Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff Elyse Silverman (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Silverman”), by her attorneys, Gerstman Schwartz, LLP, complaining of the Defendants Deluxe Building Solutions, LLC (“Deluxe”) and Jacob Frydman (“Frydman) (Deluxe and Frydman may be referred to collectively as “Defendants”), set forth and allege as follows: JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343 because they arise under the laws of the United States and are brought to recover damages for violations of civil rights. 2. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the State and City claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims and are so related to the federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because the Plaintiff resides and can be found in this district. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No.: ________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------X ELYSE SILVERMAN, Plaintiff, v. DELUXE BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC and JACOB FRYDMAN, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 23 ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES 4. The Plaintiff has satisfied all administrative prerequisites to commencing this action. 5. Ms. Silverman timely filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on November 18, 2019. 6. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter for the Plaintiff dated April 29, 2020. 7. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has served through Federal Express Overnight a copy of the same, along with a letter of explanation, to the New York City Commission of Human Rights and the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, satisfying the notice requirements of § 8-502 of the New York City Administrative Code. PARTIES A. The Plaintiff 8. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Elyse Silverman was a female employee of Deluxe holding the title of Vice President of Sales. 9. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Silverman is and was a resident of New York, New York. B. The Defendants 10. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Deluxe was and is a foreign limited liability company organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal executive office located at 17 State Street, 19 th Floor, New York, New York 10004. 11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Deluxe employed the Plaintiff. 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Deluxe was an employer within the meaning of all relevant statutes. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 23 13. Deluxe “has been America’s premiere one-stop-shop for large scale, off-site, steel modular construction for over 50 years...Its fully integrated systems-built process conducted out of its 22-acre manufacturing campus continues to be at the forefront of innovative, volumetric modular construction.” 1 14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Jacob Frydman was and is the owner, operator and founder of Deluxe. Upon information and belief, Frydman is a resident of the State of New York. He employed and supervised the Plaintiff; he has the power to hire, fire, set schedules, direct corporate policy, and make other employment decisions affecting Plaintiffs terms and conditions of employment. He is also an “aider and abettor” under New York State and City Human Rights Law. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15. In or about November 2017, Ms. Silverman was hired by Defendant Deluxe as its Vice President of Sales—and, incidentally, its first employee—and worked in this position until she was wrongfully terminated on or about June 5, 2019. 16. Scott Brickell (“Mr. Brickell”) was the former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Deluxe and had supervisory authority over Ms. Silverman including the authority to hire, fire, and/or affect the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. 17. From the beginning of her employment, the environment at Defendant Deluxe was nothing short of oppressive. Indeed, Ms. Silverman was often subjected to the impetuous rage of its owner, Defendant Jacob Frydman, who would frequently berate and demean her. 18. The toxicity at Defendant Deluxe was palpable as were its unrepentantly homogenous hiring practices. Consequently, Defendant Deluxe embodied a rampant culture of 1 https://www.deluxemodular.com/modularmd Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 23 chauvinism and discrimination. Ironically, although Ms. Silverman is one of only two salespersons to ever acquire a finalized contract on behalf of Defendant Deluxe—having generated millions of dollars in actual and potential profits—she was routinely marginalized, bullied and ostracized by the otherwise all-white, male executive and sales staff. 19. Ms. Silverman’s own sales leads were routinely and baselessly reassigned to her male colleagues. At sales meetings, Ms. Silverman was often interrupted, spoken over, screamed at and condescended in ways that her male colleagues simply were not. At times, Ms. Silverman’s male superiors micromanaged her work and held her deals to stringent qualification criteria while not doing the same for her male counterpart, the other Vice President of Sales. When Ms. Silverman addressed this issue with management, she was provided with a baseless, unsubstantiated and unequivocally pretextual excuse that they just knew and trusted he was going to be great and knew what he was doing, despite only having been employed at Defendant Deluxe a few weeks. Indeed, Ms. Silverman was informed by the aforementioned male colleague that his deals did not meet the minimum threshold qualifications as management had purported. 20. What’s more, when Ms. Silverman complained about a missed deliverable by the estimating department on a Friday, management’s response was to vindictively promote her male counterpart the following Monday. The promotion positioned him as a buffer between Ms. Silverman and senior management although he had been with the company such a short time. This impinged on accountability for deliverables on Ms. Silverman’s projects and impeded her ability to timely respond to potential clients. 21. In another example, Ms. Silverman was thwarted from pursuing potential business with the Marriot hotel chain after initiating contact so that, upon request, Defendant Frydman could step in, with the promise of handing the relationship back to her. Ms. Silverman agreed, Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 23 only to have the relationship ultimately ripped away and handed off to two different male counterparts, time and again. 