UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------X
BARNETT VALERIE, ERIK SILVERMAN, RAMSES
GRAHAM, ANTHONY PETERKIN, and SYDNEY
SILVERA
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEVY RESTAURANTS, INC.; LEVY PREMIUM
FOODSERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
BROOKLYN EVENTS CENTER, LLC DBA
BARCLAYS CENTER; and AARON LA GRECA,
ALPHONSE LANZA and LISA BREFERE in their
Individual Capacity,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
14 Civ. 4499

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFFS HEREBY
DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs Barnett Valerie, Erik Silverman, Ramses Graham, Anthony Peterkin, and
Sydney Silvera (referred to collectively as the Plaintiffs), by and through their counsel The
Harman Firm, PC, respectfully allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. In this employment discrimination matter, Plaintiffs have suffered from systemic
maltreatment and egregious abuse on the basis of race and/or disability.
2. Because of their race and/or disabilities, Defendants have illegally refused to
promote Plaintiffs, reduced their work hours, and attempted to force them out of their workplace
by demoting them to positions where they are unable to use their specialized skills.
3. Defendants Aaron La Greca, Alphonse Lanza and Lisa Brefere (referred to
collectively as the Individual Defendants) force Plaintiffs to endure an abusive work
environment by constantly mocking employees with disabilities and subjecting them to
egregiously demeaning name-calling.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1

2
4. Plaintiffs action seeks damages for racial discrimination in the workplace under
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981. The Individual Defendants subject Plaintiffs
to an intolerable hostile work environment by repeatedly assailing on black employees with
outrageous profanity and racially offensive language and gestures. See Exhibit A.
5. Plaintiffs also seek remedies for race and disability discrimination, retaliation and
hostile work environment, as well as punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights
Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE 8-107.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Jurisdiction of this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331(a) in that claims arise
under federal law, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981.
7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs NYCHRL claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because such claims arise from a common nucleus of operative
facts.
8. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred within this
district.
PARTIES
9. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs are adult individuals, residing in the County
of Kings, State of New York.
10. Plaintiffs Valerie, Graham, Peterkin and Silvera are black individuals of African-
American and/or Caribbean/West Indian ethnic descent.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2

3
11. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Silverman has suffered from cerebral palsy
and moderately severe rhinophyma, a rare skin disorder causing abnormal overgrowth of nose
glands.
12. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Peterkin has suffered from blindness in one
eye.
13. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were and are employees of Defendants.
14. Plaintiffs work at the kitchens of Defendant Levy Premium Foodservice Limited
Partnership (Levy Premium), which provides food and catering services for Defendant
Brooklyn Events Center, LLC DBA Barclays Center (hereinafter Barclays), at the Barclays
Center arena located at 620 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York 11217.
15. Upon information and belief, Levy Premium is owned, operated and managed by
Defendant Levy Restaurants, Inc. (Levy Restaurants).
16. At all times relevant hereto, upon information and belief, Defendant Barclays
owns the Barclays Center arena and oversees its operations, including the Food and Beverage
department, run by Defendant Levy Premium.
17. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants La Greca and Lanza, who are Caucasian
individuals, are the managers of Plaintiffs.
18. At all times relevant hereto, upon information and belief, Defendant Brefere is a
consultant for Barclays and directs the operations of Levy Premium. Defendant Brefere oversees
the work of Plaintiffs, has authority to transfer employees, and manages workplace issues arising
in the kitchens. Defendant Brefere is a Caucasian individual.
JURY TRIAL
19. Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial before a jury.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3

