Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 1 of 15 L. LYNNETTE SARNO ANJANETTE CABRERA SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32°d Floor New York, New York 10018 (212) 218-5500 Attorneys for Defendants Lowenstein Sandler, P.C. and Adrian Zuckerman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x JAIMIE FERRAUIOLA, Plaintiff, v. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, P.C. and ADRIAN ZUCKERMAN (sued in his official and individual capacities pursuant to New York Human Rights Law Sections 290, et. seq.), NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendants. ------------------------------------x Defendants Lowenstein Sandler, P.C. ("Lowenstein") and Adrian Zuckerman ("Zuckerman") (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, file this Notice of Removal with respect to the case identified as Jaimie Ferrauiola v. Lowenstein Sandler, P.C. and Adrian Zuckerman, Index No. 113095/08, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. In support of this Notice, Defendants state as follows: Timeliness of Removal 1. Upon information and belief, on or about September 25, 2008, plaintiff Jaimie Ferrauiola ("Plaintiff') filed a Verified Complaint with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, County ofNew York. (A true and correct copy of the Summons and Verified Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit A). Defendants were served with the Verified Complaint by personal service on November 18, 2008. NYl 26537266.1 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 2 of 15 2. This Notice of Removal is timely served pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), having been filed within thirty (30) days after Defendants' receipt of the Verified Complaint, which is the "pleading . . . from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is . . . removable." Basis for Removal 3. The ground for removal is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that: (a) PlaintiffFerrauiola is a citizen of the State of Connecticut; (b) Defendant Lowenstein is a citizen of the State of New Jersey, in that it is a professional corporation existing under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in New Jersey; and (c) Defendant Zuckerman is a citizen of the State of New Jersey. Accordingly, this action is one in which none of the Defendants are a citizen of the state in which Plaintiff resides. 4. Additionally, according to the Complaint, the amount in controversy herein is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 5. Because there is complete diversity of citizenship and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, this Court has jurisdiction over the case under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 144l(b). 6. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, and 1446(a). This action was brought originally in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and Plaintiff resides in the State of Connecticut. 7. Defendants will file a copy of this Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, to effect removal of this action to this Court pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1446(d). 2 NYI 26537266.1 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 3 of 15 8. Defendants reserve all defenses. WHEREFORE, Defendants prays that the above-referenced civil action proceed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as an action properly removed hereto. Dated: New York, New York December 5, 2008 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Anjanette Cabrera 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, New York 10018-1405 (212) 218-5500 Attorneys for Defendants Lowenstein Sandler, P.C. and Adrian Zuckerman 3 NYl 26537266.l Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 4 of 15 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YOR;C ------- ---.-----.-·---..,---X JA!MIEFERRAUIOLA, Index No.: o~ - t\ ~oq§ Date Purchased: C\ \.2.5 \o.g Plaintiff, SUMMONS - against- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, P.C. and ADRIAN ZUCKERMAN (sued in his official and individual capacities pursuantto New YQrkHuman Rights Law Sections 290, et. seq.), NEW YORK r.ouHTY CLERK'S OrFICE JS£P252.00& Defendants. -------~------------------·-~-------_. .._.,......,..--X TO 1HE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: NOT coMPP..RED ,.,... ,. ,py flLED l h°"l?'!I.~ 0 V/111!1' !.in ~(..< ,. You are hereby summoned to appear and answer to the annexed complaint in this action and to seIYe a copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served ·with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaint.iffs attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or ~ithin 30 days after the service is complete if this summons i.s. ll.Ot perSQrutlly delivered to you within the State of New York); upon your failme to answer; judgment will be takell. against you for the relief demanded in the e<>roplaint together with costs;, disbursements ·and interest from the date .ofloss. · · The basis ofvenueiS site-0fthe occurrences: New Yor~ New York. Plaintiff's address: 108 Wayland Avenue, Waterb Dated: Huntington, New York September 24, 2008 CTg9708 _ 7~· J na'i:han Edward Kirchner, of counsel w Offices of Albert Adam Breucl, PLLC Attomeys for Plaintiff 356 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 8N Conu:nac~ New York 11725 TO: Lowenstein Sandler;; P.C. 