Youngman Lawsuit

Case 6:19-cv-06019-MAT Document 1 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COTIRT
MARLENE M. YOUNGMAN,
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
v
Civil ActionNo.:
TOWN OF HENRIETTA, JACKMOORE, CRAIG
ECKERT, and PETER MINOTTI,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Marlene M. Youngman, by her attorneys, Underberg & Kessler LLP, Paul F
Keneally, Esq. and Alina Nadir, Esq., of counsel, alleges in her Complaint as follows:
JURY DEMAND
1. Plaintiff, Marlene M. Youngman, demands atrial byjury of all issues inthis action.
2. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages against Defendants, the Town of Henrietta (the
"Town"), Jack Moore, Craig Eckert, and Peter Minotti (collectively, "Defendants"), fot unlawful
discrimination, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation based upon Plaintiff s sex
and gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e
et seq., (hereinafter "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 (hereinafter "$ 1983"), and the New York State
Human Rights Law $ 290 et seq. of the Executive Law of the State ofNew York ('NYSHRL").
3. Plaintiff Youngman previously filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"), Charge Nos. 525-20 15 -00 15 5 and 525 -2015-004 1 6.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintifls claims on this action
pursuant to the United States Constitution,42U.S.C. $1983, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-5(f)(3)(Title VII), 28
U.S.C. $ 1331, and28 U.S.C. $ 1343. This Court also has supplemental jurisdictionpursuantto 28
U.S.C. $ 1367 to adjudicate Plaintifls claims under state statutory law.

