Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------X JOSEPH GREICO, Plaintiff, 17 Civ. 8221 ( ) -againstCOMPLAINT ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS INC., Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------X Jury Trial Demanded JOSEPH GREICO, by and through his attorneys, The Bellantoni Law Firm, PLLC, as and for his Complaint states: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages proximately resulting from defendants’ unlawful discrimination against the plaintiff based on his gender under the theory of a hostile work environment. JURISDICTION 2. The Court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §332 and 28 U.S.C. §1441. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, JOSEPH GREICO, (“Plaintiff”), is a citizen of the United States, a domiciliary of the State of New York and a resident of the Northern Counties. 4. Plaintiff is a heterosexual, married male. 5. Defendant, ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., (“Entergy”) is a foreign business corporation, which is the licensed operator of the nuclear power generating units located at Indian Point Nuclear facility located in the Town of Buchanan, Westchester County, New York. 1 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 24 6. Entergy has annual revenues of more than $10 billion and employees over 14,000 individuals. MATERIAL FACTS 7. DANIEL GAGNON, (“Gagnon”), was at all relevant times employed by Entergy and was acting within the scope of his position. 8. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s causes of action herein, Gagnon was the Security Manager of the Indian Point Nuclear Facility. 9. VITO MESSINA, (“Messina”), at all times relevant herein, was employed by Entergy at the Indian Point Nuclear Facility and was acting within the scope of his assigned position. 10. The Indian Point Nuclear Facility (“Indian Point”) is a privately owned nuclear power plant owned and operated by Entergy. 11. In November 2000, Entergy purchased the Indian Point 3 Unit nuclear reactor (“Unit 3”) from the New York Power Authority (“NYPA”). 12. In and around the Fall of 2001, Entergy purchased the Indian Point 2 Unit nuclear reactor (“Unit 2”) from Consolidated Edison (“ConEd”). 13. Plaintiff began his employment with Entergy as a Nuclear Security Officer at the Indian Point in and around July 6, 2015. History and Entergy’s Knowledge of Defendant Messina’s Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assaultive Behavior Against Male Co-Workers at Indian Point 14. Prior to Entergy’s purchase of the Unit 3 Nuclear Reactor from New York Power Authority (“NYPA”), Daniel Gagnon and Vito Messina were co-workers at NYPA. 2 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 24 15. During the time in which Gagnon was employed by NYPA with Messina, and from 1989 to 2000, Messina was known throughout the Indian Point Security Department to sexually harass other male co-workers, which created a hostile work environment for male security officers. 16. Since at least 1989, Gagnon has been aware of Messina’s perverted and unwelcomed proclivity to sexually harass and sexually assault male co-workers – both verbally and physically. 17. Gagnon’s knowledge of Messina’s chronic and habitual sexual harassment and sexual assault of male co-workers is based on Gagnon’s own personal experience having been victimized by Messina, his general knowledge from other Security Department personnel who were sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted by Messina, or were witnesses thereto, statements made publicly and in Gagnon’s presence by third-party contractors visiting the Indian Point facility, and Gagnon’s direct observations of Messina’s conduct toward other male employees. 18. During his employment at Indian Point under NYPA, Gagnon observed Messina sexually harass other male employees. 19. During his employment with NYPA at Indian Point, Gagnon was physically sexually harassed by Messina. 20. During his employment with NYPA at Indian Point, Gagnon was verbally sexually harassed by Messina. 21. Under NYPA’s management of Indian Point, it was well-known throughout, inter alia, the Security Department, that Messina commonly sexually harassed and sexually assaulted male co-workers; Messina’s nickname at Indian Point was “the child molester”. 3 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 24 22. Under NYPA’s management of Indian Point, it was well-known throughout, inter alia, the Security Department in which Gagnon was employed, that Messina routinely inappropriately subjected male co-workers to offensive and inappropriate touching and fondling without their consent. 23. Under NYPA’s management of Indian Point, it was well-known throughout, inter alia, the Security Department, that Messina routinely made inappropriate sexual comments to male co-workers. 24. NYPA employees have observed Messina also physically sexually harass non- Security Department workers performing assignments at Indian Point. 25. After Entergy purchased Unit 3, Messina and Gagnon, (among many other NYPA security department employees) remained employed in the capacity of Security Force Officers at the Indian Point facility. 26. In and around 2003, James Tepperwein (“Tepperwein”) was employed by Entergy as a Security Officer at Indian Point. 27. Tepperwein, a married heterosexual male, at no time consented to be touched by Messina. 