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Adrian Zuckerman 1 Hickory Drive Chester, NJ 07930 (()31) 543-3030 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 5 of 15 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JAfMrnFERR.AlTIOLA,--..;.------.--------X Plainru:J: JndexNo.: o1- \\30°lf' VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, P;C. and ADRIAN ZUCKERMAN (sutXI in his <>ffi.cial and indiVidual capacities pursuant to New Yorkl:ltntian Rights Law Sections 290, et. seq.), Defendants. -----~----------------------------------------------x PLAINTIFF JAIMIE FERRAUIOLA, by her attorneys LAW OFFICES OF ALBERTADAM BRElJ]), P.L.L.C.,.complaining of Defendants, alleges asfollows; PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiff commenced this employment discrimination and retaliation action pursuant to the New York State Executive Law and New York City Administrative Code, alleging gender discrimination, sexual harassment:, hostile work environment and. retali~o.Jl with regard to the telll1.s and VENUE 2. A substantial amount of events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in New York County, New York State, and this Court is hereby the proper venue. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Jaimie Ferrauiola (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") is a Connecticut resident, residing at 108 Wayland Avenue, Waterbury, CT 06708. 1 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 6 of 15 4. At all times relevant her.eto, Plaintiffwas "employed') (v.ithin the meaning of the New York State Executive Law) by Defendant Lowenstein Sandler, P.C. (hereinafter refei'f¢d tQ as "Defend.ant" and/or "Lowenstein") at its New York office located at 1251 Avenue ofthe Americas, New York, New York 10020. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lowenstein Sandler, P .C., is and was a New Jersey professional corporation duly licensed to do business in New York. 6. At all times relevant hereto, LQwenstt!in was an "employer'' within the meaning oftheNewYotk State Executive Law. 7. Upon infonµatio11 and belief; Defep.dant Adrian Zuckerman (hereinafter referred to as "'Defendant" and/or "Zu~keI:Iru,lll") was and is a New Jersey resident and isa "person" as defined bythe NewYorkStat.eExecutive Law. 8. Upon information and belief~ at all times hereinafter mentioned, Zuckerman was an employee of Lowenstein. 9. Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Zuckerman was an attorney admitted to practiee liiW in New YotkState. l 0. Upon infoi.mation. and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Zuckerman was a Managing Partner at Lowenstein. FACTS 11. On or about February 2005, Plaintiff was hired by Lowenstein as a legal secretary. 12. Plaintiff was hired to workasZuckerman's l~gal secretary. 2 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 7 of 15 13. Zuckerman frequently .called Plaintiff's cell phone and asked Plaintiff if she wanted to meet him in New York City for dinner. 14. Zuckerman would constantly force Plaintiff to have closed door meetings with him. 15. The purpose of said closed door meetings was for Zuckerman to get dating advice from Plaintiff and to update Plaintiff on :Zuckerman'slove life. l(j. At said closed.door meetings, Zuckermanwould show to Plaintiffpictrires 9lld screen savers ofsemi-nude women. 17. Said closed door caused Plaintiff great discomfort and meetings embarrassment. 18. Zuckerman would state to other office members that Plaintiff was bearing Zuckemian' s child. 19. Zuckerman stating that Plaintiff was bearing his child caused Plaintiff great discomfort and embarrassment. 20. Zuckerman would frequently force Plaintiff to accompany him to lunch atDel Friscos. 21. At said lunches, Zuckerman would talk about his sex life in graphic detail and ask Plaintiff for dating advice. 22. Said ltmches caused Plaintiff great discomfort and .embarrassment. 23. Zuckerman would frequently invite Plaintiff to drin)( alcohol with him during work hours. 24. Said invitations to drink alcohol caused Plaintiff great discomfort and embarrassment. 3 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 8 of 15 25. Throughout her course of employment with Lowenstein, Plaintiff would frequently ask Zuckerman to cease talldng to her about his personal sex life. 26. When Plaintiff would request that Zuckerman cease his inappropriate behavior, Zuckerman woutd respond by condescendingly patting Plaintiff on the..top of her head and ignoring her. 27. Despite Plaintiff's numerous requests to Zuckernum that be stop his inappropriate behavior, Zuckerman continued said behavior. 28. On or about Summer 2006, after work, many employees of Lowenstein, including, but not limited to Plaintiff, Melpo Kariotis and Steven Siesser (hereinafter referred to as "Siesser"), went to a bar. 29. While at the bar, Plaintiff informed Siesser about Zuckerman's harassing ':llld inappropriate behavior towards her. 30. Siesser stated that he would make Gary Wingens, a ma,naging partner at Lowenstein, aware of the allegations. 31. Siesser further stated that so long as Plaintiff promised not to sue Lowenstein for sexual harassment, she would always have a job at Lowenstein. 