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1391 and 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-
5(0(3)
6. This Court has the power to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201
and2202.
THE PARTIES
7 . Plaintiff is an individual who resides at I52 Glen Iris Drive, Rochester, New York
14623.
8. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Plaintiff was Defendants' "employee" as
defined by the Title VII and NYSHRL.
9. Defendant the Town is a municipality in Monroe County, New York State.
10. Defendant Jack Moore served as the Town's Town Supervisor at all times relevant
to this Complaint.
11. Defendant Craig Eckert is the Town's Deputy Director of Engineering and
Planning.
12. Defendant Peter Minotti is the Town's Deputy Town Supervisor.
FACTS
13. Ms. Youngman began working for the Town in 1980. In early 2014, Ms.
Youngman's position was Management Assistant in the Public Works/Highway Department.
14. When Jack Moore began working as Town Supervisor, Ms. Youngman began
experiencing harassment and discrimination in the workplace due to her gender.
15. Mr. Moore required Ms. Youngman to report all of her daily activity directly to
him, a requirement that was not previously in place. Other employees were not required to make
daily reports, nor did Ms. Youngman's performance warrant such monitoring.
2
16. Ms. Youngman began to be routinely bypassed for overtime opportunities while
the opportunities were instead given to male employees with less seniority than her. Previously,
and under union contract such opportunities were granted to employees in order of their seniority.
17. Mr. Moore had a program installed on Ms. Youngman's work computer to monitor
her activity.
18. He claimed falsely the District Attorney requested his action.
19. Ms. Youngman's immediate supervisor, Craig Eckert, also treated her differently
than her male coworkers.
20. Instead of directly speaking to Ms. Youngman respectfully, Mr. Eckert would only
email her, or if he had to address her verbally, he would address her in anger only.
2L Mr. Eckert began keeping a file on Ms. Youngman to document her "antics".
22. Mr. Eckert also used the camera system to monitor her activities.
23. Mr. Eckert purposely delayed approving Ms. Youngman's vacation requests while
timely processing male employees' requests.
24. Mr. Eckert also assigned work to Ms. Youngman that was immediately due or past
due, but then would complain that Ms. Youngman was behind in her work.
25. Ms. Youngman felt generally unsafe around Mr. Eckert due to his targeting of her.
26. In or around September 2014, Ms. Youngman observed a compound bow on Mr.
Eckert's desk in violation of the Town's no weapons policy. Ms. Youngman complained to Safety
Officer Chuck Marshall, who brushed off her concerns.
27. Ms. Youngman also observed Mr. Eckert looking into her vehicle and then doing
the same to fellow employee Barbara Bresnan's vehicle. This was reported to Barbara Chirdo in
the Town's Human Resources Department. Mr. Eckert did not look into male employees' cars.
J
28. On or about December 2,2014, Ms. Youngman complained about the harassment
and discriminatory treatment to the Town's Human Resources Department, specifically to Barbara
Chirdo, as well as Mr. Moore and Union Representative Dave Moriarly.
29. Instead of doing anything about Ms. Youngman's complaints, Ms. Chirdo told her
that the Town wanted to transfer Ms. Youngman's position to a different Department.
30. Ms. Youngman objected to the transfer and stated that she had not done anything
wrong. The transfer would mean working in a different building and would come with apay and
hours cut.
31. In February 2015, Ms. Youngman filed an EEOC charge regarding these issues
(Exhibit A).
32. In March 20l5,just weeks after her EEOC Charge was filed, Ms. Youngman was
transferred to a different position and Department despite her protests.
33. After an investigation into Ms. Youngman's February 2015 EEOC Charge, the
EEOC found the Town's defense to the allegations to be "problematic" and that there was
reasonable cause to believe that the Town discriminated and retaliated against Ms. Youngman.
See the probable cause determination attached hereto as Exhibit B.
34. The EEOC found that Ms. Youngman complained of sex discrimination, and that
after the Town had notice that Ms. Youngman was filing an EEOC Charge, it retaliatorily
transferred her to a different position in a different Department.
35. The EEOC also found Mr. Moore's testimony during the investigation inconsistent
with the Town's position. Mr. Moore falsely stated he had nothing to do with transferring Ms.
Youngman's position.
4
36. In fact, in a recorded conversation, Ms. Youngman stated that she felt discriminated
against based on her sex and that she felt threatened by Mr. Eckert, and Mr. Moore responded that
if that was true, he would transfer her position.
31, When Mr. Moore told Ms. Youngman that he was not going to fire Mr. Eckert, she
