Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MOHAMMAD MANSOUR and MARK MOSES, Case No.: Plaintiffs, v. FACTORY DIRECT OF SECAUCUS, LLC d/b/a ASHLEY FURNITURE HOMESTORE, Defendant. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs Mohammad Mansour (Mr. Mansour) and Mark Moses (Mr. Moses) (together, Plaintiffs), by and through their undersigned counsel, The Ottinger Firm, P.C., as and for their Complaint in this action against Defendant Factory Direct of Secaucus, LLC d/b/a Ashley Furniture HomeStore (Defendant or the Company), hereby allege as follows: NATURE OF THE CLAIMS 1. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as

monetary damages, to redress Defendants unlawful employment practices against Plaintiffs, including Defendants discriminatory treatment and harassment of Plaintiffs due to their religion, ancestry/ethnicity and race, as well as Defendants unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs after they complained about such unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation, in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981 (Section 1981); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (Title VII); and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (NJLAD).

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1343 as this action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights under Section 1981 and Title VII. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related claims arising under state and local law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action, including the unlawful employment practices alleged herein, occurred in this district. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Mark Moses is an African-American and Muslim resident of Essex

County, New Jersey. Mr. Moses was employed by Defendant from on or about June 28, 2011, through August 3, 2011, when he was terminated in retaliation for raising complaints about the severe discrimination and harassment to which Defendant subjected him based on his race and religion. At all relevant times, Mr. Moses met the definition of an employee under all applicable statutes. 5. Plaintiff Mohammad Mansour is a Palestinian and Muslim resident of Bergen

County, New Jersey. Mr. Mansour was employed by Defendant from on or around March 1, 2010, through January 16, 2012, when he was terminated in retaliation for raising complaints about the severe discrimination and harassment to which Defendant subjected him based on his race, religion and national origin. At all relevant times Mr. Mansour met the definition of an employee under all applicable statutes. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Factory Direct of Secaucus, LLC d/b/a

Ashley Furniture HomeStore is engaged in the sale of home furniture in the metropolitan New

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 3

York and New Jersey areas. At all relevant times, the Company has met the definition of an employer under all applicable statutes. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 7. 8. Plaintiffs have complied with all statutory prerequisites to filing this action. Prior to the filing of this Complaint, the respective Plaintiffs each filed charges of

discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging violations of Title VII. Plaintiffs respective EEOC charges arise out of the same facts alleged herein. 9. On or about January 18, 2013, Plaintiff Moses received a notice of his right to sue

issued in connection with his previously filed charge. This Complaint has been filed within 90 days of Plaintiff Moses receipt of the notice of his right to sue from the EEOC. 10. On or about January 31, 2013, the EEOC issued a determination finding probable

cause on the merits of Mr. Mansours charge of discrimination in violation of Title VII. Specifically, the EEOC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that [Defendant] has discriminated against [Mr. Mansour] due to his national origin and religion. On or about January 31, 2013, Mr. Mansour received a notice of his right to sue issued in connection with his previously filed charge of retaliation, for which probable cause was not found. 11. Although the EEOC engaged with the parties in an informal conciliation process

to resolve Mr. Mansours claims of discrimination under Title VII, after finding probable cause on the merits of these claims, the conciliation process was unsuccessful, and Mr. Mansour received notice of his right to sue for discrimination under Title VII from the EEOC on or about March 19, 2013. This complaint has been filed within 90 days of Plaintiff Mansours receipt of both notices of his right to sue from the EEOC.

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 4

12.

Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been met. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I.

PLAINTIFF MARK MOSES 13. Mr. Moses, an African-American Muslim, was hired on June 28, 2011 as a Sales