32. However, thereafter, Zuckerman continued his inappropriate behavior towards Plaintiff. 33. It was clear to Plaintiff that despite full knowledge ofZuckerman's harassing and inappropriate behavior, Lowenstein did nothing to ct.U1ail said behavior. 34. Zuckerman continued to use profane l':lilgllage towards Plaintiff. 35. Zuckerman called Plaintiff a "cunt." 36. This caused Plaintiff great embarrassment and humiliation. 4 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 9 of 15 3 7. Another attorney in the office told Plaintiff that he "knew all about Plaintiff.,, 38. When Plaintiff asked what that meant, the attorney replied, in sum and substance, "you know how .guys talk" 39. It was clear to Plain$ that Zuckerman had spread inappropriate comments abotrt.her around. the office .. . 40. This· caused Plaintiff great embarrassment and humiliation. 41. Zuckerman frequently made sexual gestures in reference to women in the office at Lowenstein, including Plaintiff. 42. Zuckennan frequently made gestures and spoke about big breasted women. 43~ On or about April 2007. Zuckerman left Lowenste~ to pursue ano1:her position at Epstein Becker and Green. 44. Zuckerman offered to take Plaintiff over to the new firm at a much higher salary than she was making at Lowenstein. 45. Plaintiff refused the offer, as she viewed it was best that she no longer work with Zuckerman. AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER NYSHRL (New Yqrk State Executive Law ArtiCle 15) 46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 45 with the same force and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. 4 7. As stated above, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit: women. 48. As stated above, Plaintiff was qualified for her position. 49. As stated above, Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions. 5 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 10 of 15 50. The adverse actions Plaintiff was subjected to came about under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. 51. Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the adverse actions she was subjeeted to. AND AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER NYSHRL (New York State Executive Law Article 15) 52. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 with the same force and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. $3. As stated above~ Plain1:i:trs workpl~ was peweated with discriminatory intimidation. ridicule and insult 54. As stated alx>ve, the discriminatory intimidation was sufficiently severe and pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment. 55. Plaintiff sustained damag~ as a result of the seXl.Ull harassment she was subject:e4 to. AND AS FORA THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION UNDER NYS HRL (New York State Executive Law Article 15) 56. Plaintiff repeats aµd realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs l through 5 5 with the same force and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. 57. As stated a:bove, Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity. 58. As stated above, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was eJ:lgaged protected activity. 59. As stated above, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions. 6 ma Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 11 of 15 60. There is a casual connection between Plaintiff's protected activity and the adverse ettiployment actions Plaintiff was subjected to. 61. Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the adverse employment actions she was subjected to. AND AS FOR A FOURTII CAUSE OF ACTION: GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER NYC HRL (New York City Administrative Code Title 8) 62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 61 with the same forCt: and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. 63. As stated above, Plaintiff js a member of a protected class, to \.\it: women. 64. As stated above, Plaintiff was qualified for her position. 65. As stated above, Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions. 66. Tue adverse actions Plaintiff was subjected to came about under .circumstances that give Ji$C to an infere11ce of discriillination. 67. Plaintiff s\JStai.Iled .damages as a result of the adverse actions she was subjected to. AND AS FOR A FIFTII CAUSE OF ACTION: SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER NYCHRL (New York City Administrative Code Title 8) 68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 with the same force and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. 69. As stated above, Plaintiff's workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidatio11, ridicule and insult. 7 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 12 of 15 70. As stated above, the discriminatory intimidation was sufficiently severe and pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment. 71. Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the sexual harassment she was subjected to. AND AS FOR A SIXTII CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION UNDER NYC HRL (New Yo,rk City Administrative Code Title 8) 72. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 71 with the same force and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. 