Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT NEW YORK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------- x ALEXANDRA MARCHUK, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, against- against FARUQI FARUQI, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP and MONTEVERDE, JUAN E. MONTEVERDE, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x FARUQI FARUQI, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP and MONTEVERDE, JUAN E. MONTEVERDE, 13 CV 1669 (AKH) l66e Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Plaintifss, . - againstagainst - ANSWER,AND ANSWER.AND COUNTERCLAIMS COUNTERCLAIMS ALEXANDRA MARCHUK, ALEXANDRA Counterclaim Defendant, and JOHN and JANE DOE 1-10, who caused and/or assisted with the publication ofthe complaint, publication of the Defendants on the Counterclaim. Counterclaim. --- - ------ -- - - - ---- ------ - - ---- ------ - - )( Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and Juan E. Monteverde, by & Faruqi, LLP and Juan E. Monteverde, and for their counsel, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., for their Answer to the Complaint and for their to the & Green, P.C., for their Epstein their Counterclaims against Plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk and John and Jane Doe 1-10, respectfully Marchuk and John and Jane Doe 1-10, Counterclaims state as follows: state as follows: FIRJJ:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 2 of 36 NATURE OF THE CASE NATURE OF THE CASE 1. 1. This action was maliciously brought by Alexandra Marchuk ("Marchuk") to This action was maliciously brought by Alexandra Marchuk ("Marchuk") to extort money from her former employer, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP or the a extort money from her former employer, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ("F&F" or the "Firm"), a Nadeem prominent headed by brother prominent class action law firm headed by sister and brother Lubna M. Faruqi and Nadeem Faruqi - the sole equity partners and 100% owners of F&F - and to defame and damage the - the of defame the Firm's as as of Juan a Firm's reputation and business, as well as the reputation of Juan Monteverde ("Monteverde"), a partner with whom obsessed. non-equity partner with whom she was obsessed. 2. 2. December first-year had On December 22,2011, Marchuk, a hrst-year associate who had been at the Firm 3Yz for 3Yz months, sent an email to Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi, stating that she was resigning and had seen she identify. them had seen an employment attorney whom she did not identify. Marchuk directed them not to contact her. She did not state why she was resigning or allege that she had been sexually her. She did not state why she was resigning or allege that she had been sexually harassed. Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi did not hear another word from Marchuk or anyone acting harassed. 1,2012, on her behalf for more than nine months. It was not until October 1, 2012, when they received a months. March allegations. letter from Marchuk's counsel, did they learn of Marchuk's spurious allegations. On March 13, 2013, almost 15 months after her resignation, Marchuk commenced this scurrilous lawsuit. resignation, 15 2013, 3. 3. While Marchuk was an F&F first-year associate, she was admittedly deeply in While Marchuk was an F&F first-year associate, she was admittedly deeply Monteverde (then a debt and preoccupied with her finances. She had also been obsessed with Monteverde (then a her finances. She had also been obsessed debt and 32-year old junior partner). Marchuk now alleges that Monteverde forcibly had sexual 32-year old junior partner). Marchuk now alleges that Monteverde forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and sexually harassed her at other times, and that Lubna and Nadeem intercourse with her and sexually harassed her at other times, and that Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi, as well as another F&F female partner, did nothing when she complained. In fact, Faruqi, as well as another F&F female partner, did nothing when she complained. In fact, however, there was no sexual intercourse, forced or otherwise; there was no sexual harassment, however, there was no sexual intercourse, forced or otherwise; there was no sexual harassment, and there were no complaints. Marchuk's claims are false. And as evidence of her malicious and there were no complaints. Marchuk's claims are false. And as evidence of her malicious intent to damage the Firm's and Monteverde's business and reputations, Marchuk and/or her intent to damage the Firm's and Monteverde's business and reputations, Marchuk and/or her agents emailed copies of her complaint to F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, agents emailed copies of her complaint to F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 2 2 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 3 of 36 Monteverde's wife, and certain media outlets on the same day that her complaint was filed with Monteverde's wife, and certain media outlets on the same day that her complaint was filed with this Court. this Court. 4. 4. a perversion of the Marchuk's malicious actions, which are nothing Marchuk's malicious actions, which are nothing short of a perversion of the judicial process, have F &F and Monteverde with no choice but seek affirmative judicial judicial process, have left F&F and Monteverde with no choice but to seek affirmative judicial material relief. Accordingly, Monteverde Answer, deny relief. Accordingly, F&F and Monteverde file this Answer, deny all of Marchuk's material allegations of wrongdoing, file Counterclaims that allegations of wrongdoing, and file the Counterclaims that follow. PARTIES 5. 5. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a law firm specializing in class action litigation, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a law firm specializing in class action litigation, securities, hour, and located at including securities, anti-trust, wage and hour, and consumer litigation, and is located at 369 Lexington Avenue, York, York. Lubna Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. F&F was founded by Nadeem Faruqi and Lubna M. Delaware Faruqi, and it currently maintains offices in New York, California, Delaware and Pennsylvania. maintains offrces 6. 6. York. He Juan E. Monteverde is an individual residing in New York, New York. He was E. acquisitions hired as an associate by F &F in July 2010 and is currently a partner in mergers and acquisitions 2010 F&F as litigation. 7. 7. and Alexandra Marchuk is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in is an was Omaha, Nebraska. She was employed as a summer associate at F&F in 2010 and was later hired as a Nebraska. She at F&F 3% as a full-time associate in September 2011. She resigned from her employment at F&F 3lh as a full-time associate in September 2011. She resigned from her months later on December 22, 2011. months on December 22,2011. 8. 8. John and Jane Doe 1-10 are persons whose identities are unknown at this time John and Jane Doe 1-10 are persons whose identities are unknown at this time who, upon information and belief, assisted Marchuk with the publication and dissemination of who, upon information and belief, assisted Marchuk with the publication and dissemination of the false allegations contained in the complaint to F&F clients, opposing counsel to F&F, the false allegations contained in the complaint to F&F clients, opposing counsel to F&F, Monteverde's wife, and the media. Upon information and belief, one or more John or Jane Does Monteverde's wife, and the media. Upon information and belief, one or more John or Jane Does are former F&F employees who wrongfully obtained and misappropriated F&F's client are former F&F employees who wrongfully obtained and misappropriated F&F's client FI~ : 20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 J 3 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 4 of 36 information, and one or more John or Jane Does assisted Marchuk and/or acted as her agent(s) to information, and one or more John or Jane Does assisted Marchuk and/or acted as her agent(s) to use this information to widely disseminate the complaint via email. Once the identities of John use this information to widely disseminate the complaint via email. Once the identities of John or or Jane Doe 1-10 become known, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs will amend their Jane Doe 1-10 become known, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs will amend their counterclaims. counterclaims. FACTUAL BACKGROUND FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. A. The F&F Law Firm The F&F Law Firm 9. 9. Lubna and first-generation immigrants, the Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi, first-generation immigrants, founded the Firm in 1995. Its primary area of practice is class action litigation. The Firm began and remains a litigation. a 1995. family business, was founded the integrity, excellence, family business, which was founded on the principles of integrity, excellence, honesty and respect individuals. Faruqi employee if do respect for individuals. Lubna Faruqi personally reminds each employee that if they do not receive respectful treatment by anyone at F&F, "my door is open to you." F&F, respectful treatment has 42 attorneys. the 10. well. have F&F's core 10. F&F' s core values have served it well. Today the Firm has 42 attorneys. The minorities. has Firm embraces diversity by employing a substantial number of women and minorities. It has 12 of embraces \?r'oman-owned female attorneys, five of whom are partners. F&F is certified as a woman-owned law firm by the partners. F&F of attomeys, Women's Business Enterprise National Council, the largest third-party certifier of business Women's Business Enterprise National Council, the largest third-party certifier of for been has owned, controlled, and operated by women in the United States. F&F has never been sued for in the United States. and operated by owned, discrimination or harassment. discrimination or harassment. 11. As the Firm has grown, Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi have continued to manage its 11. As the Firm has grown, Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi have continued to manage its day-to-day operations. They decide salary, bonus and benefits for all partners, associates, day-to-day operations. They decide salary, bonus and benefits for all partners, associates, financial analysts, paralegals, administrators, and support staff. They alone decide employee financial analysts, paralegals, administrators, and support staff. They alone decide employee issues relating to termination. issues relating to termination. 12. The Firm today, as was its practice during the time period alleged in the 12. The Firm today, as was its practice during the time period alleged in the complaint, holds bi-weekly meetings with its attorneys and staff. The purpose of these meetings complaint, holds bi-weekly meetings with its attomeys and staff. The purpose of these meetings FIRM:20394942v I FIRM:20394942v1 4 4 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 5 of 36 is to review case loads, case development, new matters, new hires and personnel issues. F&F is to review case loads, case development, new matters, new hires and personnel issues. F&F employees are often reminded at these meetings that if anyone is not being respected within the employees are often reminded at these meetings that if anyone is not being respected within the Firm, they may address the issue personally with Lubna, Nadeem or Office Manager Olive Firm, they may address the issue personally with Lubna, Nadeem or Office Manager Olive Alston. The Firm's Employee Handbook serves as a guide: it states that there tolerance Alston. The Firm's Employee Handbook serves as a guide: it states that there is "zero tolerance for any form or discrimination." Each knows that harassment for any form of harassment or discrimination." Each employee knows that a harassment complaint can straight Lubna, Nadeem or Olive Alston. complaint can be brought straight to Lubna, Nadeem or Olive Alston. B. B. Marchuk Becomes Summer Marchuk Becomes a Summer Associate 13. 13. June 7, 2010, Marchuk started associate. Firm On June 7,2010, Marchuk started at F&F as a summer associate. The Firm hired Marchuk at recommendation of Leventhal, partner. Marchuk at the request and recommendation of David H. Leventhal, then an F&F senior partner. Leventhal's then girlfriend and now wife, Victoria Lyndon Schact, nicknamed Tori, was best then friends with Marchuk. 