28. Beginning in the Summer of 2003, Tepperwein was subjected to unwanted verbal and physical sexual harassment by Messina. 29. Messina’s verbal and sexual harassment occurred when Tepperwein was conducted alone and in the presence of other Security Department employees. 30. Entergy and Security Department Management knew that, prior to Messina’s sexual harassment and sexual assault of Tepperwein, Messina had sexually harassed and assaulted, inter alia, Chief Shop Steward Patrick O’Hara (“O’Hara”). 4 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 5 of 24 31. Entergy and Security Department Management knew that 10 years prior to Messina’s sexual harassment and sexual assaults of Tepperwein and O’Hara, Messina had subjected, inter alia, O’Hara’s father (who is a former Indian Point employee), to verbal and /or physical sexual harassment. 32. Messina subjected Tepperwein to verbal and physical sexual harassment on more than one occasion. 33. Messina’s verbal sexual harassment of Tepperwein included comments such as, “Do you think you would ever have sex with a man?”, “Don’t I excite you?”, “Don’t you get excited about me?” 34. Messina also commented to other male security force members in Tepperwein’s presence, “Jim Tepperwein is turning me on.” 35. In November 2004, without Tepperwein’s consent, Messina impulsively and unexpectedly shoved himself up against Tepperwein’s body, and grabbed Tepperwein’s buttocks while simultaneously digging his nails into Tepperwein’s buttocks. 36. Tepperwein complained to Barbara Taggart (“Taggart”) of Entergy’s Employee Concerns Program. 37. Entergy deemed Tepperwein’s complaint of Messina’s sexual harassment and conduct, to be “Unfounded”. 38. A few weeks after Tepperwein reported that Messina pushed himself up against his body and dug his nails into his buttocks, Tepperwein was subjected to a retaliatory factfinding and issued a letter of discipline for using his sick time. 39. In August 2005, Messina told Tepperwein that he liked Tepperwein’s hair and began to fondle his hair and neck before Tepperwein told him to stop touching him. 5 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 6 of 24 40. Emboldened by Entergy’s deliberate indifference to his sexually harassing conduct, Messina told Tepperwein, “I’m going to touch you as much as I want.” 41. Tepperwein reported this incident to Taggart as well. 42. Messina admitted that that he had stroked Tepperwein’s hair. 43. Instead of taking disciplinary action against Messina, however, Entergy placed him on paid leave for 10 weeks – essentially rewarding Messina with a paid vacation. 44. After his continued sexual harassment of Tepperwein, and in November 2005, Messina was issued a “Letter of Discipline” informing him to refrain from any type of inappropriate behavior. The Letter of Discipline also provided, “…failure to comply with the terms of this reprimand will result in your termination…” 45. Entergy continued to assign Messina to work on the same shift with Tepperwein in spite of Tepperwein’s complaints that Messina was continuing to sexually harass and assault him. 46. Entergy continued to subject Tepperwein to fact-findings and disciplinary action, but Messina suffered no adverse action. 47. Then-Security Manager Terrence Barry (“Barry”) wanted to fire Messina, but was pressured by, inter alia, other Security Department employees and/or Entergy administration and management not to fire Messina. 48. In March 2006, Tepperwein left his position at Entergy and filed an EEOC complaint of discrimination and, ultimately, a federal lawsuit against Entergy. 6 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 7 of 24 Post-Tepperwein Messina Continues His Predacious and Sick Victimization of His Male Co-Workers 49. Though Entergy temporarily removed Messina from his position as a range instructor during Tepperwein’s lawsuit, once the Tepperwein case was over, Entergy returned Messina to his former position as a range instructor. 50. Messina continued to verbally and physically sexually harass and molest male security force members. 51. In and around 2007, Gagnon was promoted to the position of Acting Security Manager of the Security Department at Indian Point. 52. In 2008, Gagnon was permanently promoted to the position of Security Manager of Indian Point and continues to hold that position to date. 53. Entergy and the Security Management, including Security Manager Dan Gagnon, continued to tacitly condone Messina’s twisted and criminal conduct through his deliberate indifference to Messina’s offensive and sexually harassing conduct. 54. Messina’s victimization of numerous Indian Point security force members employees through sexual harassment and sexual assault was deliberately and willfully disregarded by Entergy, Gagnon and Entergy management, including the Training Department. 55. After Messina was returned to his position as a range instructor, complaints about Messina’s continued sexual harassment and sexual assaults of his male co-workers continued in the presence of other security officers and/or management. 56. Vito Messina’s reputation for sexually harassing male co-workers, and continued sexual harassment of male co-workers after the Tepperwein matter, was widely known to all 7 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 8 of 24 throughout the Indian Point Security Department and the Training Department, including security officers and management. 