action against, inter

3

 alia, Flowers Physical Therapy and Neville Flowers, seeking recovery for the injuries
she sustained as a result of the sexual assault.

III.

Representative Meeks’ Retaliation Against Plaintiff
16.

From on or about February 14, 2000, until on or about July 10, 2000,

plaintiff was on medical leave from her job at representative Meeks’ office due to the
injuries she sustained in the automobile accident.
17.

On July 10, 2000, the day of plaintiff’s return, Joan Flowers came to the

office and met with Representative Meeks.
18.

On or about July 13, 2000, three days after plaintiff returned to work, an

article about her civil lawsuit against Flowers appeared on the front page of the Jamaica
Times newspaper.
19.

The same day that the newspaper article appeared, Joan Flowers came

to Representative Meeks’ office in an agitated state and waived a copy of the article in
the reception area while complaining loudly about its contents.
20.

On or about July 17, 2000, Representative Meeks held a staff meeting in

the office, at which plaintiff was present. During the staff meeting, Representative
Meeks stated that he had received several complaints about his staff, and that when he
received complaints from one of his campaign contributors he must treat the matter
very seriously.
21.

Immediately after the staff meeting, Representative Meeks met with

plaintiff and told her that he was not going to pay her for overtime work she had

4

 performed before taking her sick leave.
22.

Beginning on or about July 17, 2000, Representative Meeks, together with

certain of his senior employees acting under his direction, began a campaign of
retaliation against plaintiff for bringing her lawsuit against Flowers. The campaign
included, but was not limited to: requiring plaintiff to work overtime without
compensation; refusing to reimburse plaintiff for travel she was required to undertake in
fulfillment of her job duties and directing verbally-abusive language toward plaintiff. In
addition, information and other items required by plaintiff to perform her job began
disappearing from her work station and computer.
23.

On or about September 8, 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint with the

Congressional Office of Compliance regarding defendant’s refusal to pay her for
overtime and travel she had undertaken as part of her job duties.
24.

On or about October 10, 2000, plaintiff wrote to the Chair of the U.S.

House of Representatives’ Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, complaining
about defendant’s refusal to pay her for overtime and travel she had undertaken as part
of her job duties. In her letter, plaintiff stated that she believed defendant’s refusal to
pay her for overtime and travel was undertaken in retaliation for her lawsuit against
Flowers. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A.”
25.

On or about October 23, 2000, less than two weeks after her letter of

complaint to the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, Representative Meeks
terminated plaintiff’s employment.
26.

When plaintiff asked Representative Meeks for the basis for her

termination, he responded that she was not being terminated because of a problem
5

 with her work. Rather, he stated: “I just don’t feel that this is working. You are not
lending to the atmosphere that I am trying to create and you also seem unhappy here.”
27.

Defendants terminated plaintiff in retaliation for her filing of the lawsuit

against Flowers and/or in retaliation for her complaint filed with the Office of
Compliance and/or in retaliation for her complaint filed with the U.S. House of
Representatives’ Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
28.

Defendants acted maliciously and/or in reckless disregard of plaintiff’s

rights when they terminated her employment.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
29.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), plaintiff repeats and realleges each and

every allegation contained in paragraphs “1" through “28" as if repeated and
incorporated herein.
30.

By reason thereof, defendants have violated the Congressional

Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
201 at seq., and have thereby caused plaintiff to suffer damages, including but not
limited to economic injuries, lost employment opportunities and emotional injuries.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
31.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), plaintiff repeats and realleges each and

every allegation contained in paragraphs “1" through “28” as if repeated and
incorporated herein.

6

 32.

By reason thereof, defendants have violated plaintiff’s Constitutional

Rights, including her rights under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and have thereby caused plaintiff to suffer damages, including but not
limited to economic injuries, lost employment opportunities and emotional injuries.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment as follows:
(i)

On her first cause of action, assessing actual and punitive damages

against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;
(ii)

On her second cause of action, assessing actual damages against

defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;
(iii)

awarding plaintiff statutory attorneys fees;

(Iv)

awarding plaintiff her costs and disbursements of this action; and

(v)

for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated:

New York, New York
June 15, 2001
Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C.
Attorneys for plaintiff

By:

_____________________________
David N. Mair [DM-8883]
Robin H. Gise [RG-5592]
20 Exchange Place
New York, New York 10005
(212) 338-9100
7

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this June 15, 2001 I served the within Amended
Complaint on counsel for defendants by mailing it to defendants’ counsel as follows:
Sandra Levy, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
1 Pierrepont Plaza
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Frederick M. Herrera, Esq.
U.S. House of Representatives
Office of House Employment Counsel
433 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-5532

__________________________
David N. Mair

8