willie j. mitchell v. d'arrigo bros co. of new york inc. et al

7/21/2019 Willie J. Mitchell v. D'Arrigo Bros Co. of New York Inc. et al

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/willie-j-mitchell-v-darrigo-bros-co-of-new-york-inc-et-al 1/30

ric Sanders

From:

[email protected]

Sent:

hursday, November 19, 2015 9:05 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject:

ct iv ity in Case 1:15-cv-09085 v. D Arr igo Bros C o. of New York Inc. et al Co mplaint

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to

this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy o

all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fee

apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first

viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not

apply.

U.S. District Court

Southern District of New York

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Sanders, Eric on 11/19/2015 at 9:05 AM EST and filed on 11/19/201

Case Name:

. D Arrigo Bros Co. of New York Inc. et al

Case Number:

:15-cv-09085

Filer: illie J Mitchell

Document Number:

1

Docket Text:

COMPLAINT against Matthew D'Arrigo, Paul D'Arrigo, D'Arrigo Bros Co. of New York Inc.,

Hunts Point Cooperative Market, Inc., International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Daniel Kane, J

Stephen Katzman, Charles Machadio, Joseph Schneider, Leonardo Servedio, Teamsters Loca

Union No.: 202. (Filing Fee 400.00, Receipt Number 0208-11644866)Document filed by Willie

Mitchell.(Sanders, Eric)

1:15-cv-09085 Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Eric Sanders e

1:15-cv-09085 Notice has been delivered by other means to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description Main

Document

Original filenam e lila

Electronic document Stamp:



[STAM P dcecfStamp_ID= 1008691343 [Date=11/19/2015] [FileNum ber=15635798

-01 [b4b1453d2eee2c967e546f2738fc5lfbc2918f872480e7fa5c181121feb959562

b4c57d047bb47d0270a f8029be91a6f416952083c67d33cfe4c17184623d633]]



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRCT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------------------------------------------xWILLIE J. MITCHELL

Complaint

Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demand

-against-

D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAULD’ARRIGO, as President, JOSEPH SCHNEIDER, as HumanResources and Facilities Manager; INTERNATIONALBROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTERS LOCALUNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR., as President;CHARLES MACHADIO, as Vice President; LEONARDO

SERVEDIO, as Trustee; HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVEMARKET, INC.; MATTHEW D’ARRIGO, as Co-President;STEPHEN KATZMAN, as Co-President

Defendants’ ----------------------------------------------------------------------x

The plaintiff WILLIE J. MITCHELL by his attorney The Sanders Firm, P.C., for his

complaint against D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH

SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTERS

LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR.; CHARLES MACHADIO; LEONARDO

SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.; MATTHEW D’ARRIGO and

STEPHEN KATZMAN, respectfully set forth and allege that:

INTRODUCTION

This is an action for equitable relief and money damages on behalf of the plaintiff WILLIE

J. MITCHELL, (hereinafter referred to as “ plaintiff ”) who was and is being deprived of his rights as

a result of defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO;

JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS;

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR.; CHARLES MACHADIO;

Case 1:15-cv-09085 Document 1 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 28



2

LEONARDO SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.; MATTHEW

D’ARRIGO and STEPHEN KATZMAN’S race discrimination.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965, 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1343 and 2202 to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by:

a. the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, providing for the protection

of all person’s right to make and enforce contracts under the color of State

Law; and

b.

the Civil Rights of 1871, $2 U.S.C. § 1985, providing for the protection

against conspiracies to interfere with civil rights.

2.

The unlawful employment practices, violations of plaintiff’s civil rights complained

of herein were committed within the Southern District of New York.

3. The pendent jurisdiction of the federal district court is invoked with respect to the

plaintiff’s claims under New York State Executive Law § 296 and New York City Administrative

Code § 8-107, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, because the entire action before the court comprises one

constitutional and civil rights case, and the claims arise out of the same common nucleus of facts

and are such that the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

4. Plaintiff has filed suit with this Court within the applicable statute of limitations

period.