told him that was not her intent; she only wanted the harassment and discriminatory treatment to
stop.
38. Incredibly, Mr. Moore's response was that if Ms. Youngman was refusing to agree
to the transfer, the treatment about which she was complaining must not be that bad.
39. The EEOC investigation also resulted in a finding of reasonable cause to believe
that despite Ms. Youngman's seniority and history of working overtime, after Mr. Moore took
office, she was no longer given those opportunities.
40. The Town claimed at the time that due to a change in policy, employees classified
as clerical were no longer given overtime opportunities, but the EEOC's investigation found that
male clerical employees were still given overtime.
4I. In June 2015, Ms. Youngman filed another EEOC Charge regarding her retaliatory
March 2015 transfer, as well as other racially-charged and disturbing comments and behavior by
Mr. Moore. (Exhibit C).
42. This behavior included an incident in May 2015 in which Mr. Moore aggressively
drove his truck behind Ms. Youngman's family after a Town Board Meeting. As described above,
the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Youngman was retaliated against due to her
complaints.
43. Comments attributed to Mr. Moore included a statement that a desk was as "heavy
as ten dead n'n {< x {< * *," using that horrific term for African-American people while a desk was being
5
moved in the office.
44. Mr. Moore also used inappropriate nicknames for two female employees to
differentiate them based on their breast size, calling them "Big Marie" and "Little Marie."
45. Ms. Youngman's husband was also employed by the Town. In May 2015,Mr.
Youngman left work during the day to change a shirt that became soiled at work. Mr. Moore
followed Mr. Youngman home and took his picture.
46. Throughout the next week or two, Mr. Moore repeatedly drove past Ms.
Youngman's home.
47. On or about May 19, 2015, Ms. Youngman's daughter noticed the Deputy
Supervisor Peter Minotti drive by the Youngman home, and Mr. Moore drove by just a half hour
later.
48. This was clearly an intimidation tactic by the Town and a targeting of Ms.
Youngman and her family due to her complaints and EEOC Charge. Ms. Youngman reported the
conduct to the police.
49. The EEOC again investigated Ms. Youngman's additional allegations. As
described above, the EEOC found the Town's and Mr. Moore's explanations for Ms. Youngman's
transfer inconsistent and that the Town had notice of Ms. Youngman's previous EEOC Charge at
the time of the transfer (Exhibit D).
50. Witness testimony confirmed Mr. Moore's offensive racially derogatory comment
while moving Ms. Youngman's' desk. Upon information and belief, the witness to this comment
was Tim Briggs.
6
51. Witness testimony also confirmed Mr. Moore's use of "Big Marie" and "Little
Marie" and its connection to the employees' breast size. Upon information and belief, the witness
confirming Mr. Moore's use of these terms was Marie Armstrong.
52. The EEOC also found that it was "clear" that the Town's top management officials
purposely targeted Ms. Youngman's house when they drove by repeatedly and that it was
confirmed by witness testimony and cameras.
53. The investigation confirmed that Mr. Youngman went home during the work day
to change his shirt and that "many" employees, including Mr. Moore, conducted personal business
in a town vehicle andlor on town time.
54. Yet again, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Youngman was
discriminated and retaliated against (Exhibit D).
55. In addition, other individuals were also found to have been discriminated and
retaliated against due to sex, race, and filing EEOC Charges.
56. Ms. Youngman continued working in the discriminatory and retaliatory work
environment at the Town.
57. Eventually, the stress and anxiety of the environment overwhelmed Ms.
Youngman, and she went out of work on disability leave.
58. Despite being cleared to work by her doctor in September 2016, Ms. Youngman
was subjected to retaliatory medical examinations, including a psychological examination, before
being allowed back to work.
59. Ms. Youngman's disability leave finally ended on or about January 6,2017. When
she returned, she was transferred, yet again, to a new Department. When she began her leave, she
7
was assigned to the Finance Department, but upon her return, she was reassigned to Personnel.
About a month later, she was transferred again to the Town Court.
60. Ms. Youngman questioned Human Resources employee, Pattie Anthony, regarding
the reason she was not returned to her position in Finance upon her return. Ms. Anthony told her
the decision was made by the Town's attorney, Patrick Naylon, Esq., and that he thought a position
in Personnel was appropriate.
6I. When Ms. Youngman questioned her transfer to the Town Court, Ms. Anthony told
her it was cleared through the local union representation.
62. In March 2017, Town employee Kathy Schneider gave Ms. Youngman a retirement