Manager at the Companys Fairfield store. 14. Later that week, Mr. Moses was informed that he would be going through

additional managerial training in Secaucus with Mohammad Mansour and Salvatore Sciarrino, the two Sales Managers there. Mr. Moses was not told specifically how long his training at the Secaucus location would last. 15. Roughly two weeks into his training at the Companys Secaucus location, on or

around July 12, 2011, Mr. Moses greeted Mr. Mansour (who had just returned from a vacation) in Arabic on the Companys sales floor in the presence of Mr. Sciarrino. 16. Upon recognizing that Mr. Moses speaks Arabic and is Muslim, Mr. Sciarrino

responded with evident disdain, stating scornfully to Mr. Moses, Oh, you are one of those Muslims. 17. Beginning that same day, and continuing throughout the duration of Mr. Moses

employment at the Company, Mr. Sciarrino directed an unrelenting barrage of discriminatory and offensive racist and bigoted comments toward Mr. Moses on the basis of his religion and race, typically on multiple occasions each day. 18. By way of examples only, Mr. Sciarrino frequently insinuated that Mr. Moses was

a terrorist and enemy of the United States, demanding to know, for example, if Mr. Moses was carrying a bomb in his bag, or if he and Mr. Mansour were conspiring to wage jihad or making bombs as part of a terrorist plot.

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 5

19.

On several occasions, Mr. Sciarrino also openly referred to Mr. Moses, who is

African-American, as a nigger in the workplace. 20. Mr. Sciarrino frequently made these and other bigoted and derogatory statements

to Mr. Moses in the presence of Mr. Moses co-workers and other employees of the Company. 21. Mr. Sciarrino also persisted in making these and other bigoted and derogatory

statements to Mr. Moses despite the fact that Mr. Moses repeatedly told Mr. Sciarrino that his comments were offensive and requested that Mr. Sciarrino refrain from using racial and religious slurs toward him in the workplace. 22. On or around July 28, 2011, Mr. Moses met with Jerry Cook, a District Manager

at the Company, and complained about Mr. Sciarrinos constant stream of bigoted, discriminatory and offensive statements to him in the workplace. During that same meeting Mr. Cook told Mr. Moses that Mr. Moses was being demoted from his position as a Sales Manager to instead become a Sales Representative at the Company. 23. Less than one week later, on or around August 3, 2011, Mr. Sciarrino abruptly

confronted Mr. Moses and falsely accused him of purportedly falling asleep in a meeting, and concluded his verbal assault by ordering Mr. Moses to go home and dont come back. 24. When Mr. Moses contacted a Human Resources representative at the Company

that day to discuss Mr. Sciarrinos outburst, Mr. Moses was informed that his employment at the Company had been terminated. II. PLAINTIFF MOHAMMAD MANSOUR 25. Mr. Mansour, a Palestinian/Arab Muslim, was hired on March 1, 2010 as a Sales

Associate at the Companys Secaucus, New Jersey location.

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 6

26.

After approximately six months of exemplary performance as a Sales Associate,

Mr. Mansour was promoted to a Sales Manager position in or around August 2010. A. Discriminatory Statements and Harassment on the Basis of Mr. Mansours Ancestry, National Origin and Religion 27. In or around July 2011, Mr. Moses began managerial training at the Companys

Secaucus location, where Mr. Mansour was one of two Sales Managers. When Mr. Cook, a District Manager at the Company, introduced Mr. Moses to Mr. Mansour, he stated to Mr. Mansour that he [Mr. Moses] is one of your people. 28. When Mr. Cook told Mr. Sciarrino, the second (and more senior) Sales Manager

at the Secaucus location, that Messrs. Mansour and Moses were both Muslim, Mr. Sciarrino expressed dismay, stating, Uh, oh, we should get a metal detector now in the presence of Mr. Mansour. 29. Starting approximately at the commencement of Mr. Moses employment with the

Company and continuing throughout the duration of Mr. Mansours employment, Mr. Sciarrino directed an unrelenting barrage of discriminatory and offensive racist and bigoted comments toward Mr. Mansour on the basis of his religion, national origin and race, typically on multiple occasions each day. 30. By way of examples only, Mr. Sciarrinos discriminatory and offensive

statements to Mr. Mansour included the following: a. The Taliban is here [when referring to Mr. Mansour]; b. We need to place a metal detector at the door to check you for bombs; c. Are you carrying bombs in your bag?; d. Are you mad today because we captured Bin Laden?; e. I have not met a Muslim who is not a terrorist;