5. Plaintiff is not required to exhaust any administrative procedures prior to suit under

the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

PLAINTIFF




3

6. Plaintiff WILLIE J. MITCHELL is an African-American male citizen of the United

States of America, over twenty-one (21) years of age, a resident of Queens County and former

employee of defendant D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. (hereinafter referred to as

“D’ARRIGO”).

DEFENDANTS’

7. Defendant D’ARRIGO is a full line wholesale produce distribution enterprise,

organized and existing under and by virtue of the law of the State of New York, and at all relevant

times plaintiff’s employer .

8.

Defendant PAUL D’ARRIGO, as President, D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW

YORK, INC.

9.

Defendant JOSEPH SCHNEIDER, as Human Resources and Facilities Manager,

D”ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.

10. Defendant INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS established

in 1903, is an organized labor union which operates as a governing authority over three hundred

fifty-eight local chapters in the United States including Local No.: 202 and at all relevant times

plaintiff’s employer.

11. Defendant TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202, is an organized labor union

which represents produce purveyors, fresh & frozen fruits and vegetables, processed fish drivers,

helpers, salesman and warehousemen employees working in the Hunts Point Terminal Market

and is affiliated with the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS and at all

relevant times plaintiff’s employer.

12. Defendant DANIEL J. KANE, JR., as President, TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION

No.: 202.




4

13. Defendant CHARLES MACHADIO, as Vice President, TEAMSTERS LOCAL

UNION No.: 202.

14. Defendant LEONARDO SERVEDIO, as Trustee, TEAMSTERS LOCAL

UNION No.: 202.

15. Defendant HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC., operates the

Hunts Point Market, organized and existing under and by virtue of the law of the State of New

York and at all times plaintiff’s employer.

16. Defendant MATTHEW D’ARRIGO, as Co-President, HUNTS POINT

COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.

17. Defendant STEPHEN KATZMAN, as Co-President, HUNTS POINT

COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.

BACKGROUND

18. Plaintiff alleges in June 1980 he began working as a Porter, “off the books” in the

Hunts Point Market. He later began working as a “Lumper.”

19.

Plaintiff alleges between June 1980 and June 1988, he continued working as a

“Lumper” for several member organizations of defendant HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE

MARKET, INC., including defendant D’ARRIGO.

20. Plaintiff alleges between June 1988 and February 1997, he began working

exclusively “off the books” for defendant D’ARRIGO continuing “Lumping” and other forms of

employment.

21. Plaintiff alleges in February 1997, he began working on the books for defendant

D’ARRIGO as a porter/unloader/order picker.

22. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, defendant HUNTS POINT




5

COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC., its member organizations such as defendant D’ARRIGO and

their agents have condoned, encouraged or acquiesced a shadow market of minority males

particularly African-Americans to become employed pr imarily as “Lumpers” and other forms of

“off the books” employment for the financial benefit of its member organizations to the

detriment of the workers.

23. Plaintiff alleges “Lumpers” consist of primarily minority males particularly

African-Americans who simply gain entry onto the Hunts Point Market property and offer

member organizations such as defendant D’ARRIGO to unload railcars, trucks and other forms

of conveyances for wages.

24. Plaintiff alleges Caucasian males do not generally “Lump” member organizations

simply hire them as employees with all pay, benefits and pension rights.

25. Plaintiff alleges to fraudulently conceal the wages, which intentionally precluded

minority males particularly African-Americans from securing the same pay, benefits and pension

rights as Caucasian male employees, member organizations such as D’ARRIGO would give

workers a written voucher form for a sum certain marked “Miscellaneous.” The worker s would

then turn in the written voucher form and receive United States Currency in return. The workers

were not allowed to keep a copy of the written voucher form.

26. Plaintiff alleges him and other minority males particularly African-Americans

were paid less wages than Caucasian male employees.

27. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, defendants’ INTERNATIONAL

BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J.