4
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Background
20. Plaintiffs are employed by Levy Premium, Levy Restaurants and Barclays (the
Corporate Defendants) at the Barclays Center arena.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Levy Premium operates three (3)
kitchens at the Barclays Center: the 40/40 Club by American Express (40/40 kitchen), the
Calvin Klein Courtside Club (CK kitchen), and Concessions.
22. The 40/40 and CK kitchens (collectively the premium kitchens) are the
premium restaurants of Levy Premium, and demand more complex culinary skills than
Concessions because of their gourmet menu. Concessions offers fast food for all Barclays
customers, whereas the premium kitchens offer upscale cuisine exclusively for VIP guests.
23. Transferring employees from the premium kitchens to Concessions is effectively
a demotion because working at Concessions deprives premium cooks and chefs from using their
specialized skills, and from further developing their culinary talent and experience.
24. Each kitchen team is structured according to the following descending hierarchy:
Executive Chef, Senior Sous Chef, Sous Chef, Supervisor, Lead, Cook 1, Cook 2, and
Cook 3.
25. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Valerie is a Senior Supervisor. He worked
at the CK kitchen until being transferred to the 40/40 kitchen on or about March 2014.
26. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Silvera works as Lead at the CK kitchen.
27. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs Silverman, Graham and Peterkin work as
Cook 3 at the CK kitchen.


Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4

5
Racial and Disability Discrimination
28. Beginning September 2013, the Individual Defendants began to subject Plaintiffs
to an intolerable hostile work environment by repeatedly assailing on black employees with
outrageous profanity and racially offensive language and gestures. On a regular and continuing
basis, Plaintiffs have heard Defendants Lanza and La Greca referring to black employees, inter
alia, as black motherfucker, dumb black bitch, black monkey, piece of shit and
nigger.
29. Similarly, in or around December 2013, Plaintiffs Valerie and Silvera, among
other employees, heard Defendants Lanza and La Greca maliciously ridiculing Wendy
Woolfork, the Human Resources (HR) Director at Levy Premium, by saying that she is
uppity because she is black and in management, and claiming, in substance, that she was
only hired for show.
30. Plaintiffs Valerie and Silvera have also seen Defendants Lanza and La Greca
outrageously mocking Terrance Greenidge, a black employee, by making monkey gestures. In
or around December 2013, Plaintiff Valerie saw La Greca and Lanza showing CK kitchen
employees picture of Beetlejuice, a cartoonish character from the Wack Pack of the Howard
Stern Show, who is played by an African-American man who suffers from microcephaly and
dwarfism. See Exhibit A. As they circulated the picture, La Greca and Lanza maliciously
laughed and ridiculed Mr. Greenidge, saying look at the black monkey, look at this little
black nigger!, encouraging employees to laugh, and telling all employees who were present that
Mr. Greenidge resembles Beetlejuice.
31. Defendants also have licensed other employees to revile Plaintiffs Peterkin,
Graham and Valerie for being black. For example, Chef Elizabeth Degori, Sous Chef of the CK
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5

6
kitchen, has called Plaintiff Peterkin stupid dumb fuck in front of the CK kitchen staff, because
of her animus against dark-skinned individuals. Chef Degori has also assailed upon Plaintiff
Graham with egregious profanity, an excessively aggressive tone and specious write-ups. On
one occasion, Chef Elizabeth Degori, gave Plaintiff Graham a write-up for allegedly pushing an
employee although there were no complaints against Graham and there was no investigation into
Degoris allegations. Similarly, Plaintiff Valerie endured significant maltreatment by Darcy
Tapia, Senior Catering Manager at Levy Premium, as Ms. Tapia was consistently and repeatedly
aggressive, condescending and disrespectful to Plaintiff Valerie, because he is black. Upon
information and belief, Ms. Tapia attempted to have Plaintiff Valerie removed from the CK
kitchen due to her racial animus.
32. Defendants also force Plaintiffs to endure an abusive work environment by
constantly mocking employees with disabilities, and subjecting them to egregiously demeaning
name-calling. On several occasions, Plaintiffs have heard Defendants La Greca and Lanza
referring to Plaintiff Peterkin as cyclops, and the one-eyed guy, because he is visibly blind in
one eye. Plaintiff Peterkin also overheard Defendant La Greca asking why is he [Peterkin]
working here if hes blind. Similarly, La Greca and Lanza refer to Plaintiff Silverman as the
nose guy, and constantly saying comments like his mother so [sic] ugly. Plaintiff Silvera,
who supervises Plaintiff Silverman as Lead, was deeply outraged and helpless as she saw
Defendant La Greca ridiculing Silverman, pretending to mimic Silvermans nose deformity by
placing a piece of bread on his nose, and attempting to mimic Silvermans voice. Further, in one
occasion, Plaintiff Silverman heard Defendant La Greca making fun of his uncontrollably shaky
hand, which is a symptom of his cerebral palsy.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6

