Complaint - Kantrowitz V Procter & Gamble, SDNY 16cv02813

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
TIFFANY KANTROWITZ,
Plaintiff,
16 Civ. 2813
COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND
- against -
THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY,

Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Plaintiff, Tiffany Kantrowitz (Plaintiff or Ms. Kantrowitz), by her attorneys,
Beranbaum Menken LLP, complaining of Defendant The Procter and Gamble Company
(Defendant or P&G), alleges:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
Plaintiff Tiffany Kantrowitz brings this action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of
1978, 42 U.S.C. 1981A (Title VII), the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq. (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and the New York City Human
Rights Law (NYCHRL), Administrative Code of the City of New York 8-101 et seq, to
remedy P&Gs refusal to accommodate her pregnancy and its retaliatory termination of her
employment. Ms. Kantrowitz seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys fees, and all other appropriate relief pursuant to federal and local law.
2.
Ms. Kantrowitz, a P&G employee of two years in good standing who sold products
geared to women at P&Gs Dolce and Gabbana (D&G) makeup shop at Saks Fifth Avenue in
Manhattan, was fired after she announced she was pregnant and pressed for a reasonable
accommodation so she could continue to work while experiencing the side effects of her
pregnancy. Her modest, reasonable, and lawful accommodation request to simply sit for a few
minutes while continuing to work was met by Defendant with hostility and denied. P&G instead
proposed accommodations which were physically taxing, would adversely affect her ability to
meet her sales targets, and unlawfully forced her to use leave time under the Family Medical Leave
Act (FMLA). After Ms. Kantrowitz complained to P&Gs Human Resources department, the
company fired her for a pretextual reason.
3.
P&G thwarted Ms. Kantrowitzs efforts to obtain a reasonable accommodation, and
ultimately fired her, because it did not want a pregnant woman selling its makeup products, which,
as Defendant advertises, are inspired by the Dolce & Gabbana woman who is always looking for
the perfect look each day. See http://www.dolcegabbana.com/beauty/makeup/. For Defendant,
ever vigilant about the image of its makeup shop Sales Associates, pregnancy did not comport with
the perfect look. As one of Ms. Kantrowitzs supervisors revealingly remarked about P&Gs
makeup shop saleswomen, Pregnancy is not part of the uniform.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.
On June 4, 2015, Ms. Kantrowitz filed a timely charge of discrimination with the
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaining of the unlawful

discriminatory acts alleged herein, and obtained from the agency a Notice of Right to Sue, dated
March 1, 2016, less than 90 days from the filing of this Complaint.
5.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332 and 1343
and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Ms.
Kantrowitzs City law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
6.
As Defendant regularly does business within the Southern District of New York,
venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e5(f)(3). Additionally, the acts that form the basis of this lawsuit occurred within this jurisdiction.
7.
Contemporaneously with instituting this lawsuit, Plaintiff submitted copies of the
Complaint to the New York City Commission on Human Rights and Department of Law.
PARTIES
8.
At all times relevant to this action, Tiffany Kantrowitz was a resident of New York
9.
Defendant P&G is an American multinational consumer goods company
City.
headquartered and incorporated in Cincinnati, Ohio, and doing business in New York City.
Proctor and Gamble Prestige Products (P&G Prestige) is P&Gs fine fragrance and cosmetics
division, which is headquartered in New York and Geneva, Switzerland. P&G Prestige manages a
portfolio of well-known luxury fragrance and cosmetics brands, including Dolce & Gabbana.
10.
At all times relevant to this suit, P&G was Ms. Kantrowitzs employer within the
meaning of Title VII and the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111(5)(A), and New York City Admn. Code
8-102(5).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Ms. Kantrowitzs Employment at P&G
11.
Before being fired on February 13, 2015, Ms. Kantrowitz worked for P&G as a
Beauty Stylist and Sales Associate for P&Gs Dolce and Gabbana makeup shop located within the
Saks Fifth Avenue store at 611 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022. She worked there for
approximately two years.
12.
As one of four Beauty Stylist and Sales Associates at the store, Ms. Kantrowitz sold
high-end D&G makeup to store clientele, developed and maintained relationships with regular
clients, mentored team members on working with clients, contributed to increased brand sales, and
helped successfully execute promotional events.
13.
Ms. Kantrowitz was a top performing salesperson and regularly exceeded the sales
expectations set by upper management.