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 7

f. Are you part of a hidden Muslim terrorist cell in New Jersey?; g. Can you give me heads up when theyre going to blow the tunnel so I wont drive through that day?; h. If you dont give Muslims discounts they will blow up the store; i. We cannot hire anymore Muslims here; this place is turning to be Afghanistan; j. We destroyed Islam and Muslims; and k. Niggers accept Islam because we dont accept them in our society. 31. Mr. Sciarrino frequently made these and other bigoted and derogatory statements

to Mr. Mansour in the presence of other managers and employees in the workplace. 32. In or around mid-November 2011, Eugene Chrinian, the Companys CEO,

approached Mr. Mansour on the floor of the Companys Secaucus showroom and exhorted Mr. Mansour to convert to Christianity, which Mr. Mansour respectfully declined to do. 33. Mr. Chrinian approached Mr. Mansour at the Companys Secaucus store

approximately one month later and again urged him to reconsider his previous rejection of Mr. Chrinians urging that he convert to Christianity. 34. When Mr. Mansour again responded that he was not interested in conversion, Mr.

Chrinian replied by stating to Mr. Mansour that he will burn in Hell unless [he] accepts Jesus as [his] Lord and Savior. 35. Mr. Chrinian made similar attempts to urge Mr. Mansour to abandon his faith and

convert to Christianity on approximately seven different occasions during his employment at the Company, despite Mr. Mansours clear and repeated requests for Mr. Chrinian to stop confronting him about his religion in that unwanted and offensive manner.

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 8

B.

Mr. Mansours Complaints to Human Resources About Discrimination and Harassment, and The Companys Failure to Respond 36. When his requests to Mr. Sciarrino to desist from his constant racial and religious

harassment and commentary, and to Mr. Chrinian to cease his repeated and confrontational demands for his conversion in the workplace failed to restrain their discriminatory and offensive behavior, Mr. Mansour complained about their conduct in a meeting with Aazel Bautista, the Companys Human Resources manager, in or around September 2011. At the conclusion of their meeting, Ms. Bautista assured Mr. Mansour that she would look into the matter. 37. Two weeks later, Mr. Mansour complained again to Ms. Bautista regarding Mr.

Sciarrino and Mr. Chrinians behavior and inquired as to the status of her investigation into his prior complaint. At that time, Ms. Bautista told Mr. Mansour that she was very busy, and would look into the issue when she had time. 38. Mr. Mansour complained to Ms. Bautista regarding the ongoing discrimination

and harassment by Mr. Sciarrino and Mr. Chrinian on at least six different occasions, with his final such complaint being raised with her or around December 27, 2011. 39. Upon information and belief, the Company never investigated Mr. Mansours

repeated complaints of discrimination and harassment, and no employee or executive at the Company has been subject to meaningful discipline in connection with his mistreatment. C. Mr. Mansour is Terminated in Retaliation for His Complaints About Discrimination and Harassment Against Himself and Other Employees 40. On January 3, 2012 Mr. Mansour had a meeting with Ms. Bautista in her office at

the Companys Secaucus store. During their meeting, Mr. Mansour inquired about the status of Ms. Bautistas investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment that a female employee had

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 9

brought to Mr. Mansours attention in his capacity as a Sales Manager approximately five weeks prior, and that Mr. Mansour had, in turn, immediately reported to Ms. Bautista.1 41. When Mr. Mansour met with Ms. Bautista on January 3, 2012, he informed her

consistent with what he understood to be his duty and responsibility as a Sales Manager and employee of the Company that he had been contacted by the female employee who had reported being sexually harassed, and that the female employee had asked him to serve as a witness in connection with a charge of discrimination that she was planning to file with the EEOC after the Company failed to investigate or take action in response to her complaint. 42. Mr. Mansour also informed Ms. Bautista that he had been contacted with a similar

request by Mr. Moses to serve as a witness in connection with a charge of discrimination that he had filed with the EEOC in connection with his employment and termination by the Company. 43. Later that month, in January 2012, Mr. Mansour contacted the EEOC to begin the

process of filing a Charge of Discrimination on his own behalf in connection with the discriminatory actions of Ms. Sciarrino and Mr. Chrinian, which were continuing unabated despite his half-dozen or more complaints to Ms. Bautista. 44. On or around January 17, 2012, however, Mr. Cook approached Mr. Mansour and

informed that he was being terminated for violating company policy.