7
33. In addition to abhorrent profanity, humiliation and name-calling, Defendants
demonstrate a pattern of systemic disability discrimination as they deliberately place employees
with disabilities away from customers or in positions requiring fewer skills.
34. On or about December 2013, Defendant Brefere told Plaintiff Valerie that she was
planning to relocate employees with disabilities to ensure that they remain out of the sight of
customers. Defendant Brefere specifically mentioned that she did not want Plaintiffs Silverman
or Peterkin to be in sight. Consistent with this animus, Brefere isolated Plaintiff Peterkin in or
around January 2014, by assigning him to work alone in the Media and Family section, apart
from the rest of the CK kitchen staff, out of customers view, and subject to arduous work
conditions. The Media and Family section is a single overheated room, without ventilation.
35. Defendants also assail on black and disabled employees by demoting them. In or
around November 2013, Defendants Lanza and La Greca virtually demoted Mr. Greenidge,
because of his race and disability, by transferring to him to the carving station, and stripping him
of his typical, more complex and higher-skilled responsibilities as Cook 2. Defendants also
transferred Michael Wall, Shirley Powell, Karen Govan, Jennie Cadet and Toson Bartlettall
black employeesfrom the premium kitchens to Concessions in an effort to force them to quit
their jobs. Employees consider a transfer to Concessions as the last step taken by management to
encourage employees to resign. See supra 21-22. Upon information and belief, Shirley
Powell, a black Cook 3, resigned because she could not tolerate the pervasive racial and
disability discrimination at Levy Premium, and the ensuing hostile work environment.
36. Further, at all times relevant hereto, Defendants implement discriminatory hiring
and promotion practices. Upon information and belief, the only Leads at the 40/40 kitchen who
are black are individuals who were hired or promoted prior to September 2013, before the
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7

8
Corporate Defendants hired Defendants La Greca, Lanza and Brefere. Plaintiffs Silverman,
Graham, Peterkin and Silvera have been passed for promotions despite their satisfactory
employment evaluations, while newly hired or promoted employees are exclusively Hispanic
individuals of lighter skin, who are unqualified for their positions, as evidenced by their
inefficient performance. For example, Fani Ualpa, Marco Pena and Sandra Ortiz, who are
recently-hired light-skinned Hispanics, cannot fulfill their responsibilities, and create more work
for others because of their inability to manage their tasks. Mr. Pena, a Supervisor, constantly
requests the assistance of Plaintiffs Graham and Silverman in preparing dishes although he is
expected to know the menu and to guide all employees under his supervision, as part of his job
qualifications. Meanwhile, Ms. Ortiz is not able to lead the kitchen without the assistance and
support of Plaintiff Silverman because she is not fluent in English and cannot communicate with
the rest of the staff due to this language barrier. Ms. Rodriguez is also unable to manage the hot
food bar, although her job duties require her to manage both the cold and hot food bar. Plaintiffs
now have the additional, seemingly unnecessary, responsibility of training under-qualified staff
simply because Defendants refuse to promote Plaintiffs due to their race and/or disabilities.
37. Defendants have sabotaged Plaintiffs attempts to seek promotions, and have
humiliated and ridiculed Plaintiffs for inquiring about opportunities.
38. For instance, when Plaintiff Silverman asked Defendant La Greca about the
possibility of being promoted to Cook 2, La Greca ordered him to immediately complete a chef
test, which was not required from any applicants or candidates, included questions about tasks
that were not part of the duties of a Cook 2, and involved dishes that were not even part of the
menu of Levy Premium.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8

