sexual harassment lawsuit

Transcription

ED ON 81612010
9
c
Date Purchased;
DANIELLE PECILE and CRISTINA CULICEA,
Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
1G110490
SUMMONS
V.
TITAN CAPITAL GROUP,LLC; MARC ABRAMS
in his professional and personal capacity; RUSSELL
ABRAMS in his professional and personal capacity;
SANDRA -RAMS; RONALD M. GREEN in his
professional and personal capacity; BARRY ASEN,
in his professional and personal capacity; and,
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. and STEVE
SKALICKY, in his professional and persod capacity,
Plaintiffs designate
NEW YORK COUNTY
85 the place of trial
The basis of venue is:
:
RESIDENCE OF
PLAINTIFF DANIELLE
PECILE, et al.
Defendants.
To the above named Defendants:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUWONED to answer the complaint in this atim and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiffs' Attorney within twenty (20) days after the service ofthis sum~om,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is
not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to
appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
Dated:
August 6,2010
New York,New York
Yours,etq.
THOMPGON WIGDQR & GILLY LLP
Douglas H. Wigdcrr
Scott B. Gilly
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Tel: (212) 257-6800
Fax: (212) 257-6845
Attorneyfor Plaintifls
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 50
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
X
____________________________________________________----------”--------
DANIELLE PECILE and CRISTINA CULICEA,
Plaintiffs,
Index No.
V.
TITAN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; MARC ABRAMS
in his professional and personal capacity; RUSSELL
ABRAMS in his professional and personal capacity;
SANDRA ABRAMS; RONALD M. GREEN in his
professional and personal capacity; BARRY ASEN,
in his professional and personal capacity;
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. and STEVE
SKALICKY, in his professional and personal capacity,
VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demande
Defendants.
I
Plaintiffs Danielle Pecile (“Ms. Pecile”) and Cristina Culicea (“MS.
Culicea”)
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, as and for their Complaint in
this action against Defendants Titan Capital Group, LLC, Marc Abrams, in his professional and
personal capacity, Russell Abrams, in his professional and personal capacity, Sandra Abrams,
Ronald M. Green, in his professional and personal capacity, Barry Asen, in his professional and
personal capacity, Epstein Becker & Green and Steve Skalicky, in his professional and personal
capacity (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
This is a case about a hedge fund, Titan Capital, LLC (“Titan”), and its managers,
Russell and Marc Abrams, who use their positions at Titan, their money and self-proclaimed
power to intimidate, degrade and discriminate against women. It is also a case about a law firm,
Epstein Becker & Green, and its lawyers, Ronald M. Green and Barry Asen, who have
maliciously and improperly used the judicial system both herein, and in the past, as a means to
retaliate against true victims of sexual harassment by asserting baseless and frivolous
“preemptive” actions against them and the attorneys who represent such plaintiffs when they
refuse to settle the matter on unilateral terms. As described below, Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea
were subjected to documented and repeated sexual harassment by Russell and Marc Abrams
while employed at Titan Capital and thereafter submitted charges of discrimination to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) despite the clear threat by Marc Abrarns that
“my lawyers, they’ll get involved and they will sue your ass like you won’t believe.” True to
this promise and in retaliation for filing EEOC charges, the Defendants collectively schemed to
use Russell Abrams’ wife, Sandra Abrams, to file a meritless case against Ms. Pecile, Ms.
Culicea and their counsel, intended to intimidate them from pursuing their rights under the antidiscrimination laws. While Mr. Green, Mr. Asen and Epstein Becker & Green call this litigation
tactic “preemptive litigation,” the primary motivation for filing the baseless lawsuit against Ms.
Pecile, Ms. Culicea and ultimately their counsel, was to retaliate against them in violation of the
anti-retaliation provisions of the anti-discrimination statutes. This lawsuit seeks to put an end,
once and for all, to this insidious form of retaliation and its harmful, destructive effects.
NATURFC OF THE CLAIMS
2.
This action seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as
well as monetary damages, to redress Defendants’ unlawful employment practices in violation of
the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law $6 290 et seg. and the New
York City Human Rights Law, New York Administrative Code $6 8-101 et seq.
3.
Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory conduct was knowing,
malicious, willful and wanton and/or showed a reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs’ rights, which
I
has caused, and continues to cause, the Plaintiffs substantial economic and non-economic
damages, permanent harm to their professional and personal reputations, and severe mental
anguish and emotional distress.
PARTIES
4.
Plaintiff Danielle Pecile is a 27 year old female, former employee of Titan who
currently resides in the City and State of New York. At all relevant times herein, she met the
dehition of an “employee” under all applicable statutes.
5.
Plaintiff Cristina Culicea is a 28 year old female, former employee of Titan who
currently resides in the City of Maspeth, State of New York. At all relevant times herein, she
met the definition of an “employee” under all applicable statutes.
6.
Defendant Titan is a foreign limited liability corporation with a principal place of
business located at 405 Lexington Avenue, 5 1st Floor, New York, NY 10174. Titan is a hedge
fund that at all relevant times herein, met the definition of an “employer7’under all relevant
statutes.
7.
Defendant Marc Abrams is, and was at all material times herein, a principal of
Titan, who, upon information and belief, resides in the City and State of New York. At all
relevant times herein, Defendant Marc Abrams aided, abetted and/or directly participated in the
sexual harassment, discharge, retaliation and other unlawful actions taken against Plaintiffs, and
had the authority to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment.
8.
Defendant Russell Abrams is, and was at all material times herein, a principal of
Titan, who, upon information and belief, resides in the City and State of New York. At all
relevant times herein, Defendant Russell Abrams aided, abetted andlor directly participated in
*
the sexual harassment, discharge, retaliation and other unlawful actions taken against Plaintiffs,
and had the authority to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment.
9.
Defendant Sandra Abrams is the wife of Defendant Russell Abrams, the sister-in-
law of Defendant Marc Abrams, and the purported plaintiff in a preemptive, retaliatory state
court action, which was brought nominally in her name, against Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea, and
was later amended to include their counsel Douglas H. Wigdor (“Mr. Wigdor”) and the law firm
of Thompson Wigdor & Gilly (“TWG”) as Defendants. At all relevant times herein, Defendant
Sandra Abrams aided, abetted and/or directly participated in the retaliation and other unlawful
employment actions taken against Plaintiffs.
10.
Defendant Ronald M. Green is a member of Epstein Becker & Green, former
attorneys for Sandra Abrams and signatory on the complaint wherein she is the purported
plaintiff in a preemptive, retaliatory state court action against Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea, as
well as their counsel. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Ronald M. Green aided, abetted
and/or directly participated in the unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs.
1 1,
Defendant Barry Asen is a member of Epstein Becker & Green, former attorneys
for Sandra Abrams and signatory on the complaint wherein she is the purported plaintiff in a
preemptive, retaliatory state court action against Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea, as well as their
counsel. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Barry Asen aided, abetted and/or directly
participated in the unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs.
12.
Defendant Epstein Becker & Green is the law firm which has represented Titan
and its principals during the administrative stage of this action and formerly represented Sandra
Abrams in the preemptive, retaliatory state court action brought against Ms. Pecile and Ms.
Culicea, as well as their counsel. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Epstein Becker &
Green aided, abetted and/or directly participated in the unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs.
13.
Defendant Steve Skalicky is, and was at all material times herein, the Chief
Operating Officer of Titan. Defendant Steve Skalicky’s duties and responsibilities at Titan
include all aspects of daily business operations, including but not limited to issuing statements on
behalf of Titan.
VENUE
14.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, is the proper venue
for this action as New York County is the place of residence of numerous parties including but
not limited to Defendants ‘Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams, Sandra Abrams, Epstein Becker
& Green and Plaintiff Danielle P e d e .
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I, Discrimination and Sexual Harassment of Cristina Culicea
15.
Ms. Culicea began working at Defendant Titan as a receptionist in approximately
March 2006. At a later point, Ms. Culicea became an executive assistant to Defendants Russell
and Marc Abrams. At all times during her employment, she was a good, valuable and qualified
employee.
16.
During Ms. Culicea’s career at Titan, she was subjected to a severe and pervasive
hostile work environment in which she and other women were subjected to degrading acts of
sexual harassment. Further, she and other women were often denied full and equal terms and
conditions of employment if they failed to submit to the discriminatory demands of Russell and
Marc Abrarns.