14. During the summer of 2010, Marchuk met Monteverde, who was an 14. During the summer of 2010, Marchuk met Monteverde, who was an F&F Leventhal, associate at the time. On one occasion, Monteverde joined Leventhal, Tori Schact, and Marchuk Monteverde time. associate at Monteverde for dinner. Although Marchuk alleges in the complaint that Monteverde made sexually offensive dinner. Although and unwelcome remarks to her during that dinner, neither she nor senior partner Leventhal remarks to her during that dinner, neither she nor senior partner and reported such remarks to Nadeem or Lubna Faruqi as required by F&F's sexual harassment reported such remarks to Nadeem or Lubna Faruqi as required by F&F's sexual prevention policy. Likewise, while Marchuk alleges that Monteverde made other inappropriate alleges that Monteverde made other policy. Likewise, she sexually-charged remarks in her presence from time to time that summer, she never complained that from time sexually-charged to Nadeem or Lubna Faruqi or anyone else. or Lubna Faruqi or anyone else. to 15. 15. On August 12,2010, Marchuk sent an email to all F&F personnel, stating: On August 12,z}l},Marchuk sent an email to all F&F personnel, stating: "Tomorrow is the last day of my internship, and II want to say "Tomorrow is the last day of my internship, and want to say thank you for a wonderful summer. II learned a great deal thank you for a wonderful summer. learned a great deal working at Faruqi, and II am very grateful to all of you for the working at Faruqi, and am very grateful to all of you for the work experience and advice. work experience and advice. , , FIRM :20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 5 5 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 6 of 36 Thank helping opportunity Thank you for helping me learn, giving me the opportunity to work on your projects and for treating me like a member of [emphasis added] the team." [emphasis added] C. C. Marchuk's First First-Year Associate Marchukts First Two Weeks as a First-Year Associate 16. 16. On September 6, 2011, after taking the New York bar exam that summer, On September 6, 2011, after taking the New York bar exam that summer, Marchuk became associate F&F. Marchuk became a first-year associate at F&F. Once again, she was hired based on Leventhal's request and recommendation. Before she started at the Firm, Nadeem Faruqi sent request and recommendation. Before she started at the Firm, Nadeem Faruqi sent an Marchuk employment letter to Marchuk confirming her $75,000 annual salary and stating that she would of 2012. first become eligible for a bonus at the end of 20 12. eligible 17. 17. as she On September 6,2011, Lubna Faruqi met with Marchuk - just as she did with 6, 2011, - other first-year associates. During their meeting, among other things, Lubna: (a) welcomed ??mong things, Lubna: (a) welcomed their other hrst-year associates. Marchuk to the Firm, (b) discussed her expectations of a first-year associate in terms of a first-year associate in terms Marchuk to the Firm, (b) discussed her expectations assignments and work product, (c) confirmed that her annual salary was $75,000, (d) informed was conhrmed months, Marchuk that she and Nadeem Faruqi would give her a performance review in six months, (e) performance that performance stated that she would not be eligible for a salary increase or a performance bonus until December Employee Handbook. 2012, and (f) asked if Marchuk had received and read the Firm's Employee Handbook. Marchuk if acknowledged that she had read it. acknowledged 18. 18. The Firm's sexual harassment prevention policy, which The Firm's sexual harassment prevention policy, which is contained III the contained in IS Employee Handbook, states: Employee "Sexual harassment of an employee will not be tolerated. "sexual harassment of an employee will not be action, up Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action, up to may result in this and including discharge. . .. Any employee who believes that (s)he is a victim of sexual Any employee who believes that (s)he is a victim of harassment or has been retaliated against for complaining of sexual harassment, should report the situation immediately to one of the to one the harassment, should following members of management who have been designated to who following receive such complaints: Lubna M. Faruqi ... , Olive Alston, Office M, Faruqi ..., Manager ... or Nadeem Faruqi.. .. " ... orNadeem Faruqi...." FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 6 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 7 of 36 19. question recalls Marchuk meeting 19. The only question that Lubna Faruqi recalls that Marchuk asked at their meeting December 2011. Lubna was whether she would be eligible for a salary increase and bonus in December 2011. Lubna that Marchuk had just joined Firm. Lubna meeting by responded no, stating that Marchuk had just joined the Firm. Lubna ended the meeting by telling Marchuk her door always open if ever with concerns. Marchuk that her door was always open if she ever wanted to speak with her about any concerns. 20. 20. First-year associates, like Marchuk, were not to work with anyone First-year associates, like Marchuk, were not assigned to work with any one partner. Marchuk complaint with various partner. Marchuk admits in her complaint that she worked with various partners during her time at the Firm. 21. 21. On September 8, 2011, Marchuk accompanied Monteverde to Chancery Court in Delaware. On September 7, office and stated that came to Nadeem Delaware. On September 7, Marchuk came to Nadeem Faruqi's office and stated that the Honorable Delaware Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr., Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court, had been her professor Chancellor of had during her last semester in law school. She said that she had heard that Monteverde had a law school. She that she had heard her last semester if settlement hearing the next day in Delaware before Chancellor Strine, and asked Nadeem if she Delaware Monteverde could go to court with Monteverde. Nadeem said yes, and he told Monteverde that Marchuk had asked to accompany him. In court, Monteverde introduced Marchuk to Chancellor Strine as to him. court, asked to follows: "And if! may, Your Honor, if Your Honor will indulge me, I want if if I to make a brief introduction to the Court this afternoon. Miss introduction to the Court this afternoon. to make a Alexandra Marchuk is at plaintiffs counsel's table. She joins the plaintifls table. firm after just finishing Vanderbilt Law where I think she had the where Vanderbilt of pleasure to have Your Honor teach one of her courses last spring." 22. 22. That afternoon, after being successful in court, Monteverde and Marchuk went in court, and Marchuk That afternoon, after being at back to F&F's office in New York to report the success. Both, as observed by many at F&F, to the success. Both, as to were euphoric. Marchuk praised Monteverde to Nadeem Faruqi and others, referring to were euphoric. Marchuk praised Monteverde to Nadeem Faruqi and others, referring Monteverde as "amazing." Given that it was late in the day, approximately 5:15 p.m., Monteverde as "amazing." Given that it was late in the day, approximately 5:15 Monteverde announced to a group of F&F employees that he wanted to celebrate at LexBar, F&F that he wanted to celebrate at announced to a group FIRM :20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 7 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 8 of 36 which a the office. Marchuk immediately that she wanted go. which is a five-minute walk from the offrce. Marchuk immediately said that she wanted to go. one else did. No one else did. 23. 23. at LexBar, both Marchuk Monteverde drank. After at the Once at LexBar, both Marchuk and Monteverde drank. After some time at the bar and several engaged consensual and fondling, which by and several drinks, both engaged in consensual kissing and fondling, which was witnessed by the LexBar waitress served them. When Marchuk LexBar, they continued LexBar waitress who served them. When Marchuk and Monteverde left LexBar, they continued if sidewalk. Marchuk volunteered their consensual conduct on the sidewalk. Marchuk volunteered that if Monteverde wanted to ataxi have sex with her, she would not say no. But Monteverde said no and hailed a taxi for Marchuk, with would say no. But Monteverde said at which point they parted ways. The next day, Monteverde told Marchuk that they both had too which ways. Monteverde Marchuk much drink and could again. much to drink and it could not happen again. 24. 24. It is worth noting that while Marchuk and Monteverde were at LexBar on It is worth noting that while Marchuk and Monteverde were at LexBar September 8, Marchuk exchanged emails with Nadeem Faruqi between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. graduate. to set up a job interview for her friend, Michelle Bholan, a fellow Vanderbilt Law graduate. It is Vanderbilt interview set a highly unlikely that Marchuk would recommend a female friend for employment at F&F if she female friend felt that she was being sexually harassed. While her friend's candidacy was pending, Marchuk harassed. felt her candidacy. In did not report any sexual harassment and her friend did not withdraw her candidacy. In fact, not harassment and her friend did not any candidate, to hire when Marchuk was told the following week that F&F had decided to hire a different candidate, F&F the Marchuk was very disappointed. 25. alleges 25. Marchuk next alleges in the complaint that during the following few days at F&F, and Monteverde sexually harassed her by "stroking her stomach and side" in an elevator and asking and an her her her to have sexual relations with him, to which she responded by telling him that his conduct was to to have inappropriate and she was not interested in him. These events did not occur. Indeed, on inappropriate and she was not interested in him. These events did not occur. Indeed, September 12, 2011, an F&F paralegal observed Marchuk asking Monteverde to go out for September 12, 2011, an F&F paralegal observed Marchuk asking Monteverde to go out for drinks with her, and Monteverde responding that he had a previous engagement. engagement. drinks with her, and Monteverde responding that he had a FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 8 8 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 26. 26. Filed 04/02/13 Page 9 of 36 Marchuk alleges the complaint that 16, 2011, she an F&F Marchuk alleges in the complaint that on September 16,2011, she told an F&F female partner that Monteverde had sexually harassed her, and that the female partner female partner that Monteverde had sexually harassed her, and that the female partner discouraged Faruqi. discouraged her from complaining to Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi. In truth, Marchuk did not advise that partner that sexually since advise that partner that Monteverde had sexually harassed her, and the partner, who has since left not Marchuk not complain F&F, did not tell Marchuk not to complain to the Faruqis. 27. 27. On Friday, September 16, Marchuk accompanied this female F&F partner to Friday, September 16, accompanied this female dinner after work. They sat at the bar of a local restaurant, Rossini's, where the partner often work. York. conversing mentioned dined when she was in New York. While conversing with the bartender, the partner mentioned pregnant. Upon Marchuk tears. When that Monteverde's wife was pregnant. Upon hearing this, Marchuk burst into tears. When asked Marchuk replied Monteverde her why she was crying, Marchuk replied that Monteverde had kissed her and touched her breasts the if Monteverde week before at LexBar. Upon information and belief, the F&F partner asked if Monteverde was information LexBar. out of line with her, and Marchuk said no. of 28. 28. After the September 16 Friday night dinner, the female partner called Nadeem the female partner the September 16 Friday Faruqi and stated that she wanted Nadeem to know what Marchuk had told her. There was no her. mention of sexual harassment. Nadeem immediately spoke with Monteverde, who told Nadeem harassment. about the consensual conduct between Marchuk and himself the week before at LexBar, which the week before at and the consensual he labeled a mistake. Nadeem emphatically ordered Monteverde to make sure it did not happen he a mistake. agam. again. 29. 