14.
Based on her exemplary performance, Account Executive Lindsay Lobello asked
Ms. Kantrowitz in August 2014 to perform managerial duties on an interim basis while P&G
searched for a replacement for a manager who recently had departed.
The Paramount Importance P&G Placed on Employee Image
15.
P&G meticulously and persistently policed the appearance of its makeup counter
sales employees. At her job interview, the interviewer asked Ms. Kantrowitz if she could adhere to
P&Gs strict image rules, which included wearing her hair pulled back, bold colored lipstick,
makeup applied as directed by P&G, and a black pantsuit tailored to P&Gs liking.
16.
When Ms. Kantrowitz began working at P&G, she received a document containing
image guidelines which she was required to sign. In addition to some of the image rules
mentioned in her interview, the guidelines prohibited her from having tattoos or certain piercings,
and the dress code was explained with great attention to detail from head to toe.
17.
Throughout her employ with P&G, Ms. Kantrowitz received and was required to
sign updated image guidelines.

18.
Ms. Kantrowitzs superiors constantly checked on her and her fellow Sales
Associates appearance while they worked at the makeup counter. On days when a P&G
representative from the corporate office visited the store, supervisors would look over or inspect
the attire and appearance of Sales Associates like Ms. Kantrowitz.
19.
At times, P&G employees were sent home for not complying with the companys
strict image regulations.

20.
In nearly every sales team meeting Ms. Kantrowitz attended, her superiors
discussed the appearance and image of the Sales Associates.

21.
In May or June of 2014, Ms. Kantrowitz and her manager at the time, Isaac Gurrola,
were speaking to a client who had recently given birth. Ms. Kantrowitz, who was newly married,
made a comment about wanting to have a baby of her own. Mr. Gurrola remarked to Ms.
Kantrowitz, Pregnancy is not part of the uniform.
Ms. Kantrowitzs Pregnancy-Related Symptoms Requiring a Reasonable Accommodation

22.
In October 2014, Ms. Kantrowitz became pregnant. As a result of the pregnancy,
almost immediately, she began suffering extreme nausea, dizziness, severe fatigue, and chronic
headaches.
23.
Ms. Kantrowitz still came to work every day. However, the aforementioned
symptoms required her to occasionally sit down while on the job.