57. Upon information and belief, complaints were made post-Tepperwein to, inter alia, Security Department management employees, Entergy management and administration, the Employee Concerns Program, Barbara Taggart, Dan Gagnon, the Entergy Ethics Hotline, and/or Security Lieutenants and/or Shift Security Supervisors. 58. After Messina returned to his position as a range instructor, it was well-known at the Indian Point Nuclear facility that Messina was continuing his decade(s) long predatory conduct of sexual harassment and sexual assault of male co-workers. 59. For example, while working as a Range Officer, and after the Tepperwein lawsuit, Messina came up behind another male Security Officer and thrust his hand down into the back of the officer’s pants, touching his bottom. 60. Messina’s act of reaching down into another co-worker’s pants had no conceivable legitimate purpose and no legitimate purpose in fact. 61. Messina’s act of reaching down into a co-worker’s pants was performed in front of at least one management-level member of the Training Department. 62. It was also well-known at Indian Point that Messina was “untouchable” and would not be fired or disciplined for his sexually harassing conduct. 63. Male security officers feared they would be retaliated against by Entergy, Training Department Management and Security Department Management/Gagnon if they complained about the sexually hostile work environment and/or Messina’s sexually harassing conduct. 8 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 9 of 24 64. Security Department employees’ concerns and fears of retaliation were grounded in the reality and history of retaliatory and adverse employment action engaged in by Entergy and/or Entergy Security Department Management against individuals who engage in legally protected activity. 65. In another example of Messina’s twisted post-Tepperwein conduct, Messina pressed another male security force member up against the wall of the elevator, would at various times put his arm around the same co-worker and try to whisper in his ear, and/or grab the male co-worker’s leg – despite being told numerous times by the co-worker to leave him alone. 66. This male co-worker witnessed Messina sexually harass and subject other co- workers to unwanted and sexually offensive touching and comments as well. 67. Messina confidently informed the male co-worker, “Go ahead and tell. They aren’t going to fire me. They’ll fire you before they’ll fire me.” 68. It was well-known throughout the Security Department that Messina had previously open a female sergeant’s sandwich and place his penis inside of it before returning the sandwich to the table during lunchtime. 69. Messina’s conduct was personally observed by Security Department employees and is still a well-known event within the Security Department. 70. It was a well-known fact within the Indian Point Security Department that if you complained about Messina’s sexual harassment and/or sexually assaultive conduct, management would adversely target you and retaliate against you. 9 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 10 of 24 Messina is Reassigned to a Position in the Armory 71. As a result of Messina’s continued sexual harassment and sexual assault of male co-workers at Indian Point after the Tepperwein lawsuit, Messina was reassigned to the gun armory (the “armory position”). 72. In the armory position, Messina had limited - to no - contact with male security force members. 73. Messina was reassigned to the armory position because of his inability to control his sexual and predatory compulsions toward male co-workers. 74. In the face of his knowledge that Messina took sexual pleasure in groping and sexually harassing other male co-workers, Gagnon assigned Messina to be the individual who conducted a physical pat-down of the all security force members taking part in the Force-onForce Drill for the Security Department Teams B and D (“FOF Drill”). 75. This pat-down was also conducted of any non-security force members who were entering the protected area during the FOF Drill. 76. Any security force member could have been assigned to physical pat-down the participants and observers of the FOF Drills. 77. Gagnon’s decision caused (and explicitly sanctioned) Messina’s physical pat- down of approximately 150 security force members, as well as third party observers of the FOF Drill. 78. One of the third party observers of the FOF Drill was the representative from the vendor that supplied the MILES laser training gear for the FOF Drill. 79. A pre-drill safety briefing was conducted before the FOF Drill, which was attended by the Security Department B Team, the D Team, the Training Department Manager 10 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 11 of 24 and other management level employees of the Training Department, the Security Department Manager and other management level employees of the Security Department, including defendant Gagnon, a corporate representative from Entergy’s southern offices, and at least one representative from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”). 80. Also in attendance at the pre-drill safety meeting was the MILES gear representative, Randy Youngkin. 