29. Faruqi On Monday morning, September 19, 2011, Marchuk came to Nadeem Faruqi and September 19,2011, asked if she could accompany Monteverde to Chancery Court in Delaware, telling him that her Monteverde to asked she prior trip to court with Monteverde had been a great learning experience. Marchuk's request experience. Marchuk's prior trip to court with had been a great confirmed to Nadeem that whatever happened previously between Monteverde and Marchuk was confirmed to Nadeem that whatever happened previously between Monteverde and Marchuk was consensual, and that Marchuk was completely comfortable working with Monteverde. Thus, consensual, and that Marchuk was completely comfortable working with Monteverde. Thus, FIRJJ:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 9 9 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 10 of 36 Nadeem agreed to Marchuk's request and told Monteverde that Marchuk asked to accompany agreed to Marchuk asked to him to court, which Monteverde agreed was not a problem. Marchuk absurdly alleges in her to whigh agreed was a problem. Marchuk provocatively complaint that Monteverde wanted her to accompany him to court and to dress provocatively so that she could be "eye candy" for the Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice Chancellor of the that she could be "eye candy" for the Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice Delaware Court of Chancery. Her allegation is false. of Chancery. allegation 30. 30. On September 20, 2011, further belying her allegations that the Firm's On September 20, 2011, further belying her allegations that the environment was hostile, she sent an email to a partner at F&F, recommending that the Firm hire environment F&F, recommending another one her friends. Less than three hours after she returned from Delaware another one of her friends. Less than three hours after she returned from Delaware with Monteverde, Monteverde, Marchuk wrote: "My friend Patrick Hely should have contacted you today with a wrote: friend resume and cover letter. I have told him about the work we do here and I think he would be an letter. excellent addition to the Firm. Hopefully you can meet with him soon." excellent Firm. Hopefully D. D. Additional Events Prior to F&F's 2011 Holiday Dinner Party Additional 31. 31. Marchuk alleges that during the next three months, Monteverde made several alleges that during the next three months, made to her and to others comments to her and to others in her presence that were unwelcome and harassing in nature. and Those comments were either not made or have been taken wildly out of context. Others at F&F, either of context. who were witnesses, will take issue with Marchuk's allegations. Marchuk's 32. 32. On November 2,2011, Marchuk sent an email to Nadeem Faruqi and Monteverde Monteverde announcing that she had passed the bar. That evening an F&F paralegal observed and heard announcing that she had the bar. That an F&F paralegal and Marchuk telling Monteverde that she could not believe that he would not go out for drinks with her to celebrate. celebrate. 33. 33. On November 9, 2011, as Monteverde was leaving the office, Marchuk asked him 9,2011, Monteverde offlrce, ifhe was going to LexBar and wanted company. Monteverde replied that although he was going if he company. Monteverde although to LexBar, he did not want company. This exchange was witnessed by Olive Alston, the Firm's company. exchange office manager. FIRM:20394942v1 FIRM:20394942vl 10 l0 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 34. 34. Filed 04/02/13 Page 11 of 36 Around Thanksgiving 2011, Marchuk told Monteverde that her mother was Around Thanksgiving 2011, Marchuk told Monteverde that her mother making a sculpture for him similar to the one in her office, which he had complimented. making a sculpture for him similar to the one in her office, which he had complimented. Monteverde thanked her, but said that her mother should not go to the trouble. Monteverde 35. 35. David Leventhal, Marchuk's best friend's husband, was Marchuk's mentor at David mentor best friend's husband, was F&F. He was a senior partner at F&F when he recommended Marchuk for a summer position, F&F. was and again for full-time employment. Leventhal, his wife Tori and Marchuk often socialized and again for employment. his wife Tori and Marchuk often together. Leventhal never told Lubna Faruqi, Nadeem Faruqi or Olive Alston that Marchuk had together. complained to him or Tori about Monteverde or sexual harassment. Leventhal also socialized harassment. also with Monteverde outside of work during this time period, and at no point did he talk to with Monteverde outside work during this time period, and at no point did he talk Monteverde about allegedly harassing Marchuk. harassing 36. 36. Marchuk alleges in the complaint, without providing a date or context, that Marchuk alleges in the complaint, without providing a date or context, Nadeem Faruqi once told other Firm attorneys that he "was concerned that someday Nadeem Faruqi once told other Firm attomeys that he "was concerned that Mr. Monteverde's inappropriate behavior would cost the Firm a lot of money." Nadeem Faruqi inappropriate money." did not make this statement. Rather, on September 15, 2011, Nadeem handed Monteverde a not make this statement. Rather, on 15,201I, Nadeem check for his portion of a fee awarded in an F&F litigation. Monteverde, like other partners, partners, check for his a fee an F&F litigation. receive a percentage of the business that they bring to the Firm. Upon receiving the check, receive a the business that they to the Firm. the Monteverde told Nadeem and several other F&F attorneys present that he had more potential Nadeem and F&F he had more business opportunities. Nadeem jokingly responded that he knew that Monteverde "would cost opportunities. him a lot of money," referring to compensation he would pay to Monteverde based on the him a lot money," referring to compensation he would pay to based on revenues that he generated in the future. E. Marchuk was Told the Amount of Her Holiday Gift Before the Holiday Marchuk of Dinner Party; She Knew that She Would Not be Receiving A Year-End Receiving Year-End Bonus; and Monteverde had No Authority to Terminate Her Employment. Terminate 37. 37. On December 12 and 13,2011, the Firm distributed annual bonuses to associates, 13, 20II, associates, except first-year associates who had only started in September 2011. First-year associates, except first-year associates who had only started in 2011. First-year associates, FI~:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 11 11 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 12 of 36 including Marchuk, were not given performance reviews and bonuses in December 2011 because including Marchuk, were not given performance reviews and bonuses in December 2011 because of of their employment. Nadeem Marchuk writing before of the brevity of their employment. Nadeem Faruqi had advised Marchuk in writing before she she was not bonus 2012. was hired that she was not eligible for a bonus until December 2012. Lubna Faruqi told Marchuk same thing Marchuk's a first-year Marchuk the same thing on Marchuk's first day as a first-year associate. 38. 38. Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi decided, however, to give each first-year associate a associate 13, 2011 she $1,000 holiday gift. Marchuk was informed on the afternoon of December 13,2011 that she gift. would holiday would be receiving a $1,000 holiday gift. 39. 39. complaint she Marchuk alleges in the complaint that she went back to the Firm's offices with Monteverde after the holiday dinner party because she was afraid that he would fire her and to after that she would a year-end bonus. As further addressed infra, however, ensure that she would receive a good year-end bonus. As further addressed infra, however, Lubna Monteverde had no authority to terminate anyone in the Firm. Only Nadeem Faruqi and Lubna Firm. Faruqi have such authority. Marchuk also knew that she would not be receiving a year-end be receiving a she also Faruqi have such authority. two days earlier. bonus, associate $1,000 bonus, and had been informed of her first-year associate $1,000 gift two days earlier. In fact, had Marchuk did not have a reason to go back to F&F's offices with Monteverde after the holiday dinner party, other than consensual sexual relations. party, F. F. The Night of the December 15,2011 Holiday Dinner Party Dinner Parfy 40. The Firm's holiday party was held at Valbella Restaurant 40. The Firm's holiday party was held at Valbella Restaurant in New York's New In Meatpacking District. The party started at 6:00 p.m. with a cocktail hour including appetizers, including a District. The party started at 6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. More than 70 followed by a sit-down dinner that began at approximately 8:00 p.m. More than 70 people followed by a sit-down dinner that began at their attended the party. Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi sat at a family table that included their parents sat at a family table that and attended the party. sat seating, and their respective spouses and children. While there was no assigned seating, Marchuk sat at was no spouses and children. and their the same table as Monteverde. the same as 41. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Monteverde left his table and took his food over to 41. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Monteverde left his table and took his food over to the Faruqi family table to eat with them. A few minutes later, Marchuk sat down next to the Faruqi family table to eat with them. A few minutes later, Marchuk sat down next to FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 12 t2 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 13 of 36 Monteverde at the family's table. did not bring her with her. she laughed at the Monteverde at the family's table. She did not bring her food with her. While she laughed at the jokes hardly conversation. jokes and stories that Monteverde and others told, she hardly participated in the conversation. About 30 minutes later, got and the table, up and About 30 minutes later, when Monteverde got up and left the table, Marchuk got up and Monteverde. shadowed followed Monteverde. As several persons at the party observed, Marchuk virtually shadowed Monteverde for remainder of Monteverde for the remainder of the party. 42. 42. As the dinner party to wind down at approximately 11 :30 p.m., As the dinner party began to wind down at approximately 11:30 p.m., and contrary to Marchuk's complaint in this lawsuit, Marchuk and Monteverde did not immediately complaint Marchuk Valbella LexBar employees. leave the Valbella restaurant and head to LexBar with other F&F employees. Rather, a group of F &F to Man, F&F employees, including Monteverde, had decided to go to the Ginger Man, a midtown bar. As Monteverde attempted to leave with the group heading to the Ginger Man, Marchuk pulled Monteverde aside and asked to speak with him. Monteverde told the group that he would catch him. Valbella up with them after speaking with Marchuk. Monteverde and Marchuk stayed behind at Valbella Marchuk. because Marchuk asked Monteverde to explain why her mentor and close friend David because Marchuk asked Monteverde to explain why her mentor and close friend Leventhal had resigned the day before from F &F . F&F. an 43. 43. At approximately 12:20 a.m., Marchuk received an email from an F&F attorney, were. who was already at the Ginger Man, asking where she and Monteverde were. A minute or two where she and Man, the Man. the cab later, Monteverde and Marchuk took a taxi together to the Ginger Man. During the cab ride, a taxi together to the and later, resist. Marchuk took Monteverde's hand and started kissing him. Monteverde did not resist. Both had him. hand and been drinking at the party. 44. 44. Marchuk and Monteverde arrived together at the Ginger Man, a sports bar, at Marchuk and Monteverde arrived together at the Ginger Man, a sports bar, at he approximately 12:30 a.m. A few minutes after arriving, Monteverde said that he would rather go 12:30 a.m. to LexBar. Although 10 other F&F employees remained at the Ginger Man, Marchuk decided to to LexBar. Although l0 other F&F employees remained at the Ginger Maq Marchuk decided FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 13 13 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 14 of 36 leave with Monteverde. They were joined by David Bower, an F&F partner. Numerous F&F leave with Monteverde. They were joined by David Bower, an F&F partner. Numerous F&F employees saw them leave together. employees saw them leave together. 