KANE, JR.; CHARLES MACHADIO and LEONARDO SERVEDIO, were aware defendants’

HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC., MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN




6

KATZMAN, its member organizations such as defendant D’ARRIGO and their agents were

engaging in the aforementioned conduct as indicated in Paragraphs 9 through 26, but, have

conspired, condoned, encouraged and acquiesced for the financial benefit of defendants’ HUNTS

POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.; MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN;

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTER LOCAL UNION No.:

202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR.; CHARLES MACHADIO and LEONARDO SERVEDIO to the

detriment of minority males particularly African-Americans.

28. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980, until August 22, 2015, he rarely complained

about race discrimination in the workplace because over the years, he has seen many minority

males particularly African-American males terminated for simply asserting their legal rights.

29.

Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL

D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; I NTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR., CHARLES

MACHADIO; LEONARDO SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.;

MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents have a long history of

performing flawed and unfair investigations, grievance meetings and arbitration hearings

whenever minority male employees particularly African-Americans complain about “Lumping,”

lack of employment, unfair wages, lack of promotional opportunities, unfair discipline and other

related complaints of race discrimination in the workplace.

30. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL







7

MATTHEW D’ARRIGO;STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents fostered a racially hostile

workplace.

31. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, defendants’ D’ARRIGO and PAUL

D’ARRIGO and their agents would further create a racially hostile work environment by

artificially driving up the produce prices for minority customers then causing him and other

minority employees to handle the irate customers.

32. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, defendant D’ARRIGO and PAUL

D’ARRIGO and their agents charge African-Americans, Dominicans’, Mexicans, and Puerto

Rican clients the highest produce prices.


D’ARRIGO and their agents charge Turkish clients the send highest produce prices.


D’ARRIGO and their agents charge Asian clients the third highest produce prices.


D’ARRIGO and their agents charge Caucasian clients the fourth highest produce prices.


D’ARRIGO and their agents charge Jewish clients the lowest produce prices.


D’ARRIGO and their agents sell spoiled produce to minority clients using elaborate “Bait and

Switch” schemes.

38. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 to this day, minority clients who are aware of

defendant D’ARRIGO, PAUL D’ARRIGO and their agents business practices used Jewish

buyers to gain more favorable quality and favorable produce prices.




8

39. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 until August 22, 2015, defendants’ D’ARRIGO;

PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; I NTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF



MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents knew minority males

particularly African-Americans were being unfairly treated as indicated in Paragraph No.: 29.

40. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.;

PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR.; CHARLES


MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents knew throughout the Hunts

Point Market, member organizations and their agents applied systematic “Black Codes.”





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents knew throughout the Hunts

Point Market, member organizations and their agents were falsely accusing minority males

particularly African-Americans with workplace violations (“Black Codes”) where there were

none.

42. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 until August 22, 2015, defendants’

D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; I NTERNATIONAL





9

KANE, JR., CHARLES MACHADIO; LEONARDO SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT

COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.; MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their

agents knew Caucasian male employees’ were treated more favorably, rarely disciplined or

terminated even if workplace rules were violated.

43. Plaintiff alleges in the rare event Caucasian males are terminated, with the

assistance of defendants’ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS;

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR., CHARLES MACHADIO;


D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents, they are simply hired by another member

organization within the Hunts Point Market.

44. Plaintiff alleges since June 1980 until August 22, 2015, defendants’ D’ARRIGO;




MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents knew minority males

particularly African-Americans are belittled in the workplace subjected to racially offensive

jokes and lack of employment opportunities.

45. Plaintiff alleges defendant JOSEPH SCHNEIDER encouraged defendant

D’ARRIGO managers, supervisors and their agents to “write up Blacks for anything so we can

get rid of them.”

46. Plaintiff alleges defendant D’ARRIGO managers, supervisors and their agents

made racially offensive comments whenever African-American males would interact with each

other, such as: “If y’all want to meet, go to 125th Street in Harlem or this isn’t 125th Street.”




10

47. Plaintiff alleges defendant D’ARRIGO managers, supervisors and their agents

made racially offensive comments about others too including Mexicans, such as: “Why are you

Mexicans here? I know you are a ‘Wetback’ because I can see the water still dripping from your

ears.”