17.
On at least five different occasions, for example, Russell Abrams brought his
friends and/or colleagues into the office while Ms. Culicea was working and subjected her to a
sexually degrading evaluation of her body and physical appearance. This experience was
embarrassing and made Ms. Culicea feel as though she was treated as nothing more than a sexual
object for the enjoyment, amusement and titillation of Russell Abrams, and his cohorts.
18.
Further, Russell Abrams asked Ms, Culicea to go to a photo kiosk located in a
nearby pharmacy and transfer photographs from a memory card to a CD, knowing that upon
inserting the memory card into the kiosk to effectuate this transfer, the photographs would
automatically appear on the screen in front of her. Ms. Culicea followed his directions and was
mortified when naked pictures of him and his wife in a bathtub were displayed on the screen in
front of her. Russell Abrams smirked callously when Ms. Culicea handed the CD and memory
card back to him, reveling in her obvious embarrassment over the nude photographs she had
seen.
19.
On numerous occasions, Russell Abrams called Ms. Culicea an “idiot+” Ms.
Culicea complained to him about this conduct, but no corrective action was ever taken.
20.
When speaking with Ms. Culicea, Russell Abrams would frequently openly and
shamelessly stare at her breasts, and stare at her behind as she left the office. He did this to many
women in the office in a similarly sexually demeaning way.
2 1.
On multiple occasions, Russell Abrams told Ms. Culicea to keep investors and/or
potential investors entertained “using her womanly powers.”
22.
Defendant Sandra Abrams, Russell Abrams’ wife, even took the liberty of
warning Ms. Culicea that based on her own experiences Russell Abrams was often openly
disdainful and disparaging towards women in general,
23.
Defendant Marc Abrams participated in similar and also more egregious acts of
harassment which persisted throughout Ms. Culicea’s employment at Titan. Marc Abrams has
an explosive and threatening demeanor, particularly towards women. On one occasion, he
became so violently upset that he threw a chair at Ms. Culicea while the two were in his office,
accompanied by loud cursing and screaming at her. Conduct of this nature was frequently
displayed towards women but never displayed towards any male employees.
24.
Defendant Marc Abrams asked Ms. Culicea to go out on dates with him and when
she refused his sexual overtures he spread malicious and false rumors about her. He told others
that he and Ms. Culicea had sexual intercourse, a complete fabrication, and an illustration of the
uncomfortable, demeaning and hostile work environment which Marc Abrams created when Ms.
Culicea refused to submit to his sexual demands.
25.
Russell and Marc Abrams’ brother, Zach Abrams, who lives in California, also
propositioned Ms. Culicea when he was in New York for a weekend. It was clear Russell and
Marc Abrams put him up to asking her out. Ms. Culicea rejected his advances.
26.
On one occasion when Ms. Culicea was unable to work due to sickness, she
contacted a staffing agency to have a replacement sent to the office, as she was required to do.
Upon Ms. Culicea’s return to work, Marc Abrams told her that the replacement had been an old,
overweight, African-American woman and that she better not let that ever happen again because
he cannot have someone in the office “like that.”
27.
Throughout the duration of her employment at Titan, Ms. Culicea observed
women apply for trading positions, but no women were ever hired for these jobs. In contrast,
Titan had only female executive assistants and support staff,
28.
Marc Abrams often went out late, got extremely drunk, and charged hundreds of
dollars at restaurants, bars and clubs, and then asked Ms. Culicea to dispute the charges for him
with the credit card company. Marc Abrams once forced Ms. Culicea to call American Express
to dispute a charge of several hundred dollars that he incurred at a strip club.
29.
Ms. Culicea once received a telephone call from a hotel asking what should be
done with a bloody shirt Marc Abrams left behind in his room. Ms. Culicea was too afraid of
him to ask what should be done.
30.
Ms. Culicea was physically and sexually scared of Defendants Russell and Marc
Abrams, and had no available avenues by which to complain and seek redress for their unlawful
harassment. Ms. Culicea was aware that Russell and Marc Abrams had a pattern and practice of
suing former employees. Therefore, despite the sexually offensive and discriminatory
environment that she was forced to endure, she made every possible attempt to end her
employment on good terms.
3 1.
Russell and Marc Abrams regularly shouted, cursed, threw things and talked
down to Ms. Culicea and other women because of their gender. They did not engage in conduct
of this nature towards men.
32,
During Ms. Culicea’s career at Titan, she suffered from several panic attacks as a
result of being subjected to constant and unrelenting abuse from Russell and Marc Abrams.
33.
Ultimately, as a result of the unbearable and unlawful terms and conditions of Ms.
Culicea’s employment, which no reasonable person could be expected to endure, Ms. Culicea
was constructively discharged in or around September 2008.
8
11. Discrimination and Sexual Harassment of Danielle Pecile
34.
Ms. Pecile commenced her employment at Defendant Titan on March 27,2008 as
an executive assistant to Defendants Russell and Marc Abrams, and remained employed in that
capacity until she was constructively discharged on April 8, 2009. At all relevant times herein,
Ms. Pecile was a good, valuable and qualified employee.
35.
During Ms. Pecile’s career at Titan, she was subjected to a hostile work
environment in which she and other women were subjected to degrading acts of sexual
harassment. Russell and Marc Abrams regularly shouted, cursed, threw things and talked down
to Ms. Pecile and other women because of their gender.
36.
Ms. Pecile observed this conduct almost immediately following the
commencement of her employment when Marc Abrams told other employees that he had sexual
feelings towards Ms. Pecile. Marc Abrams clearly intended for his sexual feelings towards Ms.
Pecile to be relayed to her. This inappropriate conduct made the workplace environment tense
and stressful for Ms. Pecile.
37.
Marc Abrams later admitted to Ms. Pecile that he did not even listen to what she
said when he interviewed her for her job, but instead stared at her body and decided to hire her
based solely on her physical appearance and his interest in her sexually,
38.
Marc Abrams repeatedly pressured Ms. Pecile to go on dates and become sexually
involved with him. Russell Abrams also inappropriately pressured Ms. Pecile to engage in a
sexual relationship with his brother Marc Abrarns. Ms. Pecile was offended by this unrelenting
“tag-team7’effort to pressure her into a sexual relationship with Marc Abrams.
39.
Similar to Ms. Culicea, Ms. P e d e was even propositioned by Russell and Marc
Abrams’ brother, Zach Abrams, who works in California but came to the Titan offices on
9
c
occasion. Marc Abrams apparently heard Zach Abrams ask Ms. Pecile on a date and yelled at
him to leave the office in a jealous rage. Ms. Pecile went back to her desk to avoid the crossfire
of an argument between the two Abrarns brothers. Before Zach Abrams left the offke, he
approached Ms. Pecile and again asked her to go out. Ms. Pecile felt extremely uncomfortable
by this situation and declined his sexual advances.
40.
Marc Abrams pressured Ms. Pecile to join them for drinks on the Friday before
Memorial Day, which the brothers both referred to as “Black Out Friday” because their goal was
to drink until they blacked out. Ms. Pecile interpreted this as an attempt to encourage them to get
drunk so that Marc Abrams could take advantage of her. As it happened, Marc Abrarns did in
fact repeatedly make sexual advances towards Ms, Pecile when shejoined them for a drink,
which were rejected by Ms. Pecile.
41.
Marc Abrarns kissed Ms. Pecile on her lips, against her will, despite her repeated
protests that she had a boyfriend and that it would be inappropriate for them to be sexually
involved with each other since he was her boss. Defendant Marc Abrams’ actions showed
blatant disregard for Ms. Pecile and her feelings, and demonstrated a selfish desire to satiate his
own desires at her expense.
42.
Throughout the Summer of 2008, Defendant Marc Abrams continually asked Ms.
Pecile to go out on dates with him, which Ms. Pecile consistently rejected.
43.
Finally, in October 2008, Ms. Pecile agreed to go out with Marc Abrams and
engaged in a brief consensual relationship with him. However, even during this period, the
sexual harassment did not abate as he often demanded that she engage in sexual activity with him
at the workplace, which she felt was inappropriate.
10
44.