45 . Marchuk, Monteverde and Bower walked to LexBar. Throughout the four-block 45, Marchuk, Monteverde and Bower walked to LexBar. Throughout the four-block walk, and Monteverde held hands and kissed. Bower attest that Marchuk was a walk, Marchuk and Monteverde held hands and kissed. Bower will attest that Marchuk was a participant. of the Giles very willing participant. They arrived at LexBar, which is on the ground floor of the St. Giles Court approximately 12:45 a.m. Marchuk couch Court Hotel, at approximately t2:45 a.m. Marchuk and Monteverde sat on a couch in the bar area, and that "a wheel," moved bar. Bower area, and Bower, feeling that he was "a third wheel," moved to the bar. While at the bar, Bower occasionally observed Marchuk Monteverde on couch. occasionally turned around and observed Marchuk and Monteverde making out on the couch. 46. Jerry another attorney, LexBar. walked 46. Jeny Wells, another F&F attomey, later walked into LexBar. He walked past Marchuk he Monteverde and Marchuk on the couch because he saw that they were "cozy with each other." him. He spied Bower at the bar and walked over to him, Bower and Wells had one or two drinks and then both left at approximately 2:30 a.m. at 47. 47. As LexBar was about to close at approximately 2:45 a.m., Marchuk asked As LexBar was about to close at approximately 2:45 a.m., Marchuk Monteverde if he had booked a hotel room upstairs at the St. Giles Court Hotel, where many outSt. a if 'When of-town F&F employees were staying. When Monteverde replied that he had not, Marchuk Monteverde replied that he had not, were staying. of-town F&F responded that they should go to F&F's offices, which were just a five-minute walk away. that they should go to F&F's offices, which were just a five-minute walk During that walk, they continued to make out at each street comer. corner' to 48. 48. At approximately 3:00 a.m., approximately 3~ hours after the holiday dinner At approximately 3:00 a.m., approximately 3% hours after the holiday party had ended, Marchuk and Monteverde arrived at F&F's offices. Upon arriving at F&F, they had ended, Marchuk and Monteverde arrived at F&F's offices. Upon arriving at F&F, they walked to Monteverde's office. He entered his office first and then turned his back to Marchuk walked to Monteverde's off,rce. He entered his office first and then turned his back to Marchuk to hang up his overcoat and suit jacket on a hanger and hook behind his office door. When he to hang up his overcoat and suit jacket on a hanger and hook behind his offrce door. When he turned around, less than 10 seconds later, Marchuk was standing near his desk -- naked with only turned around, less than 10 seconds later, Marchuk was standing near his desk naked with only FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 14 l4 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 15 of 36 a long necklace around her neck. Her overcoat and cocktail dress were on the carpet. She a long necklace around her neck. Her overcoat and cocktail dress were on the carpet. She apparently had not worn a bra or panties. apparently had not worn a bra or panties. 49. Marchuk laid down on the carpet and motioned Monteverde to come to her. 49. Marchuk laid down on the carpet and motioned Monteverde to come to her. Monteverde, who was inebriated, got on top of her with his clothes still on and his pants around Monteverde, who was inebriated, got on top of her with his clothes still on and his pants around his ankles. He could not an erection. After seconds, and with no penetration, his ankles. He could not get an erection. After 15-20 seconds, and with no penetration, Monteverde rolled off of her. then Monteverde the where she Monteverde rolled off of her. Marchuk then told Monteverde to sit on the couch where she performed oral sex on him. Monteverde did not resist. sex him. Monteverde not resist. 50. 50. Marchuk Firm's offices together. Monteverde told Marchuk and Monteverde soon left the Firm's offrces together. Monteverde told Marchuk that he would get her a cab, but Marchuk said that she wanted to take the subway. would a cab, she subway. Monteverde Monteverde walked her to the subway turnstile inside Grand Central Station, and they said good of night. complain night. Marchuk certainly did not complain that she was a victim of sexual harassment. G. G. Marchuk's Last Week at the Firm \ileek Marchuk's 51. 51. a.m., The next day, December 16, 2011, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Office Manager next day, December 16, 207I, at nor Alston placed a fax on Monteverde's desk. Neither Monteverde nor Marchuk had arrived yet. desk. Neither fax on his office, as gray Alston did not see any blood stains on Monteverde's light gray carpet in his office, as alleged in blood stains see the complaint. the complaint. 52. A? 9:36 a.m. on December 16, Marchuk emailed Monteverde that he should call 52. At 9:36 a.m. on December 16, Marchuk emailed Monteverde that he should call her at work, which he did. Marchuk told him that there were blood stains on his carpet and that her at work, which he did. Marchuk told him that there were blood stains on his carpet and that she had closed his office door so that no one could see them. Marchuk asked Monteverde to she had closed his offrce door so that no one could see them. Marchuk asked Monteverde to come to the office as soon as possible. Monteverde asked how there could be blood on the come to the offrce as soon as possible. Monteverde asked how there could be blood on the carpet because she was not having her period. In any case, when Monteverde arrived at his carpet because she was not having her period. In any case, when Monteverde arrived at his office approximately 20 minutes later, he found three stains, one very large and two smaller offrce approximately 20 minutes later, he found three stains, one very large and two smaller ones. ones. FIRM:20394942v I FIRM:20394942v1 15 15 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 53. 53. Filed 04/02/13 Page 16 of 36 Marchuk told Monteverde that she had been injured when they tried to have Marchuk told Monteverde that she had been injured when they tried to have sexual intercourse. Monteverde replied that she had never said that she was hurt, that he did not sexual intercourse. Monteverde replied that she had never said that she was hurt, that he did not remember blood, that there were no blood on his underwear or pants, and, most remember any blood, that there were no blood stains on his underwear or pants, and, most importantly, they were unable to have intercourse the night before. Marchuk commented that he importantly, they were unable to have intercourse the night before. Marchuk commented that he too remember. Monteverde what must have been too drunk to remember. Monteverde replied that he could not forget what happened. inquired emergency considering happened. Monteverde inquired whether she had gone to the emergency room considering the size of the stains, and Marchuk answered had just gone size of the stains, and Marchuk answered that she had just gone home. 54. Marchuk Monteverde what when 54. Marchuk then asked Monteverde what people would say when they saw the stains on the carpet. Monteverde responded that he would spill coffee on the stains, which he did. In carpet. which did. fact, Monteverde did not know whether the stains were blood; their color was red and not brown, Monteverde know whether brown, the color of dried blood. blood. of 55. 55. Later that day, Monteverde went to Marchuk's office and said that he was sorry day, about last night and that it could never happen again. He said that they should either tell Lubna again. and about event. and Nadeem Faruqi about what happened or they should forget about the whole event. Marchuk and said that she did not want the Faruqis to know and asked him not to tell them. she said everyone meeting, 56. Faruqi called a December 16, 56. Also on December 16, Nadeem Faruqi called a Firm meeting, thanked everyone into for attending the holiday party, and announced that he was dividing everyone into seven teams the holiday party, and announced that he was for etc. Each team based on practice areas, such as M&A Litigation, Derivative Litigation, etc. Each team would Derivative based on practice areas, such as assigned Monteverde to have a team leader and have two, one or no junior associates. Nadeem assigned Monteverde to associates. have a team leader and have two, one or no lead the M&A team and Marchuk to be a member of this team. Following this announcement, lead the M&A team and Marchuk to be a member of this team. Following this announcement, Monteverde said that it was not fair that only one junior associate was assigned to his team. As Monteverde said that it was not fair that only one junior associate was assigned to his team. As an acknowledgement to Marchuk's work, Nadeem responded, "I gave you Alexandra." an acknowledgement to Marchuk's work, Nadeem responded, "I gave you Alexandra." Everyone, including Marchuk, laughed. Everyone, including Marchuk, laughed. FIRM:20394942v I FIRM:20394942v1 16 I6 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 17 of 36 57. After the meeting, Nadeem Faruqi in of Marchuk's and asked 57. After the meeting, Nadeem Faruqi stopped in front of Marchuk's office and asked team. Marchuk if she liked being placed on the M&A team. She responded that she loved M&A litigation and thought that Monteverde was the best attorney she had litigation and thought that Monteverde was the best attorney she had ever seen. 58. 58. December 19,2011, Marchuk Sarah Several days later, on December 19,20II, Marchuk told another associate, Sarah Westby, that she was not happy with her $1,000 holiday gift, which might not even cover the of holiday gifts. harassment, cost of holiday gifts. She did not say anything about Monteverde or sexual harassment, nor did she mention she mention that she was thinking about leaving the Firm. leaving Firm. 59. December 20,2011, Marchuk received gift. 59. On or about December 20, 2011, Marchuk received her $1,000 holiday gift. On December fine. December 22, however, come December 21, she came to work and seemed fine. On December 22,howevet, she did not come sent email Lubna Faruqi: to work and sent the following email to Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi: yesterday "I am writing to let you know that yesterday was my last day at writing the firm, and 1 will not be returning. 1 have spoken to an be returning. I have spoken to the firm, and I will not employment lawyer, and you can expect to be contacted by employment lawyer, and you can expect to be contacted me, unless it someone on my behalf. Please do not contact me, unless it is do someone on my behalf. regarding my insurance coverage under COBRA and in regarding my insurance coverage under COBRA and writing." [emphasis added] writing." femphasis 60. 60. Lubna and Nadeem Faruqi could not contact Marchuk because of her instruction did not identify not to do so. They also did not contact her counsel because Marchuk did not identify her not to do so. They also did not contact her counsel because counsel. Upon receiving this email, however, F&F consulted with its own counsel. They counsel. Upon receiving this email, however, F&F consulted with its own counsel. immediately commenced an internal investigation to try to ascertain what had happened. immediately commenced an intemal investigation to try to ascertain what had Nadeem Faruqi spoke with Monteverde to see if he knew why Marchuk had resigned. Nadeem Faruqi spoke with Monteverde to see if he knew why Marchuk had Monteverde told Nadeem about his post-holiday party encounter with Marchuk. He apologized Marchuk. He apologized his Monteverde was to Nadeem, referred to himself as an "idiot," but insisted that the encounter was completely but insisted that the to Nadeem, referred to himself as an certain of consensual. Monteverde further told Nadeem that other F&F employees witnessed certain of that other F&F employees consensual. Monteverde further told their consensual behavior. Nadeem contacted F&F partner David Bower, among others, who their consensual behavior. Nadeem contacted F&F partner David Bowet, among others, confirmed that based on his observations, the conduct was consensual. on his observations, the conduct was consensual. confirmed that FIRM :20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 17 t7 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 61. 61. Filed 04/02/13 Page 18 of 36 The Faruqis were extremely angry that Monteverde had engaged in such conduct The Faruqis were extremely angry that Monteverde had engaged in such conduct in the Firm's offices and disciplined him. They further informed him that any romantic conduct in the Firm's offrces and disciplined him. They further informed him that any romantic conduct with a Firm employee either at or outside the office, in the would result in his immediate with a Firm employee either at or outside the office, in the future, would result in his immediate termination. the investigation and lengthy deliberation, the Faruqis concluded that there termination. After the investigation and lengthy deliberation, the Faruqis concluded that there evidence that Monteverde had sexually harassed Marchuk. was no evidence that Monteverde had sexually harassed Marchuk. 