5
24.
On November 14, 2014, Ms. Kantrowitz, while on duty, began to feel faint. At the
time, P&Gs Saks Fifth Avenue D&G Makeup Shop was understaffed and she was the only Sales
Associate at the counter. Rather than abandon the makeup counter, she continued to work and
attend to customers while sitting on a makeup stool behind the counter.
25.
When other staff members eventually arrived, Ms. Kantrowitz was still not feeling
well due to her pregnancy-related symptoms. She informed her manager, Ms. Lobello, and other
coworkers that she was ill and had to leave work.
26.
Four days later, on November 18, 2014, Ms. Kantrowitz was surprised to receive a
written warning from Ms. Lobello informing her that she had violated P&G expectations by sitting
in the makeup chair while using her cell phone. In fact, she was conducting work-related business
from her cell phone. When she issued the warning, Ms. Lobello knew that Ms. Kantrowitz had
been feeling unwell that day.
27.
At the time she issued the written warning, Ms. Lobello also falsely suggested that
Ms. Kantrowitz had received a previous verbal warning for an unrelated alleged infraction.
P&Gs Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process Regarding
Ms. Kantrowitzs Accommodation Request
28.
Upon receiving the written warning, Ms. Kantrowitz emailed Monica Sood, the
Human Resources (HR) representative copied on the warning notice, and asked to meet with her
to discuss the allegations made in the warning. In the email, Ms. Kantrowitz informed Ms. Sood
that she had a medical condition that necessitated her sitting down at work.
29.
Ms. Sood, however, refused to meet with Ms. Kantrowitz. Instead, she instructed
Ms. Kantrowitz to contact P&Gs Health Services and directed her to different HR representatives.
30.
On November 24, 2014, Ms. Kantrowitz met with HR representatives Carla Bennett
and Hallam Sargeant. She disclosed that she was pregnant and gave them two doctors notes
explaining that she was suffering from the side-effects of pregnancy. In their notes, Ms.
Kantrowitzs doctors recommended that she refrain from standing for long periods of time and
limit strenuous physical activity.
31.
Ms. Kantrowitz asked the HR representatives for a reasonable accommodation to
her pregnancy that would allow her to sit when needed, so she could continue to work during her
pregnancy.
32.
Permitting Ms. Kantrowitz to periodically sit for a few minutes at her workstation
while continuing to workwould not pose any difficulty or expense for P&G.
33.
Moreover, Ms. Kantrowitzs proposed accommodation was consistent with the
Beauty Stylist and Associate Position job description, which does not require the employee to
stand while performing job duties.
34.
The HR representatives refused to accommodate Ms. Kantrowitz, saying that she
should be held to the same standard as her coworkersregardless of whether or not those
coworkers were pregnant.
35.
Treating Ms. Kantrowitzs accommodation request strictly as a health matter, an
HR representative referred her to P&Gs Health Services, although, on information and belief, HR,
not Health Services, had authority over workplace accommodation requests.
36.
Ms. Kantrowitz informed the Health Services representative, Marianne Grady, that
she was pregnant and shared with her the two doctors letters. Rather than consider this an
accommodation request, Ms. Grady advised her to go on temporary disability leave.
37.
Ms. Kantrowitz was not eligible to go on disability due to a paperwork mistake by
HR when she started her employment. In any event, Ms. Kantrowitz had no desire to go on leave
since she was perfectly capable of continuing to work so long as she was permitted to sit down
occasionally.
38.
In the weeks that followed Ms. Kantrowitzs November 24, 2014 accommodation
request, P&G made no effort to accommodate Ms. Kantrowitzs pregnancy or even engage in an
interactive process with her. Instead, in what appeared to be a delay tactic, P&G demanded
multiple doctors lettersall of which made the same recommendation that P&G allow Ms.
Kantrowitz to sit down for a few minutes every few hours.
39.
While Ms. Kantrowitz waited for P&G to respond to her accommodation request,
she continued to feel the side effects of her pregnancy but was afraid to sit down while working for
fear of being disciplined. Suffering from both physical and mental stress, Ms. Kantrowitz became
increasingly concerned for her and her babys health.
P&Gs Refusal to Accommodate Ms. Kantrowitz by Allowing Her
to Occasionally Sit at the Makeup Counter
40.
On December 16, 2014, more than three weeks after Ms. Kantrowitz requested as
an accommodation to her pregnancy that she be allowed to intermittently sit while working at the
makeup counter, P&G offered her an alternate arrangement to provide her periodic breaksbut
one with such onerous conditions as to leave her even worse off than if she had no
accommodation.
41.
As an accommodation, P&G permitted Ms. Kantrowitz to take breaks of no more
than 5-10 minutes every few hours in one of two designated rooms, both of which were located on
different floors from where she worked: one was the 9th floor employee lounge and the other was
the employee locker room in the basement.
42.
Getting to either of the proposed break sites required her to walk to the elevator,
take the elevator, walk to the room, and then return to her worksitea circuit taking up nearly all
of the 5-10 minutes she was given to rest.
43.
Moreover, the act of walking at the exact time she needed to sit due to dizziness or
extreme fatigue was even more onerous than requiring her to stand.
44.
P&Gs proposal was also irrational. It made it impossible for Ms. Kantrowitz to
work during these breaks whereas had she been permitted to sit at the counter, she could have
performed such duties as interacting with clients, writing work-related emails, and sending thankyou notes to customers, all while continuing to assist customers.
45.
P&Gs proposed solution, in addition, penalized Ms. Kantrowitz by keeping her
away from the sales counter, thereby making it more difficult for her to meet her sales
expectations. If she failed to meet these targets, she faced being written up by her supervisors.
46.
P&G refused to adjust her sales goals to account for the reduced work time, even
though the company had previously done so for non-pregnant employees on medical leave.
47.
In addition to the physical challenge of traveling to one of the designated off-site
break rooms, she was reluctant to use them because she feared missing her sales targets.
48.
Ms. Kantrowitz availed herself of P&Gs accommodation about 10 times,
sometimes going to the 9th floor break room and other times to the employee locker room in the
basement. More than once, she had to suspend her trek to the designated room and lean against a
wall to hold herself up.
49.
As a result of these onerous and unreasonable conditions attached to P&Gs