During their relationship, Marc Abrams sent harassing emails to Ms. Pecile,
merely because she posted pictures of herself with another man on Facebook.com, a social
networking website. In these emails, Defendant Marc Abrams continued to pressure Ms. Pecile,
his employee, to be in a relationship exclusively with him. Defendant Marc Abrams even
conceded that these emails were inappropriate as he later sent Ms. Pecile an email wherein he
admitted, “I’m a jackass.”
45.
Russell Abrams would get directly behind Ms. Pecile when she was sitting at her
desk and bend down and put his face directly over her shoulder so that he could look down her
shirt as they talked. When she expressed her discomfort with this conduct, Marc Abrams
admitted to Ms. Pecile that Russell Abrams did this simply to get a good angle to look down her
shirt at her breasts.
46.
On December 5,2008, despite the fact that Ms. P e c k and his brother were
engaged in a consensual relationship, Russell Abrams’ sexual harassment of Ms. Pecile did not
subside. Russell Abrams forced Ms. Pecile to view nude pictures of his wife, Sandra Abrams, in
the same manner he had previously perfected with Ms. Culicea. Russell Abrams gave Ms. Pecile
two CDs and told her that she had to develop photographs from the CDs at the photo kiosk at a
nearby pharmacy.
47.
As Russell Abrams had planned, Ms. Pecile inserted the CDs in the photo kiosk
and she was shocked to see that the CD contained topless photographs of his wife, Sandra
Abrams. Disgusted and offended by having to view these pictures as part of performing her job
duties, Ms. Pecile immediately returned a CD and the photographs to Russell Abrams, who
smirked at her and asked her if she liked them,
48,
Ms. Pecile complained to Marc Abrams that Russell Abrams had tricked her into
viewing topless photographs of Sandra Abrams and that he then smirked at her when she
returned.
49,
In or around late December 2008, Titan held a Christmas party during which
Sandra Abrams admitted to Ms. Pecile that she had never in her life heard a man talk so
disrespectfully towards women as Russell Abrams talks to Ms. Pecile.
50.
In or around January 2009, Marc Abrams and Steve Skalicky, Titan’s Chief
Operating Officer, went to Florida on a business trip. While there, Marc Abrams apparently paid
for strippers to join Mr. Skalicky in his hotel room. Ms. Pecile learned of this because Marc
Abrams received a text message from a girl he admitted was a stripper. Ms. Pecile asked why a
stripper was text messaging him and he explained that Mr. Skalicky and he went to a strip club
and that he paid a stripper to go with Mr. Skalicky to his room. Ms. Pecile asked Marc Abrams
if he did the same for himself and he simply responded that it was a normal thing for men to do
on a business trip.
5 1.
The harassment of Ms. Pecile was only exacerbated when, on April 8,2009, Ms.
Pecile refused to continue a romantic relationship with Marc Abrams.
111. Abrams’ Private and Personal Relationships Permeated the Work Environment
52.
The personal lives and relationships between and amongst the members of the
Abrams family permeated the working environment at Titan and further contributed to the
volatile and discriminatory hostile environment that existed for Plaintiffs.
53.
Sandra Abrams would often come to Titan and complain to employees about
Russell Abrams’ behavior including but not limited to, “Russell Abrams is always yelling at me,
he thinks women are all idiots and just there for men to look at,”
12
54.
Sandra Abrams, who is not an employee of Titan, wields influence over Russell
and Marc Abrams with regard to business-related decisions. Sandra Abrams has had female
employees of Titan fired simply because she was jealous of their presence and did not trust
Russell Abrams in their vicinity.
55.
Sandra Abrams would sometimes come to Titan in skimpy clothing and would
then “make out” with Russell Abrams in open, common areas, while looking directly at Ms.
Pecile or Ms. Culicea. Ms. Abrams did this to intimidate female employees and “mark her
territory.” Russell Abrarns doubtlessly knew that female employees could see him engaged in
these inappropriate sexual acts in the office, but apparently enjoyed placing them in these
uncomfortable situations.
56.
Russell and Marc Abrams had an ego-charged, explosive relationship that often
manifested itself in angry yelling and irrational behavior towards Plaintiffs and other women
employed at Titan. Marc Abrams would sometimes get so infuriated by Russell Abrams that he
would take it out on Plaintiffs and sometimes simply not come to work,
57.
Marc Abrarns bragged to Ms. Pecile that he had been arrested once in Paris and
was not permitted to return to France, attempting to reinforce the perception that he was someone
to be feared.
58.
Russell and Marc Abrams would often mention their relationships with high
powered political figures to intimidate and threaten Plaintiffs and other employees. They would
make it clear that they could do whatever they wanted because of their alleged political
connections.
59,
In or around June 2008, while Marc Abrams was on a supposed business trip in
London, he called Ms. Culicea and demanded that she pickup a prescription for his anti-
13
psychotic drugs and fly to London to deliver them to him. Ms. Culicea advised that she could
not make it. According to Marc Abrams, he had the drugs delivered in another manner and
ultimately had to call an elected official to get his assistance to get the prescription drugs through
customs and delivered to him in London, England.
60.
Marc Abrarns had sexual relationships with other female employees of Titan and
often bragged about this fact to Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea. His discussion of the sexual
conquests was offensive and unwelcome.
IV. Constructive Discharge of Ms. Pecile and Further Retaliation Against Ms. Culicea
61.
Russell and Marc Abrarns made it impossible for Ms. Pecile to work for Titan
because of their sexually harassing and threatening behavior, and Defendant Marc Abrams’
inability to accept that Ms. Pecile had ended their brief consensual relationship.
62.
On April 8, 2009, while Ms. Pecile was still employed by Titan, Marc Abrams,
unable to accept Ms. P e d e ’ s rejection, bombarded her with a string of vulgar and abusive emails
in which he explicitly threatened Ms. Pecile, her family and boyfriend. Marc Abrams’
statements to Ms. Pecile in these emails included, but was not limited to the following:
Give up and be a hooker - but you probably need to learn how to
fuck first
You are a scumbag. I started to realize when you acted like a
cheap stripper asking for money - now I know you are the cheap
piece of shit stripper. You are a fucking rotten piece of dirt. You
are the definition of the [sic] “white trash”
Go to your stupid fat aunt and her 6 carat earing - what a joke - I
will laugh as my lawyers teach garbage to stay in the can
I mean really think twice you fucking tramp
You have until 8pm to call me and explain why I should not use
every piece of energy to fuck you and your little hcking scum
boyfriend.
14
You are a fool and will marry a loser - then you can be happy two fucking failures in a pod, wanting to be famous.. .wha wha.. . I
really hate you and am going to take it out on the love of your life
and the little piece of shit that thinks he can cross me
63.
Marc Abrams cursed profusely in these emails and other communications with
Ms. Pecile, calling her offensive names such as, “gold digger piece of trash,” “dirty pig thief,”
“rotten bitch,” “fucking tramp,” “little dirt bag” as well as “whore,” among other names. Ms.
Pecile did not respond to these utterly offensive emails.
64.
Unable to get the response from Ms. Pecile that he wanted, Defendant Marc
Abrams turned his aggression towards Ms. Culicea whom he knew to be friends with Ms. P e c k
Marc Abrams retaliated against Ms. Culicea for her affiliation with Ms. Pecile when he left her
an abusive voicemail in which he not only threatened Ms. Culicea, her friends and her family,
but he also threatened to wield his purported clout to adversely affect Ms. Culicea’s chances of
getting admitted as a lawyer in the State of New York following her graduation from law school,
The voicemail, alluding to his political connections, stated as follows:
Hey Cristina, it’s Marc Abrams. Call me at [ 1, this isn’t a joke! I
strongly suggest you call me. Your little friend has caused some
problems.. .and.. .you don’t want these problems to escalate. You
know 1 do have a lot of friends at New York Law. Don’t fuck
around. Call me back before your little friend starts doing
anything stupid.. .(inaudible). ..this little thief starts trying to do
anything, you think I’m not going to take it out on you? You think
I don’t have friends? I suggest you call me so we can have a little
conversation so you can pass on the word that her conduct better
be legal and she better return the five grand or she’s going to
fucking jail and if you get in my god damn way, Cristina,
(inaudible) I think you know who I am,you know who I know, so
your grades better be up to par and your fucking financial aid
better not be needed because if I don’t get a fucking call, you’ve
made enemies with the wrong god damn person and if you even
fucking think about calling Russell, I swear to god, you will lose so
big ...oh ...not ...no, call, I don’t give a shit if you call ...call him.