48. Plaintiff alleges on September 18, 2014, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL

D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER and their agents, using “Black Codes” falsely accused him

of “stealing time.”

49. Plaintiff was actually assisting a Dominican male client who was irate because

defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO and their agents sold him spoiled produce in

another “Bait and Switch” scheme.

50. Plaintiff alleges this same customer complained to defendant D’ARRIGO and its

agents about this spoiled produce on a prior occasion but, instead of giving this gentleman fresh

produce, an agent of defendant D’ARRIGO and PAUL D’ARRIGO simply concealed the boxes

in the shipment, returning the same spoiled produce.

51.

Plaintiff alleges he filed a grievance with defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL




MATTHEW D’ARRIGO and STEPHEN KATZMAN.

52. Plaintiff alleges approximately three (3) weeks later, a grievance meeting was

held with defendants’ D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; I NTERNATIONAL


KANE, JR., CHARLES MACHADIO; LEONARDO SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT




11

COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC., and two (2) board members of the cooperative.

53. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO and JOSEPH SCHNEIDER “admitted”

there was no company rule establishing time allotted to interacting with a client.

54. Plaintiff alleges during the meeting, he complained Black employees are not

being treated fairly.

55. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO and JOSEPH SCHNEIDER became

visibly upset.

56. Plaintiff alleges one of defendant HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET,

INC.’S board members said “This is not the place for that.”

57. Plaintiff alleges defendant CHARLES MACHADIO said “You shouldn’t be

worrying about that, you need to worry about what gets you fired.”

58. Plaintiff alleges defendant LEONARDO SERVEDIO said “There was no

company rule violated. There is no wrongdoing on his part and punishment is not warranted.”

59. Plaintiff alleges defendant LEONARDO SERVEDIO then said “Let’s make a

deal. These three (3) weeks should be considered time served without pay and let’s move

forward.”

60. Plaintiff alleges he was completely shocked.

61. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ I NTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF


MACHADIO and LEONARDO SERVEDIO told him “that’s the best thing for him to do.”

62. Plaintiff alleges feeling no support, under threat of termination, he reluctantly

signed a “Last Chance Agreement.”

63. Plaintiff alleges the “Last Chance Agreement” was not fully explained to him by




12

defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH



SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.; MATTHEW D’ARRIGO;

STEPHEN KATZMAN or their agents.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO and STEPHEN KATZMAN never addressed his complaints of race

discrimination in the workplace.

65. Plaintiff alleges shortly thereafter, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO;

JOSEPH SCHNEIDER and their agents began to closely scrutinize his actions in the workplace.

66. Plaintiff alleges on June 11, 2015, Lieutenant White, of the New York City

Business Integrity Commission falsely arrested him, accusing him of urinating in public. He was

issued a criminal court summons.

67. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO and their agents

told him to leave the premise.

68. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO and JOSEPH

SCHNEIDER informed him that he breached the “Last Chance Agreement” signed on October

14, 2014 and he was going to be terminated.

69. Plaintiff alleges the next day, he filed a grievance with defendants’ D’ARRIGO;





13



MATTHEW D’ARRIGO and STEPHEN KATZMAN.

70. Plaintiff alleges defendant LEONARDO SERVEDIO said “There was no

company rule violated. There is no wrongdoing on his part and punishment is not warranted.”

71. Plaintiff alleges there was a suggestion to let this matter to be adjudicated in

Court.

72. Plaintiff alleges defendant LEONARDO SERVEDIO then said “He had a

conversation with the company’s lawyer and they agreed to a thirty (30) day suspension without

pay.”

73.

Plaintiff alleges he was completely shocked.

74. Plaintiff defendants’ I NTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS;

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR., CHARLES MACHADIO

and LEONARDO SERVEDIO told him “that’s the best thing for him to do.”

75.

Plaintiff alleges feeling no support, under threat of termination, he reluctantly

signed another “Last Chance Agreement.”