81. Mr. Youngkin explained to all in attendance that everyone who would be entering the protected area during the FOF drill would be subjected to a physical pat-down to ensure that there was no live ammunition present in the protected area during the FOF Drill. 82. Mr. Youngkin further exclaimed that those entering the protected area would have to “…go see ‘Happy Hands Vito’ to be patted down…I didn’t know whether to light a cigarette or call the rape hotline…” when referring to his personal experience being patted down by Messina earlier that day. 83. No one in attendance and present to hear Youngkin’s reaction to Messina’s patting him down was confused about what the comment meant because it was so well-known that Messina was a sexual predator and groper of male co-workers. 84. By assigning Messina to conduct the pat-down of all of the security force members who engaged in the FOF drill, Gagnon knowingly subjected all of those male employees – and the MILES gear representative -- to being groped, fondled and sexually harassed for the benefit of Messina’s twisted sexual pleasure. 11 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 12 of 24 Gagnon Turns Messina Loose on Male Co-Workers Once Again 85. In and around 2015, the Indian Point Security Department was experiencing low levels of staffing and numerous issues with regard to violations of the federal fatigue rule in connection with Entergy’s mandatory and forced overtime of Security Force employees (rather than spend the money to properly staff the Security Department). As a result, the nonmanagement armory position held by Messina was eliminated. 86. In spite of the fact that Messina was reassigned to the armory because of his continued sexual harassment and sexual assault of male co-workers and history of being a sexual predator of male co-workers, Gagnon assigned Messina to perform shift work - knowing that Messina would again pose a direct threat to male co-workers. 87. In spite of his knowledge that placing Messina in contact with male co-workers was absolutely guaranteed to lead to additional incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault against male co-workers based on Messina’s inability to control his vulgar and sexually deviant impulses, Gagnon returned Messina to shift work. 88. Gagnon made the decision to integrate Messina into the workforce by assigning him to a shift position in the Security Department sometime between the Spring 2015 and July 1, 2015. 89. By assigning Messina from the armory and onto a security force team, Gagnon knowingly and intentionally exposed male security force members to being sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted by Messina, and/or he deliberately disregarded the guaranteed risk that male co-workers would be sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted by Messina. 12 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 13 of 24 Messina Commits Additional Acts of Sexual Assault and Harassment of Male Co-Workers 90. In and around Spring/Summer 2015, Union President Thomas Sanfratello informed Entergy’s corporate internal investigators Nicholas Tranchina (“Tranchina”) and Brian Rivera (“Rivera”) that Messina was continuing to engage in sexually offensive and sexually harassing conduct. 91. Specifically, Sanfratello informed Tranchina and Rivera that Messina, inter alia, grabbed his head and kissed him and made sexually inappropriate and harassing gestures toward and near Sanfratello’s genital area. 92. Entergy failed to take any remedial or adverse action against Messina as a result of Sanfratello’s complaint of Messina’s sexual harassment against him. 93. Despite yet another complaint to corporate that Messina was continuing his sexually deviant and predatory actions, Entergy failed to take any steps to ensure the safety and security of their male employees. July 6, 2015 - Plaintiff Begins Employment with Entergy at Indian Point 94. Messina’s reputation as a sexual predator of his male co-workers was so well- known that the newly male security force members of the 2015 class of Security Officers were specifically forewarned of Messina’s sexually predatory conduct. 95. Plaintiff commenced his position as a nuclear security officer in and around July 6, 2015 with a class of approximately 10-12 other individuals. 96. Before being assigned to a specific security force team (A, B, C, or D Team), Plaintiff and other newly-hired security officers went through a period of training, which included 2 months of classroom training and approximately five (5) 8-hour shifts wherein they 13 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 14 of 24 would familiarize themselves with the facility and their respective Job Performance Measures. 97. During this initial training period and prior to being assigned to a particular security force team, other security force officers specifically pointed Messina out to Plaintiff and his classmates as an individual to avoid. 98. Specifically, Plaintiff and his classmates were informed not to be surprised if Messina made lewd, vulgar and disgusting sexual comments to them and/or touched them in a sexual and vulgar manner. 99. Plaintiff and his classmates were also informed that Messina had been engaging in sexually harassing and deviant conduct toward male co-workers for decades, creating the impression that male security force members were simply forced to “deal with it” because Messina had free reign to continue his disgusting and predatory conduct ---he was “untouchable”. 