I’m just saying, sweetheart, I fucking treated you nicely, Do you
want me to treat you the other way? Because my lawyers, they’ll
get involved and they will sue your ass like you won’t believe.
65.
Defendant Marc Abrams also sent an utterly offensive and harassing message to
Ms. Pecile’s boyfriend, which included, but was not limited to:
Your girlfriend was a real pleasure, especially on her birthday
when she sucked me off in my office.. i’m [sic] wondering what a
loser you are that you never cared that she was sucking my dick
during the day and kissing you at night. Most funny is when the
trash [referring to Ms. Pecile] thought i [sic] would actually have a
relationship with her. Btw, when i [sic] came back from the trip
you “forced her” not to go on, i [sic] probably got the longest blow
job in my life. She said you cried and begged her to come back.. ..
she’s all yours - i’m [sic] done. Enjly [sic] tasting me and
knowing you cried over her, while she laughed at you - calling you
a loser. 1 don’t know, maybe you are?
If youre [sic] not and you would like to grab a beer and compare
notes, let me know. I will even buy - she said you were a loser
without a nickel and without a dick - so I do have sympathy for
you.
Remember every time you kiss her, how many times those lips
were wrapped around.. well1 [sic] something bigger than you
(*according to her).
66.
Following receipt of these emails from Marc Abrams and learning of the
threatening communications he had with Ms. Culicea and her boyfriend, Ms. Pecile was fearful
for her safety. No reasonable person under these circumstances could have been expected to
return to work and endure this continuing harassment and retaliation. Thus, Ms. Pecile was
constructively discharged.
67.
In a further act of retaliation, Ms. P e d e also learned that Marc Abrams contacted
Ms. Pecile’s former employers and lied to them, saying that she stole $100,000 from Titan, in
order to tarnish her reputation.
16
V. Danielle Pecile and Cristina Culicea’s Demand Letter and EEOC Charges
68.
Following Ms. Pecile’s constructive discharge from Titan, Ms. Pecile contacted
and retained Mr. Wigdor and TWG to represent her with respect to her claims of discrimination,
sexual harassment and retaliation against Titan and Russell and Marc Abrams.
69.
Although Ms. Pecile had not realized it, she had inadvertently retained one of the
CDs that Russell Abrams had given her when he forced her to view nude pictures of his wife.
Apparently, Russell Abrams also forgot about the CD containing nude photographs of his wife as
he had not previously even asked for it to be returned.
70.
On May 2 1,2009, Mr. Wigdor contacted Titan via written correspondence in an
attempt to resolve Ms. Pecile’s potential claims short of litigation. In that letter, Mr. Wigdor laid
out evidence of sexual harassment that Ms. Pecile had endured, including the CD and/or
photographs of Sandra Abrams that Russell Abrams had forced her to view and then asked her if
she liked what she saw in the photographs. This correspondence was limited to Ms. Pecile’s
claims.
7 1.
Russell Abrams requested that the CD andor photographs be returned to his
possession and control, but Mr. Wigdor advised that he could not do so because the CD and/or
photographs were evidence of sexual harassment.
72.
During conversations with both Russell Abrams and Steve Skalicky, Mr. Wigdor
made a settlement demand on behalf of both Plaintiffs. In response to Mr. Wigdor’s settlement
demand, he received an e-rnail from Mr. Skalicky which was obviously attempting to “set up7’a
future, baseless lawsuit wherein Titan could allege that Ms. Pecile was involved in an “extortion
scheme,” rather than Ms. Pecile making a bona fide attempt to resolve legitimate claims of
discrimination in advance of litigation.
73.
The emails and communications from Titan, Russell Abrams and Mr. Skalicky to
Mr. Wigdor were drafted, prepared and otherwise crafted in an attempt to bolster retaliatory,
preemptive litigation against Ms. Pecile, Ms. Culicea, Mr. Wigdor and TWG.
74.
Clarifying Plaintiffs’ settlement demand and leaving no doubt that the monetary
demand was solely for resolution of his clients’ employment discrimination claims, Mr. Wigdor
stated to Mr. Skalicky:
To make sure that you understand the demand, Ms. Pecile and Ms.
Culicea, will waive and release pursuing any and all of their
respective legal claims as well as agree to other standard settlement
agreement terms in these types of cases (e,g., mutual
confidentiality, mutual non-disparagement, mutual covenant not to
sue, neutral reference letter and return of all property that we are
currently holding as evidence) in return for the monetary payment
demanded.
75.
Mr. Wigdor reiterated to Russell Abrams as follows:
However, at no point and time has my client demanded $2.5
million “for their return.” What I have informed Mr. Skalicky is
that we would resolve both Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea’s sexual
harassment and retaliation claims for $2.5 million. As part of a
mutually agreeable settlement agreement (including the terms I
described to him) we would return all of the evidence that we have
amassed thus far that provide the basis, in part, of their respective
claims (this is fairly typical in claims of this nature),
76.
When meaningful settlement discussions failed to materialize, as a result of the
unlawful, offensive and discriminatory conduct that Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea were subjected
to during the course of their employment at Titan, they each filed charges of discrimination
against Titan with the EEOC on June 5,2009.
77.
As part of Ms. Pecile’s charge of discrimination, and in accordance with the
EEOC’s rules requiring that a charging party provide proof of the harassing conduct alleged, Ms.
Pecile included with her charge the topless photographs of Sandra Abrams that Russell Abrams
18
forced Ms. P e d e to view. Ms. Pecile also sent a courtesy copy of her EEOC charge to Titan on
June 8,2009.
V1. The Retaliatory Preemptive State Court Action
78.
On or about July 21,2009, Mr. Wigdor received a call from Titan’s former
attorney, Defendant Barry Asen of Defendant Epstein Becker & Green, who advised that a
summons and complaint was filed on Sandra Abrams’ behalf, against Ms. Pecile and Ms.
Culicea. Mr. Asen refused to provide Mr. Wigdor with a copy of the Complaint, a fairly basic
courtesy between counsel, and Mr. Wigdor was required to send a paralegal to the courthouse to
obtain a copy. The complaint outrageously alleged that Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea engaged in
tortious conduct of conversion, trespass to chattels, prima jucie tort and intentional infliction of
emotional distress (“Abrarns/EBG Preemptive Action”).
79.
The purported crux of the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action is that Sandra Abrarns
allegedly suffered severe emotional distress stemming from Ms. Pecile’s retention of the topless
photographs which were given to her, and shown to her, by Russell Abrams, and disclosure of
same to the EEOC in support of her charge.
80.
While Ms. Abrams alleged emotional distress on the purported basis of Ms.
Pecile’s retention and disclosure to the EEOC of provocative photographs, the photographs
themselves show her posing topless with other unknown individuals in the vicinity, and walking
around a village with many other people while scantily clad in a thong bikini, These
photographs contradicted Ms. Abrams self-serving allegation that she is a “modest” woman and
suffered emotional distress due to disclosure of the photographs. Additionally, Ms. Abrams and
Russell Abrams have posted provocative photographs and videos of her on the internet, including
but not limited to the website Facebook.com showing her behind covered by nothing but a thong*
19
8 1.
While the complaint purported to be on Sandra Abrams’ behalf, it was not
verified by Ms. Abrams, and was clearly a tactic employed by Defendants Titan, Russell and
Marc Abrams, through their agents Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green,
in order to exact revenge against Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea for opposing the unlawful
discriminatory conduct of Titan, Russell and Marc Abrams, including but not limited to filing
charges of discrimination with the EEOC.
82.
On July 28,2009, Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea filed a motion to dismiss the
Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action, arguing that Sandra Abrams had failed to allege any tortious
conduct by Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea, and that the complaint was merely filed in retaliation for
their efforts to vindicate their civil rights.
83.
After Ms, P e d e and Ms. Culicea filed the motion to dismiss, Defendants Green
and Asen met with Ms. Pecile’s counsel, ostensibly to discuss a possible resolution of the case.
The morning of this settlement conference, Epstein Becker & Green served upon Plaintiffs’
counsel a copy of an amended complaint that Epstein Becker & Green threatened to file unless
the case was resolved, which took the outrageous step of adding Mr. Wigdor and TWG as
defendants for acting as Ms. P e c k and Ms. Culicea’s attorneys. TWG refused to settle the
matter on Abrams’ terms. On August 27,2009, true to their promise, Defendants Epstein Becker
& Green, Green and Asen, on behalf of Defendants Titan, Russell and Marc Abrams, filed the
amended complaint which they knew to be baseless, The amended complaint was filed as a
further act of retaliation against Plaintiffs.