purported accommodation, on most occasions when she felt ill, Ms. Kantrowitz simply continued
to work standing up at the makeup counter, even though this was extremely uncomfortable and
potentially unhealthy for her and her baby.
50.
P&Gs proposed accommodation also required Ms. Kantrowitz to deduct her break
periods, calculated in 15 minute increments and rounded up to the nearest increment, from her
FMLA leave time. Ms. Kantrowitz had been planning to use her entire FMLA to care for her
baby.
51.
Fearful of losing her job, Ms. Kantrowitz reluctantly consented to this forced leave.
52.
Alarmed by the inadequacy of P&Gs purported accommodation, Ms. Kantrowitz
met with Ms. Sood and Sandra Schmidt from HR on December 17, 2014. She alerted them to the
problems with P&Gs proposal and asked about her rights as a pregnant woman under the New
York City Human Rights Law.
53.
Instead of engaging in a constructive dialogue with Ms. Kantrowitz, the HR
representatives responded with extraordinary hostility. They denied any knowledge of pregnant
women being protected by the New York City Human Rights Law, despite the fact that the law
required employers to provide written notice to employees regarding the rights of pregnant
workers as of May 30, 2014 (120 days from January 30, 2014, the day the law went into effect).
See N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8107(22)(b)(i).
54.
Almost another month went by before P&G came up with an alternative
accommodation proposal, by which time Ms. Kantrowitz was three months pregnant. On January
15, 2015, P&G permitted Ms. Kantrowitz to take breaks in a more conveniently located area on the
10
floor where she worked. However, Defendant still forbade her from sitting at the counter and
continued to force her to use her FMLA leave time during her breaksall while expecting her to
meet the same rigorous sales goals as everyone else.
55.
When Ms. Kantrowitz again raised her concerns with Ms. Sood and Ms. Schmidt,
reiterating that she was able to work while on breaks and objecting to the forced FMLA leave time,
Defendant refused to change the accommodation.
56.
P&G refused to accommodate Ms. Kantrowitz by allowing her to take intermittent
breaks sitting at the counter because it did not want a pregnant woman as the face of the company
selling its products.
Ms. Kantrowitzs Termination
57.
On February 10, 2015, in retaliation for Ms. Kantrowitzs insistence on her right to
a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy, P&G falsely accused her of improperly having in
her possession P&Gs tester items.
58.
As part of her employment, Ms. Kantrowitz was required to wear D&G makeup
while on the job. She and her fellow employees used tester items, or samples of the D&G
makeup, to apply on themselves or customers who wanted to try out the products before making a
purchase.
59.
Sales Associates like Ms. Kantrowitz regularly stored their personal items in see-
through bags provided to them by Saks Fifth Avenue. It was common practice for Ms. Kantrowitz
and other Sales Associates to also hold tester items in these bags.
60.
In particular, Sales Associates Shizu Nonaka and Will Giffen also kept tester items
in their clear plastic bags. Neither of them were terminated or disciplined for doing so.
11
61.
Throughout her employment, Ms. Kantrowitz never brought the Saks Fifth Avenue
bag or any tester items home with her, but rather always stored the tester items in the bag which
she kept at the store.
62.
The P&G managers were aware that Ms. Kantrowitz and her colleagues maintained
the tester items this way. Nonetheless, on February 10, 2015, Mr. Sargeant and Kelsey McLean, a
sales manager, accused Ms. Kantrowitz of keeping the tester items in the clear bag, a possible
violation of Defendants rules. Ms. Kantrowitz was made to leave the store immediately.
63.
Three days later, P&G fired Ms. Kantrowitz.
64.
From the moment Ms. Kantrowitz divulged to P&G that she was pregnant, all of the
companys subsequent actionstrying to force her to go on disability leave, offering her patently
unreasonable accommodations, refusing to engage in a meaningful dialogue regarding her
accommodations, and terminating her on pretextual grounds were designed to eliminate her from
her position and retaliate against her for asserting her rights.
65.
As a result of P&Gs actions, Ms. Kantrowitz suffered loss of employment, extreme
emotional distress, mental anguish, and anxiety for which she sought the treatment of a counselor.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: SEX DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII
(Discriminatory Firing Based on Ms. Kantrowitzs Pregnancy)
66.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in this Complaint
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
67.
In violation of Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,
Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex, which includes pregnancy, by
terminating her employment because it did not want a pregnant woman selling its products.
68.
In taking the above described discriminatory actions, Defendant acted with malice
12
and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act.
69.
Plaintiff has lost wages, promotional opportunities and other benefits and
compensation, and has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and other compensable injuries as a result of Defendants unlawful conduct.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: SEX DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII
(Forced Leave Claim)
70.
71.
Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex, which includes pregnancy, when
as a condition of accommodating her pregnancy by giving her breaks, it forced her to use her
FMLA leave time.
72.
and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under anti-retaliation provision of Title VII and the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: UNLAWFUL RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
73.
74.
Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating her after she engaged in the
protected activity of requesting a reasonable accommodation and opposing Defendants refusal to
reasonably accommodate her.
13
75.
76.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ADA
77.
78.
Plaintiff suffered from a disability that is covered by the ADA.
79.
Defendant knew of Plaintiffs disability prior to her firing.
80.
Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability, in violation
of the ADA, by failing to offer Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation for her disability and by
terminating Plaintiffs employment because of her disability.
81.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: ADA RETALIATION
82.
83.
In violation of the ADA, Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff by
terminating her after she repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation so she could continue
14
her employment during her pregnancy.