9
39. Defendants La Greca and Lanza closely watched Plaintiff Silverman while he
completed the chef test, in an effort to ridicule and intimidate him.
40. Defendants also evidence pervasive racial discrimination in their enforcement of
workplace policies. While Plaintiff Graham received one write-up for tardiness, Mr. Pena, a
light-skinned Hispanic, has not been reprimanded or written-up for repeatedly being late.
41. Also, in and around late April, Plaintiff Graham was disciplined for not wearing
his gloves, although he only removed them momentarily because he cut his thumb, and non-
black employees like Mr. Pena were never disciplined for repeatedly working without their
gloves. In fact, Plaintiff Graham received said write-up after Director Greg Costa had been
called into the kitchen because Plaintiff Graham cut his hand while working. Instead of assisting
Graham, Costa gave him a specious write-up because of his racial animus, and maliciously
sought to humiliate him by ordering him to complete a urine test immediately.
42. Because of their racism, Defendants also have sabotaged Plaintiffs Valerie and
Silveras leadership responsibilities, have virtually demoted them by transferring their
responsibilities to non-blacks, and continue to treat light-skinned Hispanic employees more
favorably. For example, on or about March 21, 2014, Defendants transferred Veronica Marte (a
light-skinned Hispanic) to the CK kitchen and directed her to act as Lead, although that is not her
job title and Plaintiff Silvera is the Lead of the CK kitchen. Because Plaintiff Silvera is black,
Defendants sanctioned and encouraged Ms. Marte to ignore Silveras directions as her Lead, and
have begun to replace Silvera by calling her to cover events that were typically assigned to
Silvera.
43. Similarly, Defendants frustrated Plaintiff Valeries ability to exercise his job
responsibilities as Senior Supervisor at the 40/40 kitchen by preventing him from managing the
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9

10
work of Mel Capellan, a light-skinned Hispanic Lead. Defendants repeatedly assigned Capellan
supervisory duties that corresponded to Plaintiff Valerie, ordered him to act independently, and
directed him to ignore Valeries directions, although he is subordinate to Valerie.
44. Plaintiffs have repeatedly complained about the pervasive racial and disability
discrimination and the ensuing abusive work environment at Levy Premium and the Barclays
Center. Plaintiffs spoke to the Individual Defendants, as well as Ms. Woolfork, from HR at Levy
Premium and David Loiselle, Vice President of HR of Levy Restaurants in Chicago.
45. Defendants have refused to rectify the illegal discriminatory behavior of the
Individual Defendants or the hostile work environment at Levy Premium.
Retaliation
46. Upon complaining about racial and disability discrimination in the workplace, and
the hostile, unequal and unfair environment they are forced to endure, Plaintiffs Valerie, Graham
Silvera and Silverman suffered callous retaliation from Defendants.
47. Plaintiff Valerie, who had never received a write up during his career at Levy
Premium, began to receive specious write-ups after he persistently spoke to the Individual
Defendants, to Ms. Woolfork and Mr. Loiselle about the unequal treatment of black and disabled
employees. On March 10, 2014, Ms. Tapia harassed Plaintiff Valerie while he was following her
orders, because of her racial animus. Ms. Tapia called three (3) Caucasian managers, including
Director of Operations Greg Costa to the kitchen, to berate Plaintiff Valerie in front of the staff.
Plaintiff Valerie was further humiliated as Ms. Tapia ordered the other managers to physically
restrain Valerie, take his employee ID and escort him out of the building. Plaintiff Valerie was
consequently suspended for four (4) shifts, although Ms. Tapia did not provide any reason as to
why he was maltreated or why he was disciplined. On a meeting with HR following the
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10