84,
Thereafter, on August 27,2009, Ms. Pecile, Ms. Culicea, Mr, Wigdor and TWG
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with
defending such a frivolous action and for sanctions for engaging in bad faith, frivolous conduct
20
designed solely to harass Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea and retaliate against them for asserting
legitimate claims of discrimination.
85.
On November 4,2009, Justice Walter B. Tolub issued an amended order
dismissing all claims against Ms. Culicea, Mr. Wigdor and TWG. The court held that Mr.
Wigdor and TWG were immune from liability under the well-recognized litigation privilege and
that “the only act of Ms. Culicea that ‘seems’ to have caused [Sandra Abrams] distress is that
[Ms. Culicea] exercised her legal right to file a complaint with the EEOC.”
86.
Justice Tolub quoted portions of Rules 3.1 and 1.16 of the New York Rules of
Professional Conduct as follows:
o~~’7
Rule 3.l(b)(2j provides that: A lawyer’s conduct is L ‘ f r i ~ ~ lfor
the purposed of this Rule if: (2) the conduct has no reasonable
purpose other than to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation
in violation of Rule 3.2, or serves merely to harass or maliciously
injure another.
Rule 1.16(a)(l) provides: (A) a lawyer shall not accept
employment of behalf of a person if the lawyer knows or
reasonably should know that such person wishes to: (1 j bring a
legal action, conduct a defense or assert a position in a matter, or
otherwise have steps taken for such purpose of harassing or
maliciously injuring any person.
87.
As a result, the court sanctioned Sandra Abrams’ former counsel, Epstein Becker
& Green, in the amount of $1,000 and ordered the firm to pay the costs and fees associated with
the defense of Ms. Culicea’s motion, as the court correctly held “[ilt is clear to the Court that the
Complaint as to Ms. Culicea and Mr. Wigdor [and TWG] has no basis in law and fact and could
only have been brought to harass Ms. Culicea and the Wigdor law firm.” (emphasis added)
88.
On January 20,2010, a hearing was held before a Special Referee to determine
the amount of TWG’s fees, TWG submitted an application for approximately $167,000 in
21
attorneys’ fees and $3,800 in expenses. A decision by the Special Referee remains pending as of
the date of this Complaint.
89.
Although Justice Tolub denied Ms. Pecile’s motion to dismiss the AbramdEBG
Preemptive Action, it is notable that, in doing so, the Court found that “at this stage of the
proceeding the allegations are barely sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”
90.
Significantly, Judge Tolub found that, as was clear from the instant the
AbramdEBG Preemptive Action was commenced, Sandra Abrams had no bona fide interest in
the proceeding and was a mere pawn being used by Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and Titan and
masterminded by Defendants Epstein Becker & Green, Ronald M. Green and Barry Asen, to
assert a retaliatory, preemptive action against Ms. Pecile and Ms, Culicea. In fact, Judge Tolub
held that, “[tlhe real parties in interest in this proceeding. . . run a hedge run known as Titan
Capital, LLC.”
91.
The Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action was orchestrated by all Defendants, and
was pursued due to the legal advice, strategy and tactics of Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry
Asen and Epstein Becker & Green, in order to retaliate against Plaintiffs under supposed cover of
the litigation privilege.
92.
In addition to the purely retaliatory motivation for pursuing the action, the entire
legal theory behind the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action was and is utterly bankrupt. The two
elements of conversion are (1) plaintiffs possessory right or interest in the property, and (2)
defendant’s dominion over the property or interference with it, to the exclusion of plaintiffs
rights. Ms. Pecile, the only defendant remaining in that action, could not have converted the
photographs contained on the CD as Defendants Sandra Abrams and Russell Abrams at all times
retained the original photographs on their personal computers, and therefore Ms. Pecile’s
22
retention of the CD and/or photographs was never to the exclusion of Ms. Abrams’ rights with
regard to the photographs.
93.
Ms. Abrams also alleged a cause of action for alleged intentional infliction of
emotional distress caused by Ms. Pecile, Ms. Culicea, Mr. Wigdor and TWG. This cause of
action was, and is, particularly outrageous given that the basis for the cause of action was, in
part, that Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea had posed for photographs for the New York Post, when
the newspaper was reporting on a lawsuit that was publicly filed by Ms. Abrams, not Ms. Pecile
or Ms. Culicea.
94.
Ms. Abrams also alleged emotional distress resulting from media coverage which
led to her being a “prisoner in our apartment” and “I could not leave my apartment because a
reporter’s minivan [I was parked in from of the building day and night.” This allegation is
particularly disingenuous given that Titan and Russell Abrams are currently suing the real estate
agent who brokered their lease and in the complaint alleged that the apartment which sold for
$5.91 million in 2008, is “a beautiful apartment located in the majestic and prestigious 15 CPW
building” for which they pay an astounding “$20,000 per month.” According to the complaint,
the building is “one of the most prestigious and sought-after addresses in Manhattan and even the
world . . . was described in a September 2008 Vanity Fcrir article as ‘the most expensive site in
Manhattan” . . . [and] [rlesidents of 15 CPW include famous actors, athletes, musicians,
producers, writers, entrepreneurs, CEOs and titans of the financial world.” Their assertions belie
Ms. Abrams’ allegations of harm in the Abrams/EBG Action.
95.
Furthennore, the CD and/or photographs that Ms. Pecile retained and provided to
the EEOC were evidence of the sexual harassment and discrimination that she was subjected to
by Defendant Russell Abrams while employed at Defendant Titan. To claim that Ms. Pecile
23
engaged in tortious conduct when she retained the CD and/or photographs would similarly mean
that an employee who prints a sexually explicit email from a supervisor as evidence of sexual
harassment could be liable for conversion of the paper on which the email was printed.
Additionally, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, Ms. Pecile has turned the CD and/or
photographs over to a third party custodian to ensure this evidence is safeguarded from
destruction.
96.
Moreover, Mr. Wigdor and TWG were never in possession of the CD at issue as
Ms. Pecile had provided it to another attorney before retaining Mr. Wigdor and TWG. Further
proof of the retaliatory motive behind the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action is that Ms. Abrams
did not sue the attorney who was in actual possession of the CD up to the time it was transferred
to the third party custodian.
97.
As further evidence that Russell and Marc Abrams are the real parties in interest
in the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action, on July 25,2009, in violation of an Order of Protection
previously issued in favor of Ms. Pecile, Marc Abrams emailed Ms. Pecile stating in part, “[ilf
you want to make this [lawsuit] go away . . . then I will work something out with your lawyer to
cover his fees and make sure all lawsuits are ended - to the extent I can convince Sandra that is.”
98.
On July 12,2010, Defendant EBG moved to be relieved as counsel for Sandra
Abrams in the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action. In support of the application, Defendant
Epstein Becker & Green affirmatively admitted that Russell Abrams has played an integral role
therein and that their motives were not based on sound legal grounds:
In numerous communications with [Sandra Abrams] and her
husband Russell Abrams, EBG has made recommendations and
proposals regarding strategies and tactics for moving forward in
this action which are permissible under New York law and the
rules and procedures of the Court. EBG’s recommendations and
proposals have been met with lack of cooperation, and Sandra and
24
Russell Abrams have rendered it unreasonably difficult for EBG to
carry out its continued representation of Sandra Abrams effectively
by, amongst other things, continually questioning EBG’s work and
blaming it for adverse decisions, and insisting that EBG pursue
legal theories and argument that are impermissible under the
Court’s procedures, the law and EBG’s professional judgment.
99.
Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green
improperly exercised their authority as counsel when they recommended that Sandra Abrarns act
as the purported plaintiff in a civil action against Ms. Pecile, Ms. Culicea and their attorneys and
then instituted this retaliatory scheme with great cost and emotional harm to Plaintiffs.
100.
Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green colluded
with Russell, Marc and Sandra Abrams, to retaliate against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights
under the anti-discrimination laws and opposing Defendants’ discriminatory practices. This
improper use of authority constitutes a malicious and tortious act against Plaintiffs.
101.