84.
85.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
(Sex Discrimination)
86.
87.
In violation of the NYCHRL, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis
of her sex and pregnancy when it fired her.

88.
and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under the NYCHRL.

89.
humiliation and other compensable injuries as a result of Defendants discriminatory practices.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF
(Pregnancy Discrimination: Failure to Accommodate)
90.
15
91.
In violation of the NYCHRL, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis
of her sex and pregnancy when it fired her.

92.
In violation of the NYCHRL, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff when it
refused to offer her reasonable accommodations for her pregnancy which would allow her to satisfy
the essential requisites of her job.
93.
and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under the NYCHRL.

94.
humiliation and other compensable injuries as a result of Defendants discriminatory practices.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF
(Pregnancy Discrimination: Retaliation)
95.
96.
In violation of the NYCHRL, Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff by
terminating her after she repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancyrelated symptoms which would allow her to satisfy the essential requisites of her job.
97.
and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under anti-retaliation provision of the NYCHRL.
98.
16
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF

(Disability Discrimination: Failure to Accommodate)
99.
100.
Plaintiff suffered from a disability that is covered by the NYCHRL.
101.
102.
Defendant failed to engage in an good faith interactive process with Plaintiff after
she requested a reasonable accommodation.

103.
of the NYCHRL, by failing to offer Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation for her disability and by
terminating Plaintiffs employment because of her disability.
104.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF
(Disability Discrimination)
105.
106.
Plaintiff suffered from a disability that is covered by the New York City Human
Rights Law.
107.
17
108.
of the New York City Human Rights Law, by firing her.