1

When Mr. Mansour first inquired about the status of Ms. Bautistas investigation into the female employees sexual harassment complaint (shortly after he relayed it to Ms. Bautista in late November 2011), Ms. Bautista had informed Mr. Mansour that she conducted an investigation and determined that none of the female employees co-workers had witnessed anything to corroborate the sexual harassment complaint. But when Mr. Mansour himself followed up with the co-workers who the female employee had identified as witnesses to the sexual harassment, they each advised him that he was the first person at the Company to have asked them anything at all about the sexual harassment that they had witnessed against the female employee. And when Mr. Mansour asked Ms. Bautista why her investigation did not extend to speaking with the witnesses who the female employee identified, Ms. Bautista had explained to Mr. Mansour she was merely proceeding in the manner that Mr. Chrinian had instructed her to handle the situation. 9

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 10

45.

When Mr. Mansour inquired about which policy he had violated, Mr. Cook

informed him that he had purportedly violated a company policy by ordering furniture to the store as opposed to ordering it directly to a clients residence despite the fact that this was common practice at the Company and that Mr. Mansour had obtained the necessary approval to make such an order. 46. When Mr. Mansour asked Mr. Cook if he could see the written policy that states

that ordering furniture to the store was a violation of the Companys policy, Mr. Cook replied that he would get back to him, but never did. 47. Upon information and belief, no such policy exists at the Company and/or has

been the basis for terminating any employee at the Company apart from Mr. Mansour. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of Section 1981) 48. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in each of the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 49. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of Race in violation of

Section 1981 by denying Plaintiffs the same terms and conditions of employment available to employees who are White, including, but not limited to, subjecting them to disparate working condition, obscenities, unfair discipline, and by demoting Plaintiff Moses and terminating Plaintiffs Moses and Mansour on the basis of their Race. 50. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of Section 1981 by

creating, fostering, accepting, ratifying and/or otherwise failing to prevent or to remedy a hostile work environment that included, among other things, severe and pervasive harassment committed against Plaintiffs.

10

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 11

51.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of Section 1981, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic harm, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation and benefits for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct in

violation of Section 1981, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 53. The discrimination detrimentally affected Plaintiffs and the discrimination would

have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same Race in Plaintiffs position. 54. Plaintiffs supervisors created the discriminatory and/or hostile environment

and/or Defendant is liable for harassing conduct committed by Plaintiffs coworkers since Defendant was negligent or reckless in failing to train, discipline, fire or take remedial action upon notice of the harassment. 55. Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct constitutes a willful and wanton

violation of Section 1981, was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiffs, and was done with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Section 1981) 56. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in each of the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.

11

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 12

57.

Defendant has violated Section 1981 by subjecting Plaintiffs to retaliation for

their protected complaints of and in opposition to Defendants racially discriminatory practices directed toward themselves and other employees, and/or their participation in lodging complaints about such discriminatory practices, including, but not limited to, by demoting Plaintiff Moses, and ultimately terminating Plaintiffs Moses and Mansours employment. 58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of Section 1981, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation and benefits for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of Section 1981, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 60. Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct constitutes a willful and wanton

violation of Section 1981, was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiffs, and was done with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.

12

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 13

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of Title VII) 61. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in each of the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 62. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII by

subjecting Plaintiffs to disparate treatment, harassment and a hostile work environment based upon their religion, race/color and/or national origin, including, but not limited to, by denying Plaintiffs the same terms and conditions of employment available to employees who are White and/or non-Muslim, including, but not limited to, subjecting them to disparate working condition, obscenities, unfair discipline, and by demoting Plaintiff Moses and terminating Plaintiffs Moses and Mansour. 63. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII by

creating, fostering, accepting, ratifying and/or otherwise failing to prevent or to remedy a hostile work environment that included, among other things, severe and pervasive harassment committed against Plaintiffs. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of Title VII, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic harm, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation and benefits for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct in

violation of Title VII, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress

13

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 14

and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 66. The discrimination detrimentally affected Plaintiffs and the discrimination would

have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same religion, race/color and/or national origin in Plaintiffs position. 67. Plaintiffs supervisors created the discriminatory and/or hostile environment