Defendant Marc Abrams is purportedly not represented by Defendants Ronald M.
Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green. Marc Abrams has been purportedly separately
represented in this matter by no fewer than five different attorneys including Ken Sussmane of
McCue Sussmane & Zapfel, P.C.; Norman Bloch of Thompson Hine; Marie1 LaSasso of LaSasso
Griesmeyer Law Group, PLLC; John Dalley, attorney-at-law; and Miranda Fritz of Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP.
102.
Marc Abrams’ most recent attorneys, Hinshaw & Culbertson, who represented
him in regards to a subpoena served by TWG on behalf of Ms, Pecile in the AbramdEBG
Preemptive Action, also represents Epstein Becker & Green in its appeal of Justice Tolub’s order
awarding sanctions and fees in favor of Mr. Wigdor and TWG.
103.
Apparently, Epstein Becker & Green paid for Hinshaw & Culberston’s
representation of Marc Abrams as well. In Epstein Becker & Green’s application to withdraw as
25
counsel for Sandra Abrams, Epstein Becker & Green represented that Sandra Abrams had failed
to pay for Epstein Becker & Green disbursements including “the fees of additional counsel
retained and paid by Epstein Becker & Green with Plaintiffs concurrence and approval.”
104.
The Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action was, and remains, nothing more than
retaliation by all Defendants against Ms. Pecile and Ms. Culicea for invoking their rights under
the anti-discrimination laws.
VII. Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen, and Epstein Becker & Green
Engage in a Pattern and Practice of Preemptive Retaliatory Lawsuits
105.
Further evidence of the bad faith and maliciousness of Defendants Ronald M.
Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green is their history and pattern and practice of
interfering with the rights of employees under the anti-discriminations laws and directly
participating in unlawful retaliation perpetrated by their clients.
106.
Defendant Ronald M. Green unabashedly holds himself out as “one of the
pioneers of the use of preemptive litigation in suing current and former employees, and others,
who threaten to bring legal proceedings. . . .)’against the firm’s clients.
107.
Defendant Ronald M. Green has authored articles regarding his self-renowned
preemptive litigation tactics, including articles entitled “‘PREEMPTIVE’ Employment
Litigation: When An Employer’s Best Defense May Be A Good Offense” and “The Employer’s
‘Sue-First’ Strategy in high-stakes litigations, ‘preemptive strike’ has produced results.”
108.
The AbramdEBG Preemptive Action is only one instance of a pattern of unlawful
retaliatory conduct that has been perpetrated by the Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen
and Epstein Becker & Green on numerous occasions in order to interfere with and deter
legitimate claims of discrimination and sexual harassment.
26
109.
In Fox News Network, LLC, et al. v Mackris, et al., Index No., 0 14087/2004 (N.Y
Sup. Ct. 2004), Defendants Ronald M. Green and Epstein Becker & Green represented Fox
News Network (“Fox”) and Bill O’Reilly in retaliatory, preemptive litigation against Andrea
Mackris, and her attorneys, Benedict P. Morelli & Associates, after Ms. Mackris indicated an
intention to commence a sexual harassment lawsuit (“O’ReillylEBG Preemptive Action”).
1 10.
In the O’Reilly/EBG Preemptive Action, in a manner identical to the
AbramdEBG Preemptive Action, Defendants Ronald M. Green and Epstein Becker & Green
“justified” the preemptive litigation by alleging that Ms. Mackris’ claims were an “extortion
scheme.” As in the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action, Ms. Mackris and her counsel, had merely
engaged in the standard process of contacting her former employer in an attempt to resolve her
claims of sexual harassment short of litigation. In fact, press accounts indicate that the matter
settled for millions of dollars in favor of Ms. Mackris and Defendant Ronald M. Green issued a
statement that acknowledged that neither Ms. Mackris nor her counsel did anything wrong.
111.
Defendants Ronald M. Green and Epstein Becker & Green also represented
Madison Square Garden (“MSG”) in the highly publicized employment discrimination action
brought by Anucha Browne Sanders, that resulted in an approximate $12 million jury verdict in
her favor. In that matter, Defendants Ronald M. Green and Epstein Becker & Green attempted
to assert a counterclaim against Ms. Sanders for a purported breach of her fiduciary duty to
MSG. The court denied the request to assert the counterclaim concluding that the counterclaim
would be “futil[e].” See, Sunders v. Madison Square Garden, et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
48126 (S.D.N.Y, 2007).
112.
In Bivona & Cohen, P.C. et al. v. Richards, et al., Index No., 105583/2008 (N.Y.
Sup, Ct. 2008), Defendants Ronald M. Green and Epstein Becker & Green represented Bivona &
27
Cohen, P.C. and Josepth V. Figliolo in retaliatory, preemptive litigation against their former
employee, Wendy Richards, who had accused her employer and supervisor of sexual harassment
(“BivondEBG Preemptive Action”).
1 13.
In the BivondEBG Preemptive Action, Defendants Ronald M. Green and Epstein
Becker & Green claimed that Ms. Richards had engaged in an alleged “extortion scheme” when
she hired counsel to represent her with regard to her claims of sexual harassment. The complaint
attempted to make Mr. Figliolo appear as the victim despite the fact that he had Ms. Richards, his
subordinate, give him a “lap dance” in the office, during which he ejaculated. Similar to the
AbramslEpstein Preemptive Action, Ms. Richards and her counsel, had only engaged in the
standard process of contacting her employer in an attempt to resolve her claims of sexual
harassment short of litigation, before the preemptive litigation had commenced.
114.
After Ms. Richards filed her discrimination claims in federal court, Defendant
Ronald M. Green withdrew as counsel.
115.
This now familiar tactic of claiming victims and/or alleged victims of sexual
harassment are extortionists is not only without merit, but it is also retaliatory in violation of the
anti-discrimination laws.
VIII. Defendants’ Pattern of Violence and Retaliation Against Former Employees,
Former Girlfriends, and People Associated with Former Girlfriends
116.
Defendants have a pattern and practice of suing former employees and girlfriends.
This pattern was followed when Defendants commenced the Preemptive Action against Ms.
Pecile and Ms. Culicea.
117.
In 200 1, for example, Defendant Russell Abrams commenced an action against
his former girlfriend Zurima Tellman, her father Roland0 Barba and mother Gloria Rodriguez.
The complaint alleged that during the course of his relationship with Ms. Tellman, he voluntarily
28
gave her money to assist with medical treatment for her father who was suffering from prostate
cancer.
1 18.
Ms. Tellman asserted a counterclaim against Defendant Russell Abrams for
intentional infliction of emotional distress alleging that following the end of their relationship, he
called her continuously despite her specific requests to refrain from contacting her. Ms. Tellman
alleged that in addition to calling her, he “repeatedly contacted [her] family friends and
acquaintances to secure information concerning [her] personal, private social life, including
whether and who she was dating.”
119.
Ms. Tellman further alleged that Defendant Russell Abrams ‘kontinued his
pattern of harassing [her] by threatening her and claiming that his brother, Marc Abrams, whom
he represented as politically connected, could and would jeopardize [her] then pending work visa
application - actions which could result in [her] deportation from the U.S.”
120.
Ms. Tellman further alleged that Russell Abrams,
followed [her], her fiance, Jeffrey Triana (“Triana”) and Triana’s
mother, Martha Ordonez (“Ordonez”), after they finished dining at
a restaurant on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. After watching
[her], Triana and Ordonez dine at an outdoor table, Abrams
approached [her] and the others as they were leaving the
restaurant. When Abrams refused to leave, Triana physically
placed himself between [her] and Abrams. Triana and Abrams
engaged in a heated verbal exchange and a physical altercation
followed. After the physical altercation, [she], Triana and Ordonez
walked away from the restaurant, but Abrams followed them for
another 4-5 blocks and another verbal exchange and physical
altercation ensued between Triana and Abrams.
121.
According to Ms. Tellman’s counterclaim, “[oln or about April 26,2001 and May
2 1, 2001, Orders of Protection were issued against Russell Abrams which, inter alia, required
him to stay away from [her], her home, place or employment or other applicable location.”
29
122.
In 2006, Defendant Titan commenced an action against a former employee named
Ragu Raghavan alleging fraud, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair
competition. Mr. Raghavan then counter-sued Titan for defamation as Titan had sent letters to
Mr. Kaghavan’s subsequent employer falsely advising that Mr. Raghavan had breached a
contract with Titan. Titan’s complaint against Mr, Raghavan was found to be meritless and was
dismissed in its entirety.