62. 62. they The Faruqis did not know any specifics about Marchuk's allegations until they were from on October 1, 2012. received a letter from Marchuk's attorney on October l, 2012. They were stunned by the letter, account. allegations in the letter, but they did not believe her account. Given the letter's allegations concerning what had occurred after the holiday party, they thought that Marchuk would have holiday Marchuk complaint if promptly filed a complaint against Monteverde and complained to them if the allegations were true. H. H. Marchuk Disseminates Her False Allegations Marchuk and/or 63. 63. On March 13,2013, immediately after her action was filed, Marchuk andlor John from "John or Jane Doe emailed a copy of the complaint under the pseudonym "John Smith" from email under the the a copy Jane Doe recipients." F&F clients, account "js832408@gmail.com" to a list of "undisclosed recipients." F&F clients, opposing account "js832408@gmail. " to a list counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and, upon information and belief, several media counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and, upon information and belief, several outlets - including The New York Times and Thomson Reuters - received it. and Monteverde's 64. Marchuk and John or Jane Doe knew the identities 64. Marchuk and John or Jane Doe knew the identities of F&F's and Monteverde's clients by virtue of their prior employment at F&F or connection to former F&F employees. A employment at F&F or connection to former F&F employees. A virtue of their clients number of these clients - including individuals, public entities and private entities - contacted number of these clients - including individuals, public entities and private entities - contacted the Faruqis in the hours after the complaint was filed, and distributed to them, to express their the Faruqis in the hours after the complaint was filed, and distributed to them, to express their shock. Clients inquired about the status of the Firm, how these scurrilous allegations would shock. Clients inquired about the status of the Firm, how these scurrilous allegations would affect the Firm, and the impact the allegations would have on the clients' ability to continue affect the Firm, and the impact the allegations would have on the clients' ability to continue doing business with the Firm. doing business with the Firm. FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 18 18 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 19 of 36 65. As a result of Marchuk's false allegations and dissemination of the complaint, 65. As a result of Marchuk's false allegations and dissemination of the complaint, Defendants have experienced a chilling effect on their business and ability to attract new clients Defendants have experienced a chilling effect on their business and ability to attract new clients and business. Defendants are having difficulty marketing their legal services to public entities, and business. Defendants are having difficulty marketing their legal services to public entities, which account 50% of the Firm's business. Just before this complaint was filed, F&F which account for over 50o/o of the Firm's business. Just before this complaint was hled, F&F invested in a new sector practice and bring and had substantially invested in a new public sector practice area and hired attorneys to bring in and practice. hold, as generate business as a significant segment of the Firm's practice. This initiative is on hold, of indefinitely. F &F substantial indefinitely. F&F and Monteverde have lost and will lose substantial business because of the fabrications alleged in the complaint. complaint. DEFENDANTS'COUNTERCLAIMS DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS JURISDICTION JURISDICTION AND VENUE counterclaims 66. supplemental jurisdiction 66. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants' counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1367 because the counterclaims are so related to the complaint that they form part counterclaims $ of the same case and controversy. controversy. of 67. 67. U.S.C. $ Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1391(b) because F&F's New resides principle place of business is located in New York County, Monteverde resides in New York is located New York place Defendants' County, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Defendants' counterclaims occurred in events and a New York County. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY F&F FIRST (Defamation) (Defamation) 68. F&F repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 68. F&F repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 65 of Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length herein. through 65 of Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length herein. 69. The complaint contains the following false and defamatory statements, among 69. The complaint contains the following false and defamatory statements, among others, concerning F&F: others, concerning F&F: a. a. FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 "Despite knowing of Mr. Monteverde's improper and abusive treatment of "Despite knowing of Mr. Monteverde's improper and abusive treatment of Ms. Marchuk, as well his notorious propensity for such behavior towards Ms. Marchuk, as well his notorious propensity for such behavior towards 19 T9 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 20 of 36 others, neither F&F nor either of its managing partners took any action to F&F prevent or put an end to it." (Complaint, ~ 3) fl b. b c. idea One of F&F's senior partners told Marchuk "it was not a good idea for F&F's Marchuk was a One partners in Ms. Marchuk to complain about [Monteverde] to other senior to [Monteverde] the Firm, including Mr. Faruqi and his sister, Lubna Faruqi." (Complaint, his ~ 28) 1[28) d. F&F "took no other action to prevent Mr. Monteverde from further F&F "took no other action to prevent Mr. Monteverde from harassing Ms. Marchuk." (Complaint, ~ 29) Marchuk." (Compl aint, I 29) e. e. "Mr. Faruqi even told other F&F attorneys that he was concerned that "Mr. Faruqi even told other F&F attorneys that he was someday Mr. Monteverde's inappropriate behavior would cost the Firm a lot of money." (Complaint, ~ 71) of money." fl f. 70. 70. "Though it was obvious that Mr. Monteverde had harassed Ms. Marchuk Mr. Ms. out of her job, F&F took no action, deciding that sacrificing the out of her job, F&F took no action, deciding that sacrificing employment rights of a first-year associate like Ms. Marchuk was a small Ms. price to pay to keep one of F&F's most important partners happy." price to pay to keep one F&F's most important partners happy," (Complaint, ~ 4) fl "F&F had actual notice that Monteverde was subjecting Marchuk to "F&F had actual notice that Monteverde was subjecting Marchuk inappropriate sexual harassment in the workplace, but made no effort to no the wor?lace, (Complaint,I72) prevent or remedy it." (Complaint, ~ 72) Marchuk makes these allegations in the complaint against F&F for the sole, makes these allegations in the complaint against F&F for the malicious purpose of defaming F&F, ruining its professional reputation, and interfering with its F&F, reputation, client relationships. relationships. 71. 7I. Marchuk published these false and defamatory statements, or caused them to be statements, these false published by John or Jane Doe, by emailing the complaint to F&F clients,l opposing counsel in clients,l F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and the media. On the same day that the complaint was filed, media. cases, the and for days thereafter, F&F and Monteverde were contacted by F&F clients and opposing and for days thereafter, F&F and were contacted by F&F clients and counsel in F&F cases to inquire about the communication. F&F was also contacted by The New F&F communication. F&F contacted York Times and Thomson Reuters, among others, about the complaint. Thomson I The identities of the F&F clients that received the complaint by email are highly confidential. F&F the F&F will disclose their names in camera upon request of the Court. F&F of 1 FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 20 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 21 of 36 The false and defamatory statements were intentionally published by email to The false and defamatory statements were intentionally published by email to 72. 72. F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and the media within hours of F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and the media within hours of filing the complaint. Marchuk and John or Jane Doe made these statements for the sole and filing the complaint. Marchuk and John or Jane Doe made these statements for the sole and malicious purpose of disseminating them outside of this judicial proceeding and throughout malicious pulpose of disseminating them outside of this judicial proceeding and throughout Defendants'industry. Defendants' industry. 73. 73. These and defamatory statements are not privileged because: they were These false and defamatory statements are not privileged because: (a) they were made in the complaint for the sole and malicious purpose of spreading false accusations to the the purpose false to defame Defendants; and (b) this wide dissemination was neither essential nor relevant to these these proceedings. proceedings. The publication did not and will not aid Marchuk's case before this Court in any and purpose to of way, and has no pu{pose other than to injure Defendants personally and professionally out of malice, spite and ill will. and 74. 74. publication these false Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's intentional publication of these false and John or defamatory statements about Defendants has significantly damaged their reputations in the legal has statements industry and substantially interfered with F&F's business. As a result, Marchuk is liable to F&F business. interfered in an amount to be determined at trial, which F &F believes exceeds Fifteen Million Dollars in an amount to be determined at triaI, which F&F believes exceeds Fifteen Million ($15,000,000). SECOND COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY MONTEVERDE SECOND COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY MONTEVERDE (Defamation) (Defamation) 75. Monteverde repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in 75. Monteverde repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 65 of Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length Paragraphs 1 through 65 of Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length herein. herein. 76. Marchuk's complaint contains the following false and defamatory statements 76. Marchuk's complaint contains the following false and defamatory statements concerning Monteverde: concerning Monteverde: FIRM:20394942v I FIRM:20394942v1 21 2l Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 22 of 36 a. a, b. "Monteverde aggressively Marchuk "Monteverde aggressively grabbed and kissed Ms. Marchuk and attempted her breasts. Marchuk physically to fondle her breasts. Ms. Marchuk physically rebuffed Mr. Monteverde's F&F's advances. Monteverde Marchuk advances. Mr. Monteverde then asked Ms. Marchuk to go back to F&F's offices with him have sex." (Complaint, ~ 18) offices with him to have sex." (Complaint, fl 18) c. c. Marchuk Monteverde "took Ms. Marchuk to lunch and told her that he wanted her to be his mistress. As a married man, Mr. Monteverde attempted to justify married to justify explaining has girlfriend, his actions by explaining that his father has 'a wife, a girlfriend, and a mistress.' Monteverde explained married mistress.' Mr. Monteverde further explained that he married his wife only obtain a Card." (Complaint, ~ to obtain a United States Green Card." (Complaint,11 19) d. d. "inappropriately Monteverde "inappropriately stroked Ms. Marchuk's stomach and side in elevator." ~ the elevator." (Complaint, fl 21) e. e. Delaware With respect to Marchuk's attendance at a hearing in Delaware Chancery attendance Court, Monteverde "wanted Ms. Marchuk to appear with him because her F&F. Mr. Monteverde good looks would influence the judge in favor of F&F. Mr. Monteverde told Ms. Marchuk to wear her hair down, wear a low-cut shirt, and try to Ms. look as alluring as possible during the hearing." The next day, "Mr. look as alluring as possible during the hearing." The next day, "Mr' attractive Monteverde again told Ms. Marchuk to try to look as attractive as possible againtold judge's attention during the hearing ... her sole function hearing in order to get the attention Laster." was to serve as 'eye candy' for Vice Chancellor Laster." (Complaint, ~~ candy' as to tlfl 25,30) 25,30) f. F&F That Monteverde "explained that since she had started working at F &F he had been testing Ms. Marchuk's loyalty and toughness, and that she was and toughness, and Ms. failing miserably. He expressed disappointment in Ms. Marchuk for failing miserably. He expressed disappointment in Ms. Marchuk partner. 