100. Plaintiff and his classmates were further informed that Messina had previously been assigned to a position in the armory to “hide him” from everyone and that he was disgruntled that he was forced to return to shift work. 101. In and around September 2015, Plaintiff and two of his male classmates traveled to the Unit 2 Bunker to continue getting acquainted with the facility before they were assigned to a specific team. 102. Messina was inside of the Unit 2 Bunker seated at one of the desks. 103. Messina turned to Plaintiff and his two (2) male classmates and stated, “You guys are the fresh meat.” 104. To Plaintiff’s two (2) male classmates, Messina stated, “I don’t know about you or you…”. 14 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 15 of 24 105. Messina then looked at Plaintiff continuing, “…but I’d like to fuck you in the ass and fill your ear up with cum.” 106. Plaintiff was completely shocked, sickened and horror-stricken, notwithstanding the prior “warnings” from seasoned male co-workers. 107. Messina then got up, grabbed his rifle, which had been positioned right next to him, and left the room. 108. Knowing that Messina had been getting away with this behavior for decades, Plaintiff was petrified to file a complaint. 109. Knowing that Messina had been getting away with this behavior for decades, Plaintiff was fearful of returning to work, for fear of having to encounter Messina again, knowing that he had no recourse because Messina was “untouchable” and for fear of losing his job. 110. Shortly after the incident in the Unit 2 Bunker, the newly hired security officers were assigned to a security team. 111. Of the 10-12 officers in his class, only Plaintiff and one (1) other security officer were assigned to the “A Team” – the same team to which Messina was assigned. 112. Plaintiff thereafter experienced, inter alia, stress and anxiety every time he went to work related to the fear of having any contact Messina, anxiety related to the fear of losing his job, and the physical manifestations of the same. 113. When Plaintiff was assigned to share a post with Messina, he experienced even more fear, anxiety and stress fearing that he would be sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. 15 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 16 of 24 Messina’s Sexual Assaults on Other Co-Workers Continued 114. In and around October 24, 2015, co-worker Ted Gordon (“Gordon”) was inside of the Unit 2 bunker with another security officer when Messina bolted into the room and immediately began hugging on, tickling and touching Gordon in a physically offensive and sexual manner. 115. Gordon pushed Messina off, told him to stop, and walked away. 116. Gordon sat down on a chair next to the refrigerator and leaned in to get his lunch. 117. Messina forcefully grabbed Gordon’s head and pulled it into Messina’s crotch, causing Gordon’s face to become pushed up against Messina’s privates. 118. Messina simultaneously told Gordon, “I’m going to stick your head in the freezer and fuck your ass until it hemorrhages” and Gordon again pushed Messina away in shock and repulsion. 119. The Unit 2 Bunker incident in October 2015 was not the first time that Messina had sexually harassed Gordon. 120. On prior occasions, Messina had subjected Gordon to sexually-motivated inappropriate and unwanted touching in the nature of rubbing Gordon shoulders, tickling, and hair touching. 121. As with Plaintiff and other victims of Messina’s sexually deviant behavior, Gordon – and everyone else in the Security Department – knew that Messina was “untouchable” and allowed to continue his sexually harassing and sexually assaultive conduct on male coworkers, as he had done for decades. 16 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 17 of 24 122. Like Plaintiff, Gordon was also in fear of retaliation, including losing his job and adverse employment action, which was a known result in the Security Department for employees who engaged in protected activity. 123. For instance, after Gordon filed a federal lawsuit against Entergy in July 2017 based on Messina’s sexual assault as described above, he was adversely reassigned to a position that substantially altered his regular duties, tasks and responsibilities. 124. After Gordon filed his lawsuit in July 2017, he was also adversely reassigned by Security Management to the same Unit 2 Bunker where he had been sexually assaulted by Messina, intending that Gordon suffer the effects of the sexual assault over and over again as a punishment for exposing the pervasively sexually hostile environment of the Indian Point Security Department. 125. The Unit 2 bunker was also the same location where Plaintiff was sexually harassed by Messina. 126. As a result of filing the within lawsuit, Gordon has also experienced ridicule, sexually offensive comments, and harassment by other security officers and in the presence of security department management, whose failure to respond to the inappropriate and sexually inappropriate comments demonstrates their implicit approval and encouragement of continued harassing conduct. 