123.
Russell Abrams has a history of volatile behavior, discrimination, disregard for
the well-being of others and malicious conduct that was clearly evidenced in his sexual
harassment of and retaliation against Ms. P e d e and Ms. Culicea during their employment at
Titan.
IX. Defamation by Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and Steve Skalicky
124.
On July 30,2010, Plaintiffs filed a discrimination, sexual harassment and
retaliation complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(“Federal Complaint”).
125.
Upon information and belief, the following day, on or about July 3 1,20 10, Titan,
Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and/or Steve Skalicky issued, approved, endorsed and/or ratified
the following retaliatory, false, malicious, defamatory statement: “This meritless lawsuit is
nothing but a shakedown attempt by two former employees.”
126.
Upon information and belief, Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and/or Steve
Skalicky’s defamatory and retaliatory statement was published to third parties including but not
limited to members of the media such as the New York Daily News.
30
127.
Upon information and belief, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and/or Steve
Skalicky were acting within the scope of their respective employment for Titan when they
issued, approved, endorsed and/or ratified the defamatory statement.
128.
Plaintiffs have suffered harm as a result of the defamatory and retaliatory
statement including but not limited to reputational harm, emotional distress and mental anguish.
‘The statement was defamatory per se.
129.
After deciding not to pursue their federal claims, on August 6,2010, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice in the Southern District of New York
and simultaneously filed the instant Complaint which relates to the matter Sandra Abrams v.
Danielle P e d e , Index No. I I O329/2OO9, currently pending in this Court before the Honorable
Eileen A, Rakower
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination in Violation of New York State Human Rights Law)
130.
Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
through 129, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
131.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams and Marc Abrams have discriminated against
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law by
denying to them equal terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to
subjecting them to disparate working conditions and denying them the opportunity to work in an
employment setting free of unlawful harassment, and ultimately constructively discharging
Plaintiffs.
132.
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex in violation ofthe New York State Human Rights Law by
creating, fostering, condoning, accepting, ratifying and/or otherwise failing to prevent or to
31
remedy a hostile work environment that included, among other things, severe and pervasive
harassment of Plaintiffs.
133.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams and Marc
Abrams’ unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic harm, for which
they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
134.
Abrams’ unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress
for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of New York State Human Rights Law)
135.
136.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and Steve Skalicky (as it relates
to the defamatory statement only) retaliated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their engagement in
protected activities including but not limited to complaints of discrimination, refusal to submit to
the sexual demands of Russell and Marc Abrams, invocation of their rights under antidiscrimination laws, filing EEOC charges of discrimination, filing the Federal Complaint and for
affiliation with others that have invoked their rights under anti-discrimination laws,
137.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and Steve Skalicky’s (as it
relates to the defamatory statement only) retaliatory conduct includes but is not limited to
denying Plaintiffs equal terms and conditions of employment, subjecting them to disparate
working conditions, denying them the opportunity to work in an employment setting free of
32
unlawful harassment, constructively discharging Plaintiffs, threatening Plaintiffs and filing of the
Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs as well as against their counsel, Douglas H,
Wigdor and TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs, and for issuing defamatory
statements in response to the filing of the Federal Complaint.
138.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc
Abrams and Steve Skalicky’s (as it relates to defamation only) unlawful discriminatory and
retaliatory conduct in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have
suffered and continue to suffer monetary andlor economic harm, for which they are entitled to an
award of monetary damages and other relief.
139.
suffered and continue to suffer reputational harm, severe mental anguish and emotional distress
AS A N D FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Aiding and Abetting Violations of New York State Human Rights Law)
140.
141.
Defendants Sandra Abrams, Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker &
Green have knowingly or recklessly aided, abetted and directly participated in the unlawful
employment practices, discrimination and retaliation perpetrated against Plaintiffs by each other
and Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams and Marc Abrams in violation of the New York State
Human Rights Law.
I
33
. - .
142.
Green have knowingly or recklessly aided and abetted the discrimination against Plaintiffs on the
basis of their sex and the retaliation against Plaintiffs on the basis of their engagement in
the sexual demands of Russell and Marc Abrams, invocation of their rights under antidiscrimination laws, filing EEOC charges of discrimination, and for affiliation with others that
have invoked their rights under antidiscrimination laws.
143.
Defendants Sandra Abrams, Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Bccker &
Green aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of each other and Defendants Titan, Russell
Abrams and Marc Abrams including but not limited to, threatening Plaintiffs and filing of the
AbramdEBG Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs as well as against their counsel, Douglas H.
Wigdor and TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs.
144.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Sandra Abrams, Ronald M. Green,
Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green’s unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in
violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to
suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which they are entitled to an award of monetary
damages and other relief.
145.
violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress for which they are entitled to an award of
monetary damages and other relief.
t-•
I
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Aiding and Abetting Violations of New York State Human Rights Law)
146.
147.
to defamation only) have knowingly or recklessly aided, abetted and directly participated in the
unlawful employment practices, discrimination and retaliation perpetrated against Plaintiffs by
each other and Defendants Sandra Abrams, Epstein Becker & Green, Ronald M, Green and
Barry Asen in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.
148.
to defamation only) have knowingly or recklessly aided and abetted the discrimination against
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex and the retaliation against Plaintiffs on the basis of their
engagement in protected activities including but not limited to complaints of discrimination,
refusal to submit to the sexual demands of Russell and Marc Abrams, invocation of their rights
under anti-discrimination laws, filing EEOC charges of discrimination, filing the Federal
Complaint, and for affiliation with others that have invoked their rights under anti-discrimination
laws.
149.
to defamation only) aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of each other and Defendants Sandra
Abrams, Epstein Becker & Green, Ronald M. Green and Barry Asen including but not limited to
creation of a hostile work environment, denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to work in an
employment setting free of unlawful harassment, constructively discharging Plaintiffs,
threatening Plaintiffs and filing of the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs as well
35
. - .
as against their counsel, Douglas H. Wigdor and TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs,
and issuing defamatory statements in response to the Federal Complaint.
150.
suffered, and continue to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which they are entitled to
an award of monetary damages and other relief.
1 5 1.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law)
152.
through 151, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein,
153. Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams and Marc Abrams have discriminated against
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law by
denying to them equal terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to
subjecting them to disparate working conditions and denying them the opportunity to work in an
employment setting free of unlawful harassment, and ultimately constructively discharging
Plaintiffs.
154.
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law by
36
creating, fostering, condoning, accepting, ratifying and/or otherwise failing to prevent or to
remedy a hostile work environment that included, among other things, severe and pervasive
harassment of Plaintiffs.
155.
Abrams' unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law,
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic harm, for which they
are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
156.
Abrams' unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law,
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress for
which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
157.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams and Marc Abrams' unlawful discriminatory
actions and harassment constitute malicious, willful and wanton violations of New York City
Human Rights Law for which they are entitled to an award of punitive damages.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law)
158.
through 157 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
159.
to defamation only) retaliated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their engagement in protected
activities including but not limited to complaints of discrimination, refusal to submit to the
sexual demands of Russell and Marc Abrams, invocation of their rights under anti-discrimination
laws, filing EEOC charges of discrimination, filing the Federal Complaint, and for affiliation
with others that have invoked their rights under anti-discrimination laws.
160.
relates to defamation only) retaliatory conduct includes but is not limited to denying Plaintiffs
equal terms and conditions of employment, subjecting them to disparate working conditions,
denying them the opportunity to work in an employment setting free of unlawful harassment,
constructively discharging Plaintiffs, threatening Plaintiffs and prosecution of the AbramsEBG
Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs as well as against their counsel, Douglas H. Wigdor and
TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs, and for issuing defamatory statements in response
to the filing of the Federal Complaint.
161.
Abrams and Steve Skalicky’s (as it relates to defamation only) unlawful discriminatory conduct
in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer monetary and/or economic harm, for which they are entitled to an award of monetary
162.
Abrams and Steve Skalicky’s (as it relates to defamation only) unlawful discriminatory conduct
in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer reputational harm, severe mental anguish and emotional distress for which they are
entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
163.
relates to defamation only) unlawful retaliation constitutes malicious, willful and wanton
violations of New York City Human Rights Law for which they are entitled to an award of
punitive damages.