76. Plaintiff alleges the “Last Chance Agreement” was not fully explained to him by

defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARR IGO; JOSEPH




STEPHEN KATZMAN or their agents.

77. Plaintiff alleges shortly thereafter, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO;




14

JOSEPH SCHNEIDER and their agents began to really scrutinize his actions in the workplace.

78. Plaintiff alleges on July 30, 2015, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL D’ARRIGO;

JOSEPH SCHNEIDER and their agents, using “Black Codes” falsely accused him of “stealing

time” while traveling back to his work location, he stopped for 2.5 minutes in the parking lot to

place some fruit in his vehicle.

79. Plaintiff alleges on August 22, 2015, defendants’ D’ARRIGO; PAUL

D’ARRIGO and JOSEPH SCHNEIDER sent him a certified letter of termination for allegedly

violating the Last Chance Agreement.”

80.

Plaintiff alleges on September 9, 2015, he complained to defendants’

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS about the lack of fair representation

due to race discrimination and they referred his complaints to defendants’ TEAMSTER LOCAL

UNION No.: 202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR., CHARLES MACHADIO and LEONARDO

SERVEIDO.

81. Plaintiff alleges on September 28, 2015, defendants’ INTERNATIONAL


KANE, JR., CHARLES MACHADIO and LEONARDO SERVEDIO essentially blamed him for

his own termination, failing to address his complaints of race discrimination.

82. Plaintiff alleges on October 1, 2015, Judicial Hearing Officer R. Tolchin,

Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx acquitted him of allegedly urinating

in public after finding the police witness “incredible.”

83. Plaintiff alleges after being initially denied unemployment benefits, on November

4, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Viren Pergadia ruled, his job was ended for “non-

disqualifying reasons” and overruled the denial of unemployment benefits.




15

VIOLATIONS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED

COUNT I

RACE DISCRIMINATION

IN VIOLATION OF

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981

84. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 83 and incorporates them by reference as

Paragraphs 1 through 83 of Count I of this Complaint.

85. Plaintiff alleges the aforesaid discriminatory acts and omissions of defendants’

D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER;

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No.:

202; DANIEL J. KANE, JR.; CHARLES MACHADIO; LEONARDO SERVEDIO; HUNTS

POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET, INC.; MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN

and their agents interfered with his right to enforce contracts under the color of state law because

of his race.

86. Plaintiff alleges the purpose of defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW

YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL


KANE, JR.; CHARLES MACHADIO; LEONARDO SERVEDIO; HUNTS POINT


agents in so acting was to prevent him, through economic and psychological intimidation, from

seeking the equal protection of the laws.

87.

Plaintiff alleges pursuant to their conduct, defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO.

OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL






16


agents acted to deprive him of his civil rights, by repeated and insidious acts of harassment,

intimidation, bad faith and threats.

88. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the aforesaid acts, depriving him of his civil

rights, he suffered mental anguish, loss of employment opportunities and pension rights.

COUNT II

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

IN VIOLATION OF



Paragraphs 1 through 88 of Count II of this Complaint.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents engaged in various severe

and hostile actions against him as a result of his opposition to race discrimination.

91. Plaintiff alleges the purpose of defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW







92. Plaintiff alleges pursuant to their conduct, defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO.




17

OF NEW YORK, I NC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL






93. Plaintiff alleges as a result of the aforesaid acts, depriving him of his civil rights,

he suffered mental anguish, loss of employment opportunities and pension rights.

COUNT IIIRETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF



Paragraphs 1 through 93 of Count III of this Complaint.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents engaged in various

retaliatory actions against him as a result of his opposition to race discrimination.

96.

Plaintiff alleges the purpose of defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW








18



97. Plaintiff alleges pursuant to their conduct, defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO.

OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH SCHNEIDER; INTERNATIONAL






98. Plaintiff alleges as a result of the aforesaid acts, depriving him of his civil rights,

he suffered mental anguish, loss of employment opportunities and pension rights.