127. By reintegrating Messina into shift work in the Security Department in 2015, Gagnon knowingly maintained and facilitated a sexually hostile, sexually predatory and unsafe environment for male Security Officers, as borne out through the attack on Thomas Sanfratello, Plaintiff, Gordon and co-worker Richard Gustin, as discussed below. 17 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 18 of 24 Messina Sexually Assaults and Harasses Yet Another Male Co-Worker Months Later 128. On February 16, 2016, Messina sexually assaulted and harassed yet another male co-worker, Nuclear Security Officer Richard Gustin (“Gustin”). 129. Messina forcibly pushed Gustin up against a locker, pushed Messina’s body against Gustin’s body and tightly held Gustin while repeatedly humping and rubbing his erect penis against Gustin’s leg with a forward thrusting movement. 130. When Gustin reported Messina’s conduct to Security Manager Dan Gagnon, Security Superintendent Mitch Wood and Gustin’s union representative Sal Manzo, Gagnon chuckled and recounted how Messina had sexually molested him, stating, “The same thing happened to me years ago”, “That’s just Vito” and Gagnon informed Gustin that he had to threaten Messina with physical harm to prevent future sexual harassment. 131. Gustin also informed Gagnon, Wood and Manzo that he personally observed Messina grab the ponytail of a newly hired subcontractor working on site (who Messina did not know) and told the subcontractor, “I’d like to see you in a coconut bra…feed you…and pump you in the ass”. 132. Gustin recounted the events of February 16, 2016 during a meeting with Entergy’s internal investigators, including Nicholas Tranchina, the same internal corporate investigator to whom Thomas Sanfratello had complained close to a year before Messina’s sexual assault on Gustin, that Messina was continuing his sexual harassing, sexually assaultive and sexually deviant behavior. 133. Gustin further recounted to Investigator Tranchina Messina’s history of sexual harassment and sexual assault of male co-workers spanning decades. 18 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 19 of 24 134. After learning that Gustin intended to file a criminal complaint against Messina, Entergy took steps to “investigate” Gustin’s internal complaint. 135. Entergy did not terminate Messina’s employment. 136. Entergy did not subject Gagnon to any adverse action for knowingly facilitating Messina’s continued sexual harassment and sexual assault. 137. Entergy management’s decades-long knowledge of Messina’s sexually deviant nature and conduct and their willful decision to maintain his employment at Indian Point and deliberate indifference to Messina’s conduct, created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff and numerous other male Security Department employees in the Indian Point Nuclear facility. 138. Entergy management’s deliberate indifference and malicious, reckless, implicit and explicit condonation of Messina’s conduct for decades has directly caused the sexual harassment and sexual assault of Plaintiff and other male co-workers at Indian Point. 139. Entergy management’s deliberate indifference and malicious, reckless and explicit condonation of Messina’s conduct created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff and the other male co-workers at Indian Point. 140. Entergy management’s deliberate indifference and malicious, reckless, implicit and explicit condonation of Messina’s conduct created a hostile work environment for every male Security Department employee at Indian Point. 141. Plaintiff was sexually harassed by Messina because Entergy, Entergy’s corporate investigators, and Entergy’s Security Department management and supervisors and Entergy’s Training Department management and supervisors knew of Messina’s uncontrollable aberrant sexual proclivities and they deliberately chose to ignore it. 19 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 20 of 24 Continued Hostile Work Environment in the Security Department 142. Vito Messina’s sexually predatory conduct was not the only contributing factor to the gender related hostile work environment experienced by male security force members at Indian Point. 143. Entergy failed to take any adverse or remedial action against Messina for years of sexually harassing and sexually assaulting male co-workers/victims, including Plaintiff. 144. In and around June 2017, a male security force member made sexually inappropriate comments to two (2) female employees from another department. 145. The female employees did not complain about the comments, which were reported by another security force member. 146. In the absence of any complaint from the female victims, and contrary to Entergy’s treatment of Messina’s male victims, Entergy terminated the male security force member, demonstrating Entergy’s gender discrimination against male employees and continuing hostile work environment. 147. Security Department Management treats male security force members in a disparately negative manner based on their gender in other respects as well, contributing to the hostile work environment for male employees. 148. Since the hiring of female Security Officer Michelle Bushell (“Bushell”), Plaintiff and other male security officers have been subjected to adverse and disparate treatment because of their gender, while Bushell has received favorable treatment because of her gender. 149. Bushell has repeatedly abandoned her assigned post as a Nuclear Security Officer without providing notice to her direct supervisor or her teammates. 