calendar and told her'ono one else needs this but you."
63. While at the Town Court, Ms. Youngman continued to experience harassment and
retaliation due to her previous complaints against the Town. Her co-workers falsely complained
about how she performed her work. Items went missing from her desk and her drawers. Ms.
Youngman had reason to believe her desk was searched when she was not there.
64. In May 2017, Ms. Youngman was told that while she was at lunch, her bag fell over
underneath her desk, and her co-workers discovered a recording device.
65. In fact, when Ms. Youngman teturned from lunch, she found her bag in the same
position it was before she left - pushed far underneath her desk.
66. Ms. Youngman was accused of illegal recording. Upon information and belief, the
complaint was filed by Kristin Kreiser.
67. Ms. Youngman was arrested at the end of her shift and charged with
Eavesdropping, a felony, and Possession of an Eavesdropping Device.
8
68. Ms. Youngman correctly understood that it is legal to record conversations in which
she was participating.
69. Upon information and belief, a Town employee went through Ms. Youngman's bag
and found the recording device.
70. The next day Mr. Moore suspended her from her position with the Town.
71. Ms. Youngman's arrest was covered by local media, and her mugshot was
repeatedly posted online.
72. Interestingly, the day Ms. Youngman's arrest was reported by the media, Mr.
Moore came to work dressed in a suit. Mr. Moore did not normally wear a suit to work; upon
information and belief, he appeared dressed expecting to address the media that day.
73. The criminal charges against Ms. Youngman were completely dismissed in May
201 8.
74. Upon information and belief, Mr. Moore and/or his employees at Town Court set
up a situation with the recording device in which Ms. Youngman could be either fired or otherwise
disciplined.
75. The years of harassment and retaliation, Ms. Youngman's arrest and having to deal
with the legal process resulting from the arrest became too much for Ms. Youngman to bear, and
she could no longer continue working for the Town.
76. Ms. Youngman immediately filed for retirement; she could no longer work in such
a hostile and retaliatory environment.
77. Even after Ms. Youngman retired, Mr. Moore's retaliatory conduct did not cease.
He continued to show Ms. Youngman's arrest photo to the Town's residents who came to his
office, as per a Town Councilman, Rob Barley.
9
78. The Monroe County Sherriff came to the Youngman home in August 2017 andtold
Ms. Youngman and her husband that someone (the Sheuiff did not identify an individual) reported
that a crime may have been committed in regard to a recording made years prior and questioned
them about whether Ms. Youngman or her husband had anything to do with it.
79. Neither Ms. Youngman nor her husband had anything to do with such a recording.
80. As discussed above, the EEOC made "reasonable cause" findings on Ms.
Youngman's first two EEOC Charges Nos. 525-2015-00272 and 525-2015-00416.
81. A Right to Sue letter was issued for both of those charges on October 10,2018.
(Exhibit E).
82. Ms. Youngman filed a third EEOC Charge after her retirement regarding the
retaliatory acts of 2017. That Charge is still pending, but a reasonable cause finding is expected
soon.
83. Notably, Ms. Youngman has two more EEOC Charges still pending regarding
Defendants' continuing retaliatory acts that are not yet decided. Upon information and belief, the
Town never even submitted a response to those Charges. Therefore, Ms. Youngman likely has
two additional reasonable cause findings that will be issued soon.
INJURIES
84. Ms. Youngman experienced discriminatory behavior as soon as Mr. Moore took
office as Town Supervisor in early 2014 andthen constant discriminatory and retaliatory treatment
until she could no longer take the treatment and had to retire for her health.
85. Ms. Youngman's lengthy career was abruptly ended, and her reputation was
destroyed after a flurry of media reports about her.
10
86. Ms. Youngman repeatedly lost opportunities for overtime pay and lost wages when
out on disability leave resulting from the Town's treatment.
87. Ms. Youngman was also denied a cost of living pay raise and denied the use of
accrued vacation, sick and personal time.
88. Ms. Youngman retired before she originally planned due to the harassment and
retaliation, and her retirement benefits are forever reduced as a result.
89. Ms. Youngman also had to pay attorneys' fees to defend her retaliatory anest; the
charges were appropriately dismissed in full.
90. Most of Ms. Youngman's claims have been investigated by the EEOC who found
reasonable cause to believe she experienced harassment and discrimination.
91. The bulk of the treatment was done by the Town's top official, Mr. Moore, and
many of his retaliatory actions were recorded.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