11
incident, Plaintiff Valerie found out that Ms. Tapia and the managers had falsely accused him of
using foul language.
48. In retaliation for his complaints about Defendants disparate treatment of black
and disabled employees, Defendant Levy Premium demoted Plaintiff Valerie to the 40/40
kitchen and stripped him of all supervisory duties and responsibilities of running the CK kitchen,
and of his pride in his work. Upon being transferred, Plaintiff Valerie was no longer treated as
second in command. He was no longer responsible for providing guidance to employees,
directing the production of all foods, or assisting other managers in creating setting employee
schedules; rather, he only was in charge of preparing and making salads, although his title
involved more complex responsibilities. By contrast, Mel Capellan, a light-skinned Hispanic,
performed supervisory duties at the 40/40 kitchen, although he is a Lead and Plaintiff Valerie
was supposed to be his manager.
49. After demoting Plaintiff Valerie, Defendants continued to isolate and castigate
him by refusing to support him in his management role of supervisor, in retaliation for
complaining about the systemic discrimination at Levy Premium and the Barclays Center. For
example, when Plaintiff Valerie raised concerns about Mr. Capellans refusal to follow his
directions, Chef Tourtollet told him that Mr. Capellan is not required to follow his directions
because Mr. Capellan is the go to guy, and that he needs to treat Mr. Capellan as a supervisor,
although, as a Lead, Mr. Cappellan should be under his supervision. See supra 23. Instead of
allowing Plaintiff Valerie to oversee and manage employees at the 40/40 kitchen, Defendants
treated Mr. Capellan as the de facto supervisor. This dismissal of Plaintiff Valeries authority as
a supervisor prevented him from fulfilling his responsibility to effectively manage the 40/40
kitchen.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11

12
50. Defendants have also retaliated against Plaintiff Graham by giving him specious
write-ups for complaining about maltreatment and the failure to promote him because he is
black.
51. Defendants also retaliated against Plaintiffs Silvera and Silverman by reducing
their work hours for complaining about the flagrant discrimination against black and disabled
employees at Levy Premium and the Barclays Center.
FIRST CLAIM
Race Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981
52. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate every allegation contained in this
Complaint with the same force and effect as though they were separately alleged and reiterated
herein.
53. Under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, racial discrimination in employment is illegal.
54. Defendants subject Plaintiffs Valerie, Graham, Peterkin and Silvera to pervasive,
intolerable and humiliating discrimination on the basis of race.
55. The Individual Defendants create a hostile work environment for Plaintiffs
Valerie, Graham, Peterkin and Silvera, all of whom are black, by constantly assailing on them
with profanity, and racially offensive language and gestures. Because of their racial animus,
Defendants stripped Plaintiffs Valerie and Silvera of their supervisory responsibilities and
transferred such responsibilities to light-skinned employees. Defendants have also passed
Valerie, Graham, Peterkin and Silvera for promotions, because they are black.
56. Plaintiff Silverman is also forced to endure a hostile work environment as he
witnesses Defendants discriminating against his colleagues because they are black.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12

13
57. On numerous times, Plaintiffs complained to the Corporate Defendants about the
egregious abuse they suffer at Levy Premium because of their race. In failing to correct the
heinous inequality and discrimination at Levy Premium and the Barclays Center, Defendants
knowingly submit Plaintiffs to a hostile work environment, in violation of Section 1981.
58. As a result of Defendants illegal discrimination, Plaintiffs Valerie, Graham,
Peterkin and Silvera have suffered damages for past and future earnings. Additionally, all
Plaintiffs seek damages for attorneys fees, costs, and emotional injuries in an amount to be
determined at trial.
SECOND CLAIM
Illegal Retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981
59. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate every allegation contained in this
Complaint with the same force and effect as though they were separately alleged and reiterated
herein.
60. Under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, it is illegal to retaliate against individuals for
attempting to help others, who suffer direct racial discrimination, in asserting their Section 1981
right to equality under the law.
61. Plaintiffs Valerie, Graham, Peterkin and Silvera, while working for Defendant
Levy Premium, are subject to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment because of
their race.
62. Plaintiff Silverman is forced to endure a hostile work environment as he witnesses
Defendants discriminating against his colleagues because they are black.
63. Plaintiffs properly reported to Defendants the extremely hostile and
discriminatory working conditions at Levy Premium against black employees.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13