'betraying' him by complaining" to a senior F&F partner. (Complaint, ~ by complaining" to a senior fl 62) 62) ? g. ?. FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 "Monteverde coerced and threatened [Marchuk] that if not have "Monteverde coerced and threatened [Marchuk] that if she did not have year-end bonus and likely with him not recommend and likely sex with him he could not recommend her for a year-end terminate F&F. induced would terminate her employment at F&F. Thus Mr. Monteverde induced Ms. Marchuk to go back to F&F's offices with him where he quickly and Marchuk back offices where and forcefully with her." (Complaint, ~ 2) forcefully had sex with her." (Complaint, fl 2) Marchuk's description of the events of December 15, 2011 falsely states: December 15, 2011 falsely the events pushed Ms. Marchuk to "After entering his office, Mr. Monteverde pushed Ms. Marchuk to the "After entering his office, Mr. her. floor and quickly, forcefully, and painfully had sex with her. Suffering floor and quickly, forcefully, and painfully had sex discomfort and not wanting to continue having sex with him, Ms. to continue having sex with him, discomfort and not wanting her Marchuk implored Mr. Monteverde to stop, but he disregarded her pleas Mr. Monteverde to stop, but he Marchuk and continued having sex with her. After he finished, Ms. Marchuk had her, After he finished, Ms. having sex and continued left a large bloodstain on Mr. Monteverde's carpet. Seeing that Ms. left a large bloodstain on Mr. Monteverde's carpet. Seeing that Marchuk was emotionally and physically traumatized by his aggressive Marchuk was emotionally and physically traumatized by his aggressive conduct, Mr. Monteverde immediately directed her not to tell anyone what conduct, Mr. Monteverde immediately directed her not to tell anyone what he had done. He then quickly escorted Ms. Marchuk from F&F's office he had done. He then quickly escorted Ms. Marchuk from F&F's office and down the street, obviously concerned that they might be discovered by and down the street, obviously concerned that they might be discovered by 22 22 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 23 of 36 F&F employees. ML Monteverde advised Ms. Marchuk to forget what had F&F employees. Mr. Monteverde advised Ms. Marchuk to forget what had just happened." (Complaint, fl 65) just happened." (Complaint, ~ 65) 77. 77. The above statements are among the other false and defamatory statements in the The above statements are among the other false and defamatory statements in the 1, complaint, which are contained in the paragraphs: complaint, which are contained in the complaint's following paragraphs: 1, I11, 12, 26, 32, 33, 35,37-39,41,42,44,46-51,53,55,60,61, and 62. 35,37-39, 41,42, 44, 46-51,53, 55, 60,61, and 62. 78. these the the 78. Marchuk makes these allegations against Monteverde in the complaint for the sole, malicious purpose of defaming Monteverde, ruining his personal and professional sole, malicious pu{pose of defaming Monteverde, ruining his personal and professional reputation, distress mental reputation, and causing him severe emotional distress and mental anguish. 79. 79. Marchuk false Marchuk published these false and defamatory statements, or caused them to be of published by John or Jane Doe, by emailing a copy of the complaint to F&F clients, opposing counsel cases, wife, and members the media. Just after counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and members of the media. Just hours after the Smith" from an complaint was filed in this Court, Monteverde's wife received an email from "John Smith" wife was filed in this Court, whose email account is stated as "js832408@gmail. ". Marchuk andlor John Jane whose email accountisstatedas .. js832408@gmail.com... Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe false allegations disseminating created this email account for the purpose of maliciously disseminating the false allegations in the email recipients." the complaint. This email states that it was sent to a list of "undisclosed recipients." On the that was sent to a the complaint. This email were same day that the complaint was filed, and for days thereafter, Defendants were contacted by was filed, and for days thereafter, that the same F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, and members of the press to inquire about the F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, and members the press to inquire about communication, confirming that the list of "undisclosed recipients" included, among others, F&F "undisclosed commgnication, confirming clients. clients. 80. The false and defamatory statements were intentionally published by email to 80. The false and defamatory statements were intentionally published by email to F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and the media within hours of F&F clients, opposing counsel in F&F cases, Monteverde's wife, and the media within hours of filing the complaint. Marchuk and John or Jane Doe made these statements for the sole and filing the complaint. Marchuk and John or Jane Doe made these statements for the sole and malicious purpose of disseminating them outside of this judicial proceeding, throughout malicious purpose of disseminating them outside of this judicial proceeding, throughout Defendants' industry and to Monteverde's wife. Defendants' industry and to Monteverde's wife. FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 23 23 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 81. 81. Filed 04/02/13 Page 24 of 36 These and are not privileged because they were These false and defamatory statements are not privileged because (a) they were the sole malicious purpose false to made in the complaint for the sole and malicious pu{pose of spreading false accusations to dissemination relevant defame Defendants; and (b) this wide dissemination was neither essential nor relevant to these proceedings. publication any proceedings. The publication did not and will not aid Marchuk's case before this Court in any way, and has no purpose other than to injure Monteverde personally and professionally out of and ill malice, spite and ill will. 82. intentional these 82. Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's intentional publication of these false and per se because they defamatory about Monteverde constitutes defamatory statements about Monteverde constitutes defamation per se because they imply depraved and criminal conduct. Marchuk has maliciously caused Monteverde to depraved and criminal conduct. Marchuk has maliciously caused Monteverde to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress and injury to his reputation in both humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress and injury to his reputation in both the community and his profession. Marchuk is liable to Monteverde in an amount to be determined profession. community ($15,000,000). at trial, which Monteverde believes exceeds Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000). Million which Monteverde MONTEVERDE THIRD COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY F&F AND MONTEVERDE (Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage) (Tortious Interference 83. 83. 1 Defendants repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 65 of their Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length herein. if Counterclaims 65 of 84. 84. clients F&F and Monteverde maintained valuable business relationships with clients by valuable business relationships providing legal services and representing those clients in litigation. These clients include providing legal services and representing those clients in litigation, These clients individuals, public entities and private entities. Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe knew that individuals, public entities and private entities. Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe F&F and Monteverde had business relationships with these clients by virtue of their prior F&F and Monteverde had business relationships with these clients by virtue of their employment at F&F. F&F. 85. In a deliberate attempt to damage Defendants' business relationships, Marchuk 85. In a deliberate attempt to damage Defendants' business relationships, Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe maliciously and without justification emailed a copy of the complaint to emailed a copy of the complaint to and/or John or Jane Doe maliciously and without F&F clients immediately after it was filed in Court for the sole purpose of injuring the Firm's F&F clients immediately after it waS filed in Court for the sole purpose of injuring the Firm's FIRJJ:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 24 24 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 25 of 36 and Monteverde's reputations, induce cease doing business and/or and Monteverde's reputations, to induce clients to cease doing business with F&F and/or these F&F Monteverde, and convince these clients not to enter into future business dealings with F&F and/or Monteverde. andlor Monteverde. 86. 86. Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe published the defamatory statements for the andlor purpose relationships. sole purpose of interfering with Defendants' business relationships, The complaint contains false and defamatory statements about F&F and Monteverde that have been made out of spite, ill defamatory statements F&F Monteverde have of and malice. will and malice. 87. emailed complaint andlor 87. Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe also emailed the complaint to the media and to litigation F&F. attorneys who are opposing counsel in pending litigation that is being handled by F&F. Media Thomson representatives from The New York Times and Thomson Reuters, among others, contacted F&F about the complaint. complaint. 88. 88. Marchuk's conduct has significantly interfered and injured Defendants' Marchuk's conduct has significantly interfered and injured Defendants' relationships with clients. Numerous clients contacted Defendants in the hours after the relationships with clients. Numerous clients contacted Defendants in the hours after complaint was filed, and distributed to them, to express shock. Clients inquired about the status shock. of the Firm, how these scurrilous allegations would affect the Firm, and the impact the of the Firm, how these scurrilous allegations would affect the Firm, and the impact Defendants. allegations would have on the clients' ability to continue to do business with Defendants. F&F do and Monteverde will lose clients and/or the opportunity to retain new business from these clients clients andlor as a direct and proximate result of Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's conduct. of Marchuk's as 89. 89, In addition to the false depiction of events described in the complaint and planted has had a in the minds of current clients, Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's conduct has had a chilling Marchuk's andlor John Jane Doe's the minds effect on Defendants' ability to attract new clients. F&F and Monteverde are having difficulty clients. F&F and Monteverde are to effect on Defendants' marketing their legal services to public entities, which account for over 50% of the Firm's marketing their legal services to public entities, which account for over 50% of the Firm's business. Just before this complaint was filed, F&F had substantially invested in a new public this complaint was filed, F&F had substantially invested in a new business. Just FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 25 25 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 26 of 36 sector practice area hired attorneys to bring in and generate business as a significant segment sector practice area and hired attorneys to bring in and generate business as a significant segment of Firm's practice. of and/or Doe's malicious of the Firm's practice. As a result of Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's malicious conduct, Defendants have lost and lose substantial business. Defendants have lost and will lose substantial business. 