38
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law)
164.
165.
Green retaliated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their engagement in protected activities
including but not limited to invocation of their rights under anti-discrimination laws, filing
EEOC charges of discrimination, and for affiliation with others that have invoked their rights
under anti-discrimination laws.
166.
Green’s retaliatory conduct includes but is not limited to, prosecution of the AbramdEBG
TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs.
167. Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green have
injured Plaintiffs as a result of the improper exercise of their authority as attorneys, as they
colluded with Defendants Sandra, Russell and Marc Abrams and Titan to maliciously prosecute
the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs as well as against their counsel, Douglas
H. Wigdor and TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs.
1
168,
Defendants Ronald M. Green, Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green did not
have reasonable grounds to offer Sandra, Russell and Marc Abrams and Titan the purported
advice to commence and prosecute the Abrams/EBG Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs and
their counsel. The purported advice to commence and prosecute the Abrarns/EBG Preemptive
Action was malicious, provided in bad faith and constitutes a tortious act.
39
169.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer monetary and/or economic harm, for which they are entitled to an award of monetary
170.
Barry Asen and Epstein Becker & Green’s unlawful retaliatory conduct in violation of the New
York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental
anguish and emotional distress for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and
other relief.
171.
Green’s unlawful retaliation constitutes malicious, willful and wanton violations of New York
City Human Rights Law for which they are entitled to an award of punitive damages.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Aiding and Abetting Violations of New York City Human Rights Law)
172.
173.
Green have knowingly or recklessly aided, abetted and directly participated in the unlawful
employment practices, discrimination and retalidion perpetrated against Plaintiffs by each other
and Defendants Titan, Russell and Marc Abrams in violation of the New York City Human
Rights Law.
174.
Green have knowingly or recklessly aided and abetted the discrimination against Plaintiffs on the
basis of their sex and the retaliation against Plaintiffs on the basis of their engagement in
40
the sexual demands of Russell and Marc Abrams, invocation of their rights under antidiscrimination laws, filing EEOC charges of discrimination, and for affiliation with others that
have invoked their rights under anti-discrimination laws.
175.
Green aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of each other and Defendants Titan, Russell and
Marc Abrams including but not limited to, threatening Plaintiffs and filing of the AbramsEBG
TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs.
176.
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to
suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which they are entitled to an award of monetary
177.
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress for which they are entitled to an award of
monetary damages and other relief.
178.
Defendants Sandra Abrams, Epstein Becker & Green, Ronald M. Green and Barry
Asen’s unlawful conduct constitutes malicious, willful and wanton violations of New York City
Human Rights Law for which they are entitled to an award of punitive damages.
41
AS AND FOR AN NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Aiding and Abetting Violations of New York City Human Rights Law)
179.
180.
to defamation only) have knowingly or recklessly aided, abetted and directly participated in the
unlawful employment practices, discrimination and retaliation perpetrated against Plaintiffs by
each other and Defendants Sandra Abrams, Epstein Becker & Green, Ronald M. Green and
Barry Asen in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.
181.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrarns and Steve Skalicky (as it relates
to defamation only) have knowingly or recklessly aided and abetted the discrimination against
Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex and the retaliation against Plaintiffs on the basis of their
engagement in protected activities including but not limited to complaints of discrimination,
refusal to submit to the sexual demands of Russell and Marc Abrams, invocation of their rights
under anti-discrimination laws, filing EEOC charges of discrimination, filing the Federal
Complaint and for affiliation with others that have invoked their rights under anti-discrimination
laws.
182.
relates to defamation only) aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of each other and Defendants
Sandra Abrams, Epstein Becker & Green, Ronald M. Green and Barry Asen including but not
limited to creation of a hostile work environment, denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to work in
an employment setting free of unlawful harassment, constructively discharging Plaintiffs,
threatening Plaintiffs and filing of the AbramsEBG Preemptive Action against Plaintiffs as well
42
as against their counsel, Douglas H, Wigdor and TWG, for their representation of the Plaintiffs,
and issuing defamatory statements in response to the filing of the Federal Complaint.
183.
retaliatory conduct in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have
suffered, and continue to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which they are entitled to
an award of monetary damages and other relief.
184.
retaliatory conduct in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiffs have
185.
relates to defamation only) unlawful conduct constitutes malicious, willful and wanton violations
of New York City Human Rights Law for which they are entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
186.
187.
As set forth above, Defendants Russell and Marc Abrams engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct towards Plaintiffs, including but not limited to threatening their physical
safety and emotional well being.
43
4.
‘#
-
. *
188.
As a result of Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs have
suffered severe emotional distress for which they are entitled to monetary and punitive damages.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation)
189.
190.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and Steve Skalicky issued,
approved, endorsed and/or ratified defamatory statements about Plaintiffs which are false and
which said Defendants know to be false.
191.
Defendants Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and/or Steve Skalicky issued,
approved, endorsed and/or ratified the following retaliatory, false, malicious, defamatory
statement: “This meritless lawsuit is nothing but a shakedown attempt by two former
employees.”
192.
Upon information and belief, Titan, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and/or Steve
Skalicky’s defamatory statement was published to third parties including but not limited to
members of the media such as the New York Daily News.
193.
Upon information and belief, Russell Abrams, Marc Abrams and/or Steve
Skalicky were acting within the scope of their respective employment for Titan when they
issued, approved, endorsed and/or ratified the defamatory statement.
194.
Plaintiffs have suffered harm as a result of the defamatory statement including but
not limited to reputational harm, emotional distress and mental anguish and the statement was
defamatory per se.
195.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered reputational harm,
severe emotional distress for which they are entitled to monetary and punitive damages.
44
I
z
‘,
*
I
1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE7Plaintiffs Danielle Pecile and Cristina Culicea pray that the Court enter
judgment in their favor and against Defendants, containing the following relief:
A.
A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants
complained of herein violate the State and City of New York;
B.
An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants from engaging in
such unlawful conduct;
C.
An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment
interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for all monetary and/or economic harm;
D.
interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for harm to their professional and personal reputations and loss
of career fulfillment;
E.
interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for all non-monetary and/or compensatory harm, including but
not limited to, compensation for their mental anguish;
F.
An award of damages for any and all other monetary and/or non-monetary losses
suffered by Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest;
G.
An award of punitive damages;
H.
An award of costs that Plaintiffs has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiffs’
reasonable attorneys’ fees to the fullest extent permitted by law; and
I.
Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
45
* *
JURY DEMAND
Plain ffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues of fact anc. damages stated here
Dated: New York, New York
August 6,20 10
Respectfully submitted,
T H O M P S O ~WIGDOR & GILLY LLP
Gnneth P. Thompsod
Douglas H. Wigdor
Scott B. Gilly
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (2 12) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
Attorneys Jor Plainttfls
46
v
*
VERIFICATION
State of New York
)
1
County of New York )
DANIELLE PECILE, being duly sworn, states:
I am a plaintiff in the action herein, I have read the annexed VERIFIED COMPLAINT,
know the contents thereof and the same are true to the best of my knowledge, except those
matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I
believe them to be true.
DANIELLk PECILE
Sworn to before me
this r d a y of August, 201 0
NOTARY PUBLIC
David Evan Gottlieb
Notary Public
state of New Yo*
No.020061810?9
My Commission Exp 0 1- 2 2 - 2 0 u
47
VERIFICATION
State of New York
)
1
County of New York )
CRISTINA CULICEA, being duly sworn, states:
I am a plaintiff in the action herein. I have read the annexed VERIFIED COMPLAINT,
know the contents thereof and the same are true to the best of my knowledge, except those
matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I
believe them to be true.
Sworn to before me
this 6 day of August, 2010
NOTARY P ~ B L I C
David E v a Gottlieb
Notary Public
State of New Yark
No. 02006181079
MY Commission ~ x op1 - 2 2 - 2 0 4
48
‘ON XapUI

sexual harassment lawsuit

Transcription

Similar documents

(Braoeside for 2lbrams

Lee Abrams - NTS MediaOnline

One Man Band, Marc Dobson

raser technologies order on defendants` motion to temporarily stay

2014 Harding Homecoming Court

features

KatrinaWebinar - American Health Care Association

Marc Anthony® Liriope