COUNT IV

CONSPIRACY

IN VIOLATION OF



Paragraphs 1 through 98 of Count IV of this Complaint.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents under color of law,

personally interfered with and deprived him of his constitutional rights due to his race.






19



MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents under color of law either

acted in a concerted, malicious intentional pattern to further violate his constitutional rights or

knowing such constitutional violations was taking place, knowingly omitted to protect him.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents acted in collusion with one

another for their economic and pecuniary gain to his detriment.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents caused him to receive unfair

wages, unfair discipline, loss of employment opportunities and severely undervalued pension.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents acting in collusion with one

with one another as indicated above, causing his employment to be terminated.




20





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents caused him to sustain

damages to his reputation, financial interests, mental anguish and to incur significant legal

expenses.

COUNT V

RACE DISCRIMINATION

IN VIOLATION OFNEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296

106. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 105 and incorporates them by reference

as Paragraphs 1 through 105 of Count V of this Complaint.

107. Plaintiff alleges New York State Executive Law § 296, makes it unlawful to

discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because

of their race.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents discriminated against him

because of his race.

109.

Plaintiff alleges as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful employment

practices of defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO;





21



D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents, he suffered the indignity of race

discrimination and great humiliation.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents’ violations caused him

mental anguish, loss of employment opportunities and pension rights.

COUNT VI


IN VIOLATION OF

NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296


as Paragraphs 1 through 110 of Count VI of this Complaint.

112. Plaintiff alleges New York State Executive Law § 296, makes it unlawful to


of their race.

113. Plaintiff alleges the law also makes it unlawful to create an atmosphere where

race discrimination and/or retaliation are encouraged and/or tolerated.

114.

Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.;







22

MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents engaged in various hostile

actions against him as a result of his opposition to race discrimination in the workplace.

115. Plaintiff alleges as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful employment













COUNT VII

RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF

NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296


as Paragraphs 1 through 116 of Count VII of this Complaint.

118.

Plaintiff alleges New York State Executive Law § 296, makes it unlawful to


of their race.





23

retaliation is encouraged and/or tolerated.






retaliatory actions against him as a result of his opposition to race discrimination in the

workplace.

121.

Plaintiff alleges as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful employment













COUNT VIII

RACE DISCRIMINATION

IN VIOLATION OF

NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107




24


as Paragraphs 1 through 122 of Count VIII of this Complaint.

124.

Plaintiff alleges New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, makes it unlawful

to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment

because of their race.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents discriminated against him

because of his race.








127.

Plaintiff alleges defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.;








25


COUNT IX


IN VIOLATION OF



as Paragraphs 1 through 127 of Count IX of this Complaint.

129. Plaintiff alleges New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, makes it unlawful



130.

Plaintiff alleges the law also makes it unlawful to create an atmosphere where

race discrimination and/or retaliation are encouraged and/or tolerated.





MATTHEW D’ARRIGO; STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents engaged in various hostile

actions against him as a result of his opposition to race discrimination in the workplace.











26







COUNT X

RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF


134.

Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 133 and incorporates them by reference

as Paragraphs 1 through 133 of Count X of this Complaint.

135. Plaintiff alleges New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, makes it unlawful




retaliation is encouraged and/or tolerated.






retaliatory actions against him as a result of his opposition to race discrimination in the

workplace.





27













JURY TRIAL

140. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action that are so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages from

defendants’ D’ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.; PAUL D’ARRIGO; JOSEPH




STEPHEN KATZMAN and their agents in the amount of $35 million dollars, plus any and all

available statutory remedies, both legal and equitable, and interests and costs.




Dated: November 19, 2015 New York, NY

Respectfully submitted,

By: __________s_______________Eric Sanders

Eric Sanders, Esq.

THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.230 Park Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10169(212) 808-6515 (Business Telephone)(212) 729-3062 (Facsimile)

Website: http://www.thesandersfirmpc.com


http://www.thesandersfirmpc.com/




willie j. mitchell v. d'arrigo bros co. of new york inc. et al

Documents