14
64. Defendants ordered Plaintiffs to continue working amid intolerable racism, and
when Plaintiffs refused, Defendant retaliated against them.
65. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Valerie by transferring to the 40/40 Club,
without providing him with managerial support, and virtually demoting him by assigning him
non-supervisory duties. Defendants also gave Plaintiff Valerie specious write-ups, and refused
to provide him with the support usually given to other supervisors, in retaliation for his
complaints.
66. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Graham by giving him specious and unduly
harsh write-ups that were not customarily given to similarly situated employees in the same
circumstances.
67. Defendants also retaliated against Plaintiffs Silvera and Silverman by reducing
their hours.
68. As a result of Defendants illegal and ongoing retaliation, Plaintiffs suffered
damages for past and future earnings. Plaintiffs seek damages for attorneys fees, costs, and
emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CLAIM
Race and Disability Discrimination Under New York City Human Rights Law 8-107

69. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate every allegation contained in this
Complaint with the same force and effect as though they were separately alleged and reiterated
herein.
70. Section 8-107 of the NYHRL prohibits employers from discriminating against
employees because of their actual or perceived race and/or disabilities.
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14

15
71. Defendants continuously subject Plaintiffs to heinous treatment because of their
race and/or disabilities.
72. Defendants create an incredibly hostile environment by constantly assailing on
Plaintiffs Valerie, Peterkin, Graham and Silvera with profanity, and racially offensive language
and gestures. Because of their racial animus, Defendants also prevented Plaintiffs Valerie and
Silvera from exercising their supervisory responsibilities by instructing light-skinned employees
to ignore their directions. Further, Defendants have passed Graham, Peterkin and Silvera for
promotions, because they are black.
73. Similarly, Defendants subject Plaintiffs Silverman and Peterkin to heinous
treatment and a hostile work environment, because of their disabilities. Defendants placed
Silverman and Peterkin out of sight because of their disabilities, have refused them promotions
despite their qualifications, and consistently humiliate them in front of their colleagues by
mocking them for their disabilities and subjecting them to outrageously demeaning name-calling.
74. As a result of Defendants illegal and ongoing disability and race discrimination,
Plaintiffs have suffered damages for past and future earnings. Plaintiffs seek damages for
attorneys fees, costs, and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
FOURTH CLAIM
Illegal Retaliation Under New York City Human Rights Law 8-107

75. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate every allegation contained in this
Complaint with the same force and effect as though they were separately alleged and reiterated
herein.
76. Plaintiffs, while working for Defendant Levy Restaurant, are subjected to intense
discrimination based on their race and/or disabilities. When Plaintiffs repeatedly complained
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15

16
about the extremely hostile and discriminatory working conditions they endure, Defendants
retaliated against Plaintiffs by giving them specious write-ups, virtually demoting them, and/or
offering them fewer hours to work.
77. Under NYCHRL 8-107, retaliation against an employee for complaining of
discriminatory conduct is illegal.
78. As a result of Defendants illegal and ongoing retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages for past and future earnings. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost earnings, as well as for
attorneys fees, costs, and emotional injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, respectfully requests judgment against
Defendants as follows:
i. On the First Claim, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less
than one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000);
ii. On the Second Claim, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event
less than one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000);
iii. On the Third Claim, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less
than one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000);
iv. On the Fourth Claim, actual damages to be determined at trial, but in no event less
than one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000);
v. Punitive damages;
vi. Liquidated damages;
vii. Lost wages;
viii. Pre-judgment interest;
ix. Post-judgment interest;
Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16

17
x. Attorneys fees, disbursements and other costs; and,
xi. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


Dated: New York, New York THE HARMAN FIRM, PC
July 28, 2014 Counsel for Plaintiffs


s/ Walker G. Harman, Jr.
Walker G. Harman, Jr. [WH-8044]
Ronnie L. Silverberg [RS-6881]
1776 Broadway, Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019
(212) 425-2600
wharman@theharmanfirm.com
rsilverberg@theharmanfirm.com

Case 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17