22. In yet another example, although the entire sales team attended an industry conference together in 2018, Defendant Deluxe sent only her male counterpart and the male Director of Strategic Operations in 2019, without ever informing Ms. Silverman of its decision and thereafter refusing to provide any explanation despite Ms. Silverman’s requests. This afforded Ms. Silverman’s male counterpart the opportunity to attend the largest conference in the industry including educational seminars, workshops with industry leaders, and, most importantly, client and vendor networking opportunities critical to success in the industry, while depriving Ms. Silverman of same. 23. In 2018, and into early 2019, Defendant Deluxe held morning sales-estimating calls twice per week. During these calls, Ms. Silverman was routinely quieted, disparaged, and yelled at without provocation. Often, the sales manager would have to intercede on her behalf in order to relate the work required on her deals to the head of estimating. Despite the direction given on these calls, the estimating team routinely abandoned and ignored deliverables for Ms. Silverman’s projects without explanation or consequence while adopting deliverables for her male colleagues. 24. In February of 2019, fed up with the barrage of vitriol, Ms. Silverman sent a lengthy and poignant email to CEO, Scott Brickell, expressing her concerns about the company and its treatment of her. Mr. Brickell’s response was a single terse statement devoid of any substance or compassion: “Thank you for your email but I respectfully disagree with your assessment.” See Brickell Email, annexed hereto as Exhibit A Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 23 25. In spring of 2019, Defendant Deluxe implemented a “go/no-go” policy in which two senior male executives had to approve all of sales staff’s proposed projects for estimating. Despite the validation of the value of Ms. Silverman’s projects by the members of the design and construction departments, the four-senior male executives attempted to reject each and every deal Ms. Silverman suggested, continuously cutting her off and refusing to let her finish her sentences. This was an obvious and deliberate effort to demean and stonewall Ms. Silverman. In fact, the only instance in which one of Ms. Silverman’s projects was accepted as a “go” is when a male colleague of Ms. Silverman’s stood up on her behalf and demanded a bona fide reason for why senior management would “no-go” the project. 26. On March 19, 2019, Ms. Silverman received an unexpected phone call from Mr. Brickell stating that beginning on April 1, 2019, her salary would be reduced by approximately $90,000, from approximately $125,000 to $30,000. Astonished, Ms. Silverman asked for a justification and whether anyone else was being affected by the salary reduction. Mr. Brickell refused to provide any justification whatsoever and simply told her that “this is just how it’s going to be.” What’s more, Mr. Brickell stated that Ms. Silverman was the only employee whose salary was being reduced and that the salary of her male counterpart in a similar sales role would not be affected. Mr. Brickell also acknowledged that there was no doubt in his mind, or anyone else in the company, about how devoted Ms. Silverman was to her job, how hard she worked and how difficult her job had become as the company structure was unable support its own expectations. When Ms. Silverman again asked for a reason, Mr. Brickell simply responded that this decision had come directly from Defendant Frydman. 27. In or around early 2019, Bridgeport Landing Development, one of Ms. Silverman’s existing clients, referred another potential client to Defendant Deluxe. Despite the Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 23 fact that the lead was referred by one of Ms. Silverman’s existing clients and company standards dictate that such leads be forwarded to Ms. Silverman, Defendant Deluxe instead forwarded the lead to Ms. Silverman’s male counterpart. 28. In or around the early-Spring of 2019, Defendant Deluxe management suddenly restricted Ms. Silverman’s access to the internal Customer Resource Management Platform (“CRM”), while permitting her male counterpart to maintain full access. This prevented Ms. Silverman from being able to access the contact information of her current and potential clients, and project information for leads she had been actively pursuing, thereby thwarting her ability to perform her job functions including the ability develop new and existing business relationships, and access to vital project information. 29. During her tenure at Defendant Deluxe, Ms. Silverman obtained the three most significant contracts for the company. 30. First, in July of 2018, Ms. Silverman closed a deal with the New York City Department of Design and Construction for $12.2 million. Ms. Silverman earned approximately $60,000 from this contract, which was acknowledged by Defendant Frydman who stated: “ Congrats Elyse you earned $60,000 today .” 2 See Email Acknowledgement, annexed hereto as Exhibit B (emphasis added). 31. Second, in February 2019, Ms. Silverman closed a nationwide contract with Checkers Drive-In Restaurants (“Checkers”) qualifying Defendant Deluxe to build Checkers modular restaurants moving forward for a base cost of $390,000 per restaurant. Checkers estimated that it would open dozens of new modular restaurants each year. At the time of this contract, Elyse was entitled to one percent (1%) of the total value of the contract. 2 This calculation is based on Ms. Silverman’s entitlement to ½ percent of a $12.2 million contract. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 23 32. Third, Ms. Silverman closed a design contract with Bridgeport Landing Development valued at approximately $260,000. At the time of this contract, Elyse was entitled to one percent (1%) of the total value of the contract. 33. Ms. Silverman was also involved in other significant opportunities and was responsible for providing a response to a request for proposal to the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development to two separate and distinct development teams to provide services at its 97 West 169 th Street project. At the time of its submission, Elyse was entitled to one percent (1%) of the total value of the contract. 34. To date, Elyse has been paid only a fraction of the commissions she is due and owed by Defendant Deluxe. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Title VII – Sexual Harassment 35. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 36. The Defendants intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and maintaining a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff’s sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq 37. The hostile work environment predicated on Plaintiff’s sex and created by the Defendants was severe, pervasive, and a part of a pattern or practice of harassment against the Plaintiff. 38. The hostile working environment altered the Plaintiff’s conditions of employment by creating an abusive, physically threatening, humiliating, and intolerable working environment. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 23 39. The Plaintiff complained about the sex-based harassment to which she was subjected. But the Defendants took no action to stop the sex-based, offensive, unwelcomed, unsolicited, and illegal behavior that was directed toward the Plaintiff 40. Defendant Deluxe and Defendant Frydman had the power to hire, fire, and alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment. 41. The Corporate Defendants, Deluxe, through and together with the Individual Defendant, Frydman, participated in the conduct giving rise to the harassment and hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex that altered the terms and conditions of her employment. 42. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, and discriminatory treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 43. By reason of the sex-based harassment perpetrated by the Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under Title VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION New York State Human Rights Law – Sex and Gender Identity Discrimination 44. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 45. The Defendants intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and maintaining a hostile work environment predicated on Plaintiff’s sex and gender identity in violation of New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq 46. The sexually hostile work environment created by the Defendants was severe, pervasive, and a part of a pattern or practice of harassment against the Plaintiff. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 23 47. The hostile working environment altered the Plaintiff’s conditions of employment by creating an abusive, physically threatening, humiliating, and intolerable working environment. 48. The Plaintiff complained about the sex and gender identity discrimination to which she was subjected. But the Defendants took no action to stop the sex-based and gender-based, offensive, unwelcomed, unsolicited, and illegal behavior that was directed towards the Plaintiff. 49. Defendant Deluxe and Defendant Frydman had the power to hire, fire, and alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment. 50. The Corporate Defendants, Deluxe, through and together with the Individual Defendant, Frydman, participated in the conduct giving rise to the harassment and hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex and gender identity that altered the terms and conditions of their employment. 51. The Individual Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced a hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex and gender identity by directly and purposefully participating in conduct giving rise to or facilitating the unlawful harassment and hostile work environment prohibited under New York State Human Rights Law. See N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq 52. The Individual Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced a hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex and gender identity by failing to promptly investigate or take appropriate remedial measures despite being informed about the existence of discriminatory conduct. 53. Further, the Defendants condoned the acts of sex and gender identity discrimination and hostile working environment detailed above in violation of New York State Human Rights Law. See N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 10 of 23 54. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, and discriminatory treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 55. By reason of the sex and gender identity discrimination perpetrated by the Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to herunder New York State Human Rights Law. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Title VII – Retaliation 56. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 57. The Plaintiff complained about the sexually hostile working environment to which she was subjected. 58. The issues raised by the Plaintiff to the Defendants constitute colorable violations of Title VII’s prohibitions concerning discrimination on the basis of sex. 59. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities of reporting and opposing the sexually hostile working environment to which she was being subjected. 60. In violation of Title VII, Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff in a way that interfered with her terms and conditions of employment. 61. The Defendants’ retaliatory and discriminatory act or acts would be reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity. 62. The Defendant Deluxe and Defendant Frydman had the power to hire, fire, and alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 11 of 23 63. The Corporate Defendants, Deluxe, through and together with the Individual Defendant, Frydman, participated in the conduct giving rise to the retaliation based on the Plaintiff engaging in protected activity. 64. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 65. By reason of the retaliation perpetrated by Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under Title VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION New York City Human Rights Law – Gender Discrimination 66. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 67. The Defendants intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and maintaining a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff’s gender in violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. 68. The hostile work environment based on gender and created by the Defendants was severe, pervasive, and a part of a pattern or practice of harassment against the Plaintiff. 69. Plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of her sex. 70. The hostile working environment altered the Plaintiff’s conditions of employment by creating an abusive, physically threatening, humiliating, and intolerable working environment. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 12 of 23 71. The Plaintiff complained about the gender discrimination to which she was subjected. But the Defendants took no action to stop the sex-based, offensive, unwelcomed, unsolicited, and illegal behavior that was directed towards the Plaintiff. 72. Defendant Deluxe and Defendant Frydman had the power to hire, fire, and alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment. 73. The Corporate Defendants, Deluxe, through and together with the Individual Defendant, Frydman, participated in the conduct giving rise to the harassment and hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex that altered the terms and conditions of her employment. 74. The Individual Defendant aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced a hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex by directly and purposefully participating in conduct giving rise to or facilitating the unlawful harassment and hostile work environment prohibited under New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. 75. The Individual Defendant, Frydman, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced a hostile work environment based on the Plaintiff’s sex by failing to promptly investigate or take appropriate remedial measures despite being informed about the existence of discriminatory conduct. 76. Further, the Defendants condoned the acts of gender discrimination and hostile working environment detailed above in violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. 77. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, and discriminatory treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 78. By reason of the sexual harassment perpetrated by the Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under New York City Human Rights Law. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 13 of 23 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION New York State Human Rights Law – Retaliation 79. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 80. The Plaintiff complained about the sexually hostile working environment to which she was subjected. 81. The issues raised by the Plaintiff to the Defendants constitute colorable violations of New York State Human Rights Law’s prohibitions concerning discrimination on the basis of sex. 82. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities of reporting and opposing the sex-based and gender-based hostile working environment to which she was being subjected. 83. In violation of New York Executive Law § 296, Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff in a way that interfered with their terms and conditions of employment. 84. The Defendants’ retaliatory and discriminatory act or acts would be reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity. 85. The Defendant Deluxe and Defendant Frydman had the power to hire, fire, and alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment. 86. The Corporate Defendants, Deluxe, through and together with the Individual Defendant, Frydman, participated in the conduct giving rise to the retaliation based on the Plaintiff engaging in protected activity. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 14 of 23 87. The Individual Defendant, Frydman, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the retaliation based on the Plaintiff engaging in protected activity by directly and purposefully participating in conduct giving rise to unlawful retaliation. 88. The Individual Defendant, Frydman, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the retaliation based on the Plaintiff’s complaints of the hostile work environment maintained by Defendants by failing to promptly investigate or take appropriate remedial measures despite being informed about the existence of the said conduct. 89. Further, the Individual Defendant, Frydman, condoned the acts of sex-based and gender-based discrimination, hostile working environment, and retaliation detailed above in violation of New York Executive Law § 296. 90. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 91. By reason of the retaliation perpetrated by Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under New York State Human Rights Law. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION New York City Human Rights Law – Retaliation 92. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 93. The Plaintiff complained about the sexually hostile working environment to which she was subjected. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 15 of 23 94. The issues raised by the Plaintiff to the Defendants constitute colorable violations of New York City Human Rights Law’s prohibitions concerning discrimination on the basis of sex. 95. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities of reporting and opposing the sexually hostile working environment to which she was being subjected. 96. In violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff in a way that interfered with their terms and conditions of employment. 97. The Defendants’ retaliatory and discriminatory act or acts would be reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity. 98. The Defendant Deluxe and Defendant Frydman had the power to hire, fire, and alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment. 99. The Corporate Defendants, Deluxe, through and together with the Individual Defendant, Frydman, participated in the conduct giving rise to the retaliation based on the Plaintiff engaging in protected activity. 100. The Individual Defendant, Frydman, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the retaliation based on the Plaintiff engaging in protected activity by directly and purposefully participating in conduct giving rise to unlawful retaliation. 101. The Individual Defendant, Frydman, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced the retaliation based on the Plaintiff’s complaints of the hostile work environment maintained by Defendants by failing to promptly investigate or take appropriate remedial measures despite being informed about the existence of the said conduct. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 16 of 23 102. Further, the Individual Defendant, Frydman, condoned the acts of sex-based and gender-based, hostile working environment, and retaliation detailed above in violation of New York City Human Rights Law. 103. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 104. By reason of the retaliation perpetrated by Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under New York City Human Rights Law. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Title VII – Wrongful Termination 105. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 106. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated based on her sex when she was subjected to the Defendants’ sex-based and gender-based discrimination/hostile working environment and retaliation, despite the Defendants’ knowledge about such unlawful behavior, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq 107. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory treatment, which led to the wrongful termination of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 108. By reason of the retaliation perpetrated by Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under Title VII. Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 17 of 23 EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION New York State Human Rights Law – Wrongful Termination 109. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 110. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated based on her sex when she was subjected to the Defendants’ sex-based and gender-based discrimination/hostile working environment and retaliation, despite the Defendants’ knowledge about such unlawful behavior, in violation of New York State Human Rights Law § 296 et seq 111. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ intentional, unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory treatment, which led to the wrongful termination of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages due to emotional distress and mental anguish. 112. By reason of the retaliation perpetrated by Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled to all damages available to her under New York State Human Rights Law. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION New York City Human Rights Law – Wrongful Termination 113. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 114. Plaintiff was constructively discharged based on her sex when she was subjected to the Defendants sex-based and gender-based discrimination/hostile working environment and retaliation, despite the Defendants’ knowledge about such unlawful behavior, in violation of New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 et seq Case 1:20-cv-04842-AJN Document 2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 18 of 23