109.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF
(Disability Discrimination: Retaliation)
110.
111.
In violation of the NYCHRL, Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff by
terminating her after she repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancyrelated symptoms which would allow her to satisfy the essential requisites of her job.
112.
and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under anti-retaliation provision of the NYCHRL.
113.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment:
a.
Declaring the acts and practices complaint of herein to be violations of Title VII,
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the ADA, and the New York City Human Rights
18
Law;
b.
Enjoining and permanently restraining these violations of law;
c.
Directing defendant to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that

the effects of these unlawful employment practices are eliminated;
d.
Directing Defendant to place Plaintiff in the position she would have occupied but
for Defendants unlawful conduct, and making her whole for all earnings and other
benefits she would have received but for Defendants unlawful conduct, including
but not limited to wages, commissions, other lost benefits, loss of good will, and
interest thereon;
e.
Directing Defendant to pay plaintiff compensatory damages, including damages for

her mental anguish, denial of lifes pleasures, pain and suffering and humiliation, as
well as punitive damages;
f.
Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action together with reasonable attorney fees;
g.
Directing Defendant to pay statutory and punitive damages; and,
h.
Granting such other relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully
demands that this proceeding be tried to a jury.
Dated: New York, New York
April 15, 2016
BERANBAUM MENKEN, LLP
By:
________/s/
John A. Beranbaum
Scott Simpson
80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
19
New York, NY 10005

Ph: (212) 509-1616
Fax: (212) 509-8088
20

Complaint - Kantrowitz V Procter & Gamble, SDNY 16cv02813

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint - Kantrowitz V Procter & Gamble, SDNY 16cv02813

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint - Kantrowitz V Procter & Gamble, SDNY 16cv02813

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY,

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 20

P&G thwarted Ms. Kantrowitzs efforts to obtain a reasonable accommodation, and

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaining of the unlawful

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 3 of 20

Contemporaneously with instituting this lawsuit, Plaintiff submitted copies of the

Defendant P&G is an American multinational consumer goods company

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 4 of 20

expectations set by upper management.

Based on her exemplary performance, Account Executive Lindsay Lobello asked

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 5 of 20

sign updated image guidelines.

strict image regulations.

discussed the appearance and image of the Sales Associates.

Ms. Kantrowitzs Pregnancy-Related Symptoms Requiring a Reasonable Accommodation

In October 2014, Ms. Kantrowitz became pregnant. As a result of the pregnancy,

symptoms required her to occasionally sit down while on the job.

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 6 of 20

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 7 of 20

Ms. Kantrowitz asked the HR representatives for a reasonable accommodation to

Moreover, Ms. Kantrowitzs proposed accommodation was consistent with the

The HR representatives refused to accommodate Ms. Kantrowitz, saying that she

Treating Ms. Kantrowitzs accommodation request strictly as a health matter, an

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 8 of 20

Ms. Kantrowitz was not eligible to go on disability due to a paperwork mistake by

As an accommodation, P&G permitted Ms. Kantrowitz to take breaks of no more

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 9 of 20

P&Gs proposed solution, in addition, penalized Ms. Kantrowitz by keeping her

In addition to the physical challenge of traveling to one of the designated off-site

Ms. Kantrowitz availed herself of P&Gs accommodation about 10 times,

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 10 of 20

As a result of these onerous and unreasonable conditions attached to P&Gs

Alarmed by the inadequacy of P&Gs purported accommodation, Ms. Kantrowitz

Instead of engaging in a constructive dialogue with Ms. Kantrowitz, the HR

Almost another month went by before P&G came up with an alternative

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 11 of 20

P&G refused to accommodate Ms. Kantrowitz by allowing her to take intermittent

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 12 of 20

Three days later, P&G fired Ms. Kantrowitz.

As a result of P&Gs actions, Ms. Kantrowitz suffered loss of employment, extreme

In violation of Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 13 of 20

In violation of Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,

In violation of Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 14 of 20

Plaintiff suffered from a disability that is covered by the ADA.

Defendant knew of Plaintiffs disability prior to her firing.

Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability, in violation

In violation of the ADA, Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff by

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 15 of 20

her employment during her pregnancy.

In violation of the NYCHRL, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis

of her sex and pregnancy when it fired her.

and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights under the NYCHRL.

Case 1:16-cv-02813 Document 1 Filed 04/15/16 Page 16 of 20