and/or Defendant is liable for harassing conduct committed by Plaintiffs coworkers since Defendant was negligent or reckless in failing to train, discipline, fire or take remedial action upon notice of the harassment. 68. Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct constitutes a willful and wanton

violation of Title VII, was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiffs, and was done with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs civil rights, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Title VII) 69. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in each of the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 70. Defendant has violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiffs to retaliation for their

protected complaints of and in opposition to Defendants discriminatory practices directed toward themselves and other employees, and/or their participation in lodging complaints about such discriminatory practices, including, but not limited to, by demoting Plaintiff Moses, and ultimately terminating Plaintiffs Moses and Mansours employment.

14

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 15

71.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of Title VII, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation and benefits for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of Title VII, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 73. Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct constitutes a willful and wanton

violation of Title VII, was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiffs, and was done with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the NJLAD) 74. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in each of the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 75. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the New Jersey Law

Against Discrimination by subjecting Plaintiffs to disparate treatment, harassment and a hostile work environment based upon their religion, race/color and/or national origin, including, but not limited to, by denying Plaintiffs the same terms and conditions of employment available to employees who are White and/or non-Muslim, including, but not limited to, subjecting them to

15

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 16

disparate working condition, obscenities, unfair discipline, and by demoting Plaintiff Moses and terminating Plaintiffs Moses and Mansour. 76. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the NJLAD by

creating, fostering, accepting, ratifying and/or otherwise failing to prevent or to remedy a hostile work environment that included, among other things, severe and pervasive harassment committed against Plaintiffs. 77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct

in violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic harm, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation and benefits for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct in

violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 79. The discrimination in violation of the NJLAD detrimentally affected Plaintiffs

and the discrimination would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same religion, race/color and/or national origin in Plaintiffs position. 80. Plaintiffs supervisors created the discriminatory and/or hostile environment

and/or Defendant is liable for harassing conduct committed by Plaintiffs coworkers since Defendant was negligent or reckless in failing to train, discipline, fire or take remedial action upon notice of the harassment.

16

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 17

81.

Defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct constitutes a willful and wanton

violation of the NJLAD, was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiffs, and was done with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs civil rights, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of the NJLAD) 82. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in each of the

preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. 83. Defendant has violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by subjecting

Plaintiffs to retaliation for their protected complaints of and in opposition to Defendants discriminatory practices directed toward themselves and other employees, and/or their participation in lodging complaints about such discriminatory practices, including, but not limited to, by demoting Plaintiff Moses, and ultimately terminating Plaintiffs Moses and Mansours employment. 84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation and benefits for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief. 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct in

violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.

17

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 18

86.

Defendants unlawful retaliatory conduct constitutes a willful and wanton

violation of the NJLAD, was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiffs, and was done with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant, containing the following relief: A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendant

complained of herein violate the laws of the United States and the State of New Jersey; B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendant from engaging in such

unlawful conduct; C. An order directing Defendant to place Plaintiffs in the positions they would have

occupied but for Defendants discriminatory, retaliatory and/or otherwise unlawful treatment of Plaintiffs, as well as to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful employment practices and other unlawful conduct are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiffs; D. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment

interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for all monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, the loss of past and future income, wages, compensation, job security and other benefits of employment; E. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment

interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for all non-monetary and/or compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, compensation for mental anguish and emotional distress, humiliation,

18

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 19

depression, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, self-confidence and personal dignity, and emotional pain and suffering and any other physical or mental injuries; F. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment

interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for harm to their professional and personal reputations and loss of career fulfillment; G. 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; H. I. An award of punitive damages; An award of costs that Plaintiffs have incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiffs

reasonable attorneys fees to the fullest extent permitted by law; and J. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

19

Case 2:13-cv-02443-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 20

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein. Dated: April 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. By: /s/ Denise Rubin Glatter Denise Rubin Glatter Robert W. Ottinger (to be admitted pro hac vice) Ariel Y. Graff (to be admitted pro hac vice) 20 West 55th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 denise@ottingerlaw.com robert@ottingerlaw.com ari@ottingerlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

20