90. 90. Based on the foregoing, F&F and Monteverde have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, which to be determined at trial, which Defendants believe exceeds Fifteen Million Dollars Defendants believe exceeds Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000). ($ 15,ooo,oo0). FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT MONTEVERDE FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY MONTEVERDE of Emotional Distress) (Intentional (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 91. 91. Monteverde repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth Monteverde repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in of Counterclaims if Paragraphs 1 through 65 of Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length 1 herein. 92. 92. Marchuk's false and defamatory allegations in the complaint, exacerbated by in the complaint, Marchuk's false and Monteverde's Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's malicious publication to Monteverde's wife, F&F clients, Marchuk's andlor outrageous so opposing counsels in F&F cases and the media, constitutes conduct so extreme and outrageous the media, F&F cases that it is intolerable by a civilized society. intolerable to Monteverde's 93. Marchuk andlor John or Jane Doe, by emailing the 93. Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe, by emailing the complaint to Monteverde's wife, F&F's clients, opposing counsels in F&F cases and the media, knew or should have known as distress and that their actions would cause Monteverde to suffer severe emotional distress and anguish as a to result of their publication of the false and defamatory claims asserted therein. Marchuk and/or therein. the false and defamatory claims their publication John or Jane Doe emailed the complaint to these persons and entities with the intention of John or Jane Doe emailed the complaint to these persons and entities with the intention causing Monteverde to suffer severe emotional distress. 94. As a result of Marchuk's unjustifiable, defamatory statements, and 94. As a result of Marchuk's unjustifiable, defamatory statements, and Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's pUblication thereof, Monteverde has suffered serious psychological and/or John or Jane Doe's publication thereof, Monteverde has suffered serious psychological and emotional injuries and distress, mental anguish, and damage to his personal and professional and emotional injuries and distress, mental anguish, and damage to his personal and professional FIRM :20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 26 26 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 27 of 36 reputation. injuries would not have been suffered but Marchuk's and/or John Jane reputation. These injuries would not have been suffered but for Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's conduct. Doe's conduct. 95. As a result of Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's conduct, Monteverde has 95. As a result of Marchuk's andlor John or Jane Doe's conduct, Monteverde has been at Fifteen damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, which Monteverde believes exceeds Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000). Million Dollars ($1 5,000,000). FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY F&F (Misappropriation of Confidential Information) (Misappropriation of Confidential Information) 96. 96. F&F repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 realleges every allegation Paragraphs 1 of Counterclaims if herein. through 65 of Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length herein. 97. 97. information privileged In the course of its business, F&F maintains client information that is privileged and highly confidential. The identities of these clients, their contact information - including their these confidential. The identities and - including arc all email addresses and names of representatives - and notes pertaining to the representation are all of - highly confidential and proprietary to F&F. 98. 98. F&F's client contact list and client information is not readily ascertainable F&F's client contact list and client information is not readily ascertainable to through proper means. F&F' s Employee Handbook requires each employee to "maintain the requires means. F&F's this highest degree of confidentiality when handling client matters. To maintain this professional handling client matters. To degree confidence, no employee shall disclose client information to other clients, friends, or members of one's own family." Access to F&F's computer system is protected by usemames and passwords, usernames family." and restricts access to client files and client contact information to business purposes. information hles 99. acknowledgment 99. Marchuk signed an acknowledgment that she read the Employee Handbook. 100. Upon information and belief, Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe misappropriated or Jane Doe and belief, Marchuk andlor 100. Upon F&F's confidential and proprietary client information without F&F's consent by taking or F&F's confidential and proprietary client information without F&F's consent by taking or otherwise obtaining F&F's client list, with contact and other case information. Marchuk and/or otherwise obtaining F&F's client list, with contact and other case information. Marchuk andlor John or Jane Doe used that information to send the complaint to F&F's clients. that information to send the complaint to F&F's clients. John or Jane Doe FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 27 27 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 28 of 36 101. Marchuk knew that F&F's client infonnation was confidential and that she was 101. information was that not authorized to access, take, obtain or use F&F's client infonnation following her resignation information resignation to access, fromF&F. from F&F. 102. F&F has been damaged by Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's conduct. By 102. has been by andlor John Jane Doe's conduct. using F&F's client information to disseminate the false allegations in the complaint by email to false F&F clients, Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe have hanned F&F's reputation in the industry. industry. andlor Jane harmed F&F's ability to retain, market and generate business from these clients has been irreparably F&F's to market and generate from these has irreparably hanned. harmed. 103. Marchuk's and/or John or Jane Doe's misappropriation of F&F's confidential 103. and/or John or Jane Doe's F&F's conhdential client infonnation was malicious, willful and motivated by spite and ill will. F&F has been information was malicious, and by spite and will. F&F has damaged as a result in an amount to be detennined at trial, which F&F believes exceeds Fifteen as determined F&F Fifteen ($ 1 5,000,000). Million Dollars ($15,000,000). Million SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY F&F AND MONTEVERDE F'&F MONTEVERDE (Pr?m? (Prima Facie Tort) 104. Defendants repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 I04. I through 65 of their Answer and Counterclaims as if fully set forth at length herein. through 65 of Counterclaims if 105. By making false and defamatory statements in the complaint and publishing the 105. false defamatory statements the statements or causing such statements to be published to F&F's clients, opposing counsel in F&F published statements cases, Monteverde's wife and the media by email, Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe cases, Monteverde's wife and the media by email, Marchuk and/or John or Jane intentionally inflicted harm on F&F and Monteverde. intentionally F&F 106. Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe have no excuse or justification for this conduct. justification 106, 107. As a result, F&F and Monteverde have sustained special damages in the fonn of 107. F&F form lost business advantage and damage to their reputations. advantage FIRM:20394942v I FIRM:20394942v1 28 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 108. 108. Filed 04/02/13 Page 29 of 36 Marchuk John Monteverde Marchuk and/or John or Jane Doe are liable to F&F and Monteverde in an amount of special damages to be determined at trial, which Defendants believe exceeds Fifteen Million determined ($15,000,000). Dollars ($ 1 5,000,000). THE COMPLAINT DEFENDANTS' ANSWER DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT THE NATURE OF THE ACTION 109. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. allegations 1 of 109. of 110. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, except admit that 110. Marchuk resigned. 111 . Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admit that of 1 I 1. partners. Nadeem Faruqi is one ofF&F's managing partners. of F&F's 112. ll2. of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except admit that employment Marchuk informed F&F's managing partners that she had consulted an employment attorney and was resigning her employment. resigning employment. PARTIES 113. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the form as to suffrcient 113. allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 114. lI4. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 ofthe Complaint. Paragraph of the 115. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except deny that of 1 15. Monteverde was a senior partner at F&F. F&F. Monteverde JURISDICTION AND VENUE JURISDICTION 116. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the to form a as to the 116. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, except admit that Defendants are citizens are forth the allegations of the State of New York and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of the State New York and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive interests and costs. FIRM:20394942v 1 FIRM:20394942v1 29 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 117. ll7. Filed 04/02/13 Page 30 of 36 Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 118. Admit allegations forth in of Complaint. 118. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 119. 119. of admit Deny allegations forth Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, except admit that Marchuk a summer associate F&F. Marchuk was a summer associate at F&F. 120. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except admit that of admit 120. Deny allegations set Marchuk F&F Monteverde, on one occasion, Marchuk accompanied some F&F lawyers, including Monteverde, to network with other class-action afterwards went restaurant dinner with other class-action plaintiffs' attorneys and that afterwards she went to a restaurant for dinner with Monteverde F&F event with Monteverde and another F&F partner and his girlfriend, who had been at the event earlier. 121. l2l. of Complaint. Deny allegations set Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 122. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, except admit that of I22. Deny allegations as Marchuk graduated from law school in the spring of 2011 and that she accepted a position as a 20ll full-time associate at F&F with a starting salary of $75,000, and further deny knowledge or a starting salary full-time associate at F&F $75,000, and further deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that Marchuk was excited of belief suffrcient to secure the associate position and had large student loans. Paragraph 15 of 123. . 123. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except admit that on September 6,2011, Marchuk became a first-year associate at F&F. September 6, 2011, Complaint. 124. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. of I24. 125. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except admit that Paragraph 125. Marchukjoined Monteverde at Lex Bar, which was near F&F's office. offrce. \ryas Marchuk joined Monteverde 126. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. Paragraph 18 the 126. 127. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admit that I27. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admit that Monteverde and Marchuk went to lunch. Monteverde and Marchuk went to lunch. 128. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 128. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 30 30 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 31 of 36 129. 129. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 130. 130. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph of Complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 131. 13 1. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph of Complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 132. I32. Deny allegations forth in Paragraph of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 133. 133. Complaint. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 134. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 134. Deny allegations set forth Paragraph of 135. 135. of Complaint. Deny allegations forth Paragraph Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 136. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 136. Deny allegations Complaint. 137. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 137. Deny allegations set 138. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, except admit that allegations of admit 138. Marchuk appeared in court in Delaware with Monteverde on September 20,2011. September20,20ll 139. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. Complaint. of allegations 139. Deny 140. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. Paragraph 140. 141. l4l. Complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. of of 142. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, except admit that 142. Marchuk never invited Monteverde to her apartment and never introduced him to her cousin. introduced Monteverde 143. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. Paragraph 35 of 143. Complaint. 144. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 144. 145. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. Complaint. Paragraph I45. 146. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 38 the Complaint. 146. Complaint. 147. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 147. 148. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 148. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 149. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. I49. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 31 31 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 32 of 36 150. 150. Deny allegations in Paragraph of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 151. 151. Deny allegations forth Paragraph of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 152. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 152. Deny allegations forth Paragraph of 153. 153. Deny allegations Paragraph of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 154. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. Paragraph of I54. Deny allegations 155. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 155. Deny allegations 156. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. Paragraph ofthe 156. Deny allegations 157. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 157. Deny allegations 158. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 ofthe Complaint. Paragraph of the 158. Deny allegations 159. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. Paragraph 51 of 159. Deny allegations 160. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 160. Deny allegations 161. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 161. Deny allegations 162. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, except deny the Complaint, except 54 set forth in 162. Deny the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Marchuk belief of allegation information sufficient owed a substantial amount of money for college and law school loans. of 163. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 163. 164. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 164. allegations 165. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 165. 166. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 166. 167. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. Paragraph of 167. 168. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, except deny the Complaint, except 60 168. Deny the allegations set forth in knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Marchuk of allegation belief information suffrcient was counting on at least a small bonus to cover necessary expenses. expenses. FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 32 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 33 of 36 169. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 169. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 170. I70. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph of Complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 171. I7l. Deny allegations set forth in Paragraph of Complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. 172. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, except admit that Paragraph of admit 172. Deny allegations set Marchuk and Monteverde walked back office. Marchuk and Monteverde walked back to F&F's offtce. 173. I73. Deny allegations set in Paragraph of Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 174. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, except deny the set forth 66 the Complaint, 174. to form a as the truth the allegations knowledge or knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that Marchuk employment Marchuk visited her gynecologist and an employment attorney. 175. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, except admit that Paragraph of admit 175. Deny allegations set Marchuk sent an email to Nadeem Faruqi and Lubna Faruqi (his sister and the other name sent an email to Nadeem Faruqi and Lubna Faruqi (his sister and the other attorney and was partner), partner), stating that she had consulted with an employment attorney and was resigning her that she had consulted with an employment at F&F. F&F. the Complaint, except 176. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, except deny 68 set forth 176. Deny the of allegation knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that nobody as sufficient from F&F ever contacted Marchuk to determine the reason for her resignation. F&F 177. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. of Complaint. Paragraph 177. of the Complaint. 178. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 70 ofthe Complaint. Paragraph 178. 179. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. Complaint' 71 of 179. 180. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. the Complaint. 72 180. 181. l8l. FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint. Complaint. 73 JJ 33 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 34 of 36 182. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, except deny the Complaint, except 182. Deny the allegations set forth in 74 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Marchuk of allegation information sufhcient belief obtained treatment from a clinical psychologist. psychologist. 183. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the to form as 183. allegations set forth in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. Paragraph of allegations 184. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the to form as 184. allegations set forth in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. Paragraph of allegations 185. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the suffrcient to form as to the 185. allegations set forth in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint. allegations ParagraphTT of FIRST CLAIM (Hostile Work Environment under the NYC Human Rights Law) (Hostile'Work 186. With respect to Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege reallege 186. V/ith to 78 the their responses to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 77 of the Complaint with the Paragraphs I allegations same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. if 187. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 187. Paragraph of allegations 188. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 188. of 189. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 189. 8l of 190. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint. 190. Paragraph of allegations 191. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 83 of the Complaint. Paragraph 191. allegations of SECOND CLAIM (Hostile Work Environment under the NYS Human Rights Law) 192. With respect to Paragraph 84 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege reallege 192. V/ith to 84 the their responses to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 83 of the Complaint with the Paragraphs I 83 same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein. if FIRM:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 34 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 35 of 36 193. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. Paragraph of I93. allegations 194. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, except admit that Paragraph of 194. allegations F&F was Marchuk's employer. Marchuk's 195. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 87 ofthe Complaint. Paragraph 195. allegations of the DEFENSES TO THE COMPLAINT FIRST DEFENSE 196. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. relief 196. SECOND DEFENSE 197. Defendants' treatment of Marchuk was based on reasonable, legitimate business 197. Defendants' treatment factors, was non-discriminatory and non-harassing in nature, and was consistent with and in in nature, and was consistent with and factors, was non-discriminatory and compliance with the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y.S. Exec. Law ? 290 et seq. with the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y.S. Exec. Law $ 290 et ("NYSHRL"), the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Adm. Code ? 8-107 et seq. Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Adm. Code $ 8-107 et the New York ("NYCHRL"), and all other applicable law. applicable THIRD DEFENSE 198. To the extent that there was a physical relationship between Marchuk and 198. To the extent that there was a physical relationship between Marchuk Monteverde, it was completely consensual and welcomed. consensual FOURTH DEFENSE DEF'ENSE 199. Assuming, arguendo, that the relationship between Marchuk and Monteverde was Monteverde 199. arguendo, relationship not consensual and welcomed, Marchuk' s sexual harassment claim against Defendants should not harassment claim and Marchuk's nonetheless be dismissed because Defendants' conduct did not render her overall working nonetheless be dismissed because Defendants' conduct did not render her overall working environment sexually hostile. FIFTH DEFENSE 200. Assuming, arguendo, that the relationship between Marchuk and Monteverde was relationship Monteverde 200. arguendo, not consensual and welcomed, Marchuk's sexual harassment claim against Defendants should be consensual FIR}J:20394942vl FIRM:20394942v1 35 Case 1:13-cv-01669-AKH Document 4 Filed 04/02/13 Page 36 of 36 dismissed because she failed to complain internally to Lubna Faruqi, Nadeem Faruqi or Olive because she failed to internally to or Alston pursuant to the sexual harassment prevention policy set forth in F&F's Alston pursuant to the sexual harassment prevention policy set forth in F&F's Employee Handbook. SIXTH DEFENSE 201. 201. Assuming, arguendo, that Defendants violated the NYSHRL, Plaintiffs request arguendo, violated the NYSHRL, Plaintiff s for an award of punitive damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the statute should be denied as attorneys' be a matter of law because punitive damages and attorneys' fees are not available under a matter of law because punitive damages and attorneys' fees are not available under the NYSHRL. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court: (a) deny the relief sought by Marchuk in her complaint, (b) dismiss the complaint with prejudice in its entirety, (c) grant (b) (c) Defendants' counterclaims and order Marchuk and John or Jane Doe to pay Defendants the sum Jane of ($15,000,000) of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) for lost business, damage to their reputations, emotional Million emotional and compensatory damages distress, and other compensatory damages and punitive damages, (d) award Defendants costs, damages, (d) fees, and (e) disbursements and reasonable attorneys' fees, and (e) grant Defendants such other and further and relief deems relief that it deems just and proper. Dated: ApriI2,20l3 Dated: April 2, 2013 EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. BECKER GREEN, By: d~ M. Green Barry Barry Asen Victoria Victoria M. Sloan 250 Park Avenue Avenue New York, New New York, New York 10177-1211 10177-l2ll (2t2) 351-4500 (212) 3s1-4s00 rgreen@ebglaw.com rgreen@ebglaw.com basen@ebglaw.com basen@ebglaw.com vsloan@ebglaw.com vsloan@ebglaw.com FOR DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM and COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS FIRM:20394942v1 FIRM:20394942vl 36