73. As stated above, Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity. 74. As stated above, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity. 75. As stated above, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions. 76. There is a casual connection between Plaintiff's protected activity and the adverse employment actions Plaintiff was subjected to. 77. Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the adverse employment actions she was subjected to. AND AS 'FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY UNDER NYS HRL FOR ZlJCK.ERMAN (New York State Executive Law .Article· 15) 78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 77 with the same force and effect as if same were set forth at length herein. 79. As stated above, Zuckerman aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced the above referenced conduct, which is made unlawful by the NYS HRL. 8 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 13 of 15 80. As stated above, Zuckerman retaliated and/or discriminated against Plaintiff for her opposition to practices made unlawful by the NYS HRL. 81. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of Zuckerman's aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling and/or coercing the conduct by Lowenstein that was made unlawful by the NYS HRL. ' 82. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of Zuckenruµi~s discrimination and retaliation for Plaintiff's oppo~ition to practices forbidden under the NYS HRL. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demandsjudgment against Defendants as follows: I. For an award of actual damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the First Cause of Action; and 2. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the First Cause of Action; and 3. For an award of emotional damages in an a.mount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the First Cause of Action; and 4. For an award of actual damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Second Cause of Action; and 5. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Second Cause of .Action; and 6. For an award of emotional damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Second Cause of Action; and 7. For an award of actual damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Third Cause of Action; and 9 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 14 of 15 8. For an award of compensatory damages in an amoUJlt to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jmy on the Third Cause of Action; and 9. For an award of emotional damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jmy on the Third Cause of Action; and 10. For an award of actual damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightei;ied and impartial jury on the Fourth Cause ofActfop; and 11. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Fourth Cause of Action; and 12. For an award of emotional damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Fourth Cause of Action; and 13. For an award of actual damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Fifth. Cause .of Action; and 14. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened mid impartialjury on t11e Fifth Cause of Action; and 15. For an award of emotional damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Fifth Cause of Action; and 16. For an award. of actual damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Sixth Cause.of.Action; and 17. For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Sixth Cause of Action; and 18. For an award of emotional damages in an amount to be determined by an enlightened and impartial jury on the Sixth Cause of Action; and 10 Case 1:08-cv-10622-GEL Document 1 Filed 12/08/08 Page 15 of 15 For an award of actual damages in an amount to be detennined by an 19. enlightened and impartial jury on the Seventh Cause of Action; and For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by an 20. enlightened and impartial jury on the Seventh Cause of Action; and 21. For an awar4 of emotional damages in an amount to be detennined by an erilightened and impartial jury on the Seventh Cause ofAction; and 22. For an award ofreasonable attorney's fees and court costs; and 23. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, equitable and proper. Dated.: Commack, New York September 24, 2008 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ) ss.: ) Jonathan Edward Kirchner, being duly swom, deposes and says: That <:lepoile;nt is ·of counsel to the attorney for the Plaintiff in tlitl wit.b,in action; that d,i!\p0:nent h©·· read the foregoing summons ani:I complaint, knows the eontents thereof; and that same is true to deponent's own knowledge, ~cept as to the matters herein stated to. be alleged upon infonnation and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent and not by Plaintiff because Plaintiff does not reside in the County or State in which your deponent maintains his office. The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters are as follows: In.v.estigations an. d records on file with the Plaintiff and fo f ( : _:to :d y~r deponent; communications with Plaintiff. Sworn to before me on the 24tll day of September 2008 .Afldl A'?>~ NoUiry Public 11