20 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 21 of 24 150. During those occasions, numerous radio calls have been conducted in an attempt to locate Bushell, which went unanswered and ignored. 151. Plaintiff, and other male security force members who have been affected in the same manner, have had to remain on their post for hours without the ability to be relieved to use the bathroom because Bushell was nowhere to be found and was unresponsive to the numerous calls from her direct supervisor on the radio. 152. Bushell was not disciplined in any manner for leaving her post, which is a violation of Bushell’s duties and responsibilities as a nuclear security officer. 153. Bushell was not disciplined in any manner for responding to her direct supervisor’s numerous calls on the radio, which is a violation of Bushell’s duties and responsibilities. 154. Bushell’s direct supervisor (a male) was specifically chastised by a Senior Security Supervisor and ordered to never question where Bushell was or that she was off-post or he would face negative consequences, a fact known to Plaintiff. 155. During occasions where Bushell has been away from her assigned post, while unexcused and unresponsive to calls on the radio from her direct supervisor, she has been observed by more than one security force member to be inside of a small enclosed 8 x 8 BRE for hours at a time with the senior security supervisor. 156. On at least one occasion, when Bushell’s direct supervisor went in search of her whereabouts, he observed that she and the Senior Security Supervisor who had threatened him, together inside of the small BRE enclosure. 157. Bushell’s direct supervisor observed the Senior Security Supervisor with an erection and his pants in an open position, a fact known to Plaintiff. 21 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 22 of 24 158. Bushell’s conduct is a violation of the Code of Entegrity and constitutes grounds for the termination of her Unescorted Access Authorization based on her untrustworthiness and unreliability. 159. The conduct of Bushell’s Senior Security Supervisor described herein is a violation of the Code of Entegrity and constitutes grounds for the termination of his Unescorted Access Authorization based on his untrustworthiness and unreliability. 160. Bushell’s Senior Security Supervisor is in further violation of the Code of Entegrity and in a position to have his Unescorted Access Authorization terminated based on his untrustworthiness and unreliability because, at the time that he was engaged in the above conduct, he was not only married, he was married to the head of the Training Department at Indian Point, which was also a well-known fact to Plaintiff and the other security force members in the Security Department. 161. It was also a well-known fact that before the Senior Security Supervisor was married to the head of the Training Department, he and she were married to other spouses, while openly having an affair at Indian Point. 162. Plaintiff and other male security force members have been specifically instructed by security management not to be near Bushell at any time. 163. When Plaintiff and/or other male security force members have been in contact with and/or near Bushell, they are directed by management level security force members to remove themselves from her presence. 164. Bushell has never been instructed to leave the presence of any male security force members; only the male employees are directed to move. 22 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 23 of 24 165. It is well-known that Bushell regularly makes sexual advances toward other male security force members, whether married or not, which conduct is allowed by security management to continue and contributes to the sexually hostile and uncomfortable atmosphere for Plaintiff and many other male security force members. 166. Defendant’s conduct has caused Plaintiff to suffer, inter alia, a hostile work environment, stress, unwanted physical touching, mental and emotional anguish, fear of economic loss, embarrassment, sleep disturbances, stomach aches, headaches, loss of enjoyment and/or diminished interaction with family and friends, diminished social interaction, loss of the enjoyment of life and his normal activities, and the physical manifestations of the same. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 167. Plaintiff reiterates and repeats paragraphs numbered “1” through and including “166” in their entirety. 168. Entergy is liable to the plaintiff for gender discrimination under the theory of a hostile work environment in violation of New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §296, et seq. WHERFORE, a Judgment is respectfully requested as and against Entergy:  Awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;  Awarding costs and disbursements; and 23 Case 7:17-cv-08221-CS Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 24 of 24  Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and fair. Dated: October 25, 2017 Scarsdale, New York THE BELLANTONI LAW FIRM, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff, Joseph Greico By: 24 _____________/s_____________________ Amy L. Bellantoni (AB3061) 2 Overhill Road, Suite 400 Scarsdale, New York 10583 (914) 367-0090 (914) 367-0095 (facsimile)