TINDER TITLE VII AGAINST DEFENDANT TOWN OF HENRIETTA FOR
T]NLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AND HOSTILE WORK EI\TVIRONMENT
92. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
93. By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, the Town, and their agents
willfully violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e et seq., by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work
environment, discriminating against Plaintiff, and denying her equal terms and conditions of
employment, harassing Plaintiff, retaliating against Plaintiff, and materially altering the terms and
conditions of her employment because of her gender and sex.
94. As a consequence thereof, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer injuries and damages in
amounts to be determined at trial.
11
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

I]NDER TITLE VII AGAINST DEFENDANT
TOWN OF HENRIETTA FOR T]NLAWFUL RETALIATION
95. Plaintiff incorporates the precedingparagraphs as if fully set forth herein.
96. By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, the Town, and their agents
willfully violated Title VII,42 U.S.C. $ 2000e et seq., by retaliating against Plaintiff.
91, As a consequence thereof, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer injuries and damages in
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

LINDER THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST
DEF'ENDANT TOWN OF HENRIETTA FOR
LINLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AND HOSTILE WORK EI\TVIRONMENT
98. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
99. By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, Defendant, Town of
Henrietta, willfully violated New York State Human Rights Law by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile
work environment, discriminating against Plaintiff, and denying her equal terms and conditions of
emplo;nnent, harassing Plaintifl retaliating against Plaintifl and materially altering the terms and
conditions of her employment because of her gender and sex.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF T]NDER

THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST DEFENDANT
TOWN OF HENRIETTA FOR TINLAWFUL RETALIATION
101. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding pa.ragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
102. By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, Defendant, Town of
Henrietta, willfully violated New York State Human Rights Law by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile
12
work environment and materially altering the terms and conditions of her employment because of her
gender and sex.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S FIF'TH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

TJNDER NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
AGAINST DEFENDANTS MOORE, ECKERT,
AI\D MINOTTI FOR AIDING AND ABETTING,
ATION AND HOSTILE WORK
104. Plaintiffincorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

105. By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, Defendant Town of
Henrietta willfully violated New York State Human Rights Law by harassing and treating the
Plaintiff differently in retaliation.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

T]NDER NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MOORE, ECKERT, AND MINOTTI
FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TINLAWFUL RETALIATION
108. By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, Defendants Moore,
Eckert, and Minotti willfully violated Title VII,42 U.S.C. $ 2000e et seq., by harassing and treating
the Plaintiff differently in retaliation.
13
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF TJNDER

SECTION 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANTS MOORE, ECKERT, AND MINOTTI
FOR T]NLAWT'T]L DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
111 . By and through their course of conduct as alleged above, Defendants Moore, Eckert, and
Minotti violated Section 1983 by discriminating against the Plaintiff harassing the Plaintiff retaliating
against the Plaintifl and materially altering the terms and conditions of her employment because of her
sex and gender, and thereby depriving her of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth
Amendmentto the United States Constitution.
AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF'T]NDER

SECTION 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANT TOWN OF HENRIETTA
FOR T]NLAWT'UL DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
2. By and through its course of conduct as alleged above, Defendant Town of Henrietta
violated Section 1983 by discriminating against the Plaintiff, harassing the Plaintiff retaliating against
the Plaintiff, and materially altering the terms and conditions of her employment because of her sex and
gender, and thereby depriving her of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays thatthis Court:
(a) Accepts jurisdiction over this matter,
(b) Accepts, impanels and charges a jury with respect to the claims for relief; and
(c) Awards the following damages against Defendants:
I4
i. Back pay, front pay, and all benefits along with pre and post judgment
interest, in amounts to be determined at trial;
ii. Punitive, liquidated, and compensatory damages including, but not limited to,
damages for pain and suffering, anxiety, humiliation, physical injuries and emotional and physical
distress in order to compensate her for the injuries she has suffered and to signal to other employers
that discrimination in employment is repulsive to legislative enactments, in amounts to be determined
attnal;
iii. Attomeys' fees, costs, and expenses as provided for by the applicable
statutes; and
iii. Any other relief which this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 7,2019

Rochester, New York
UNDERBERG & KESSLER LLP
/s/ Paul F. Keneally
Paul F. Keneally, Esq.

Alina Nadir, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Marlene Youngman
300 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, New York 14604
Telephone: (5 85) 25 8-2800
pkeneally@underbergkessler. com
anadir @underb er gke s s I e r. c om
15
EXI{IBIT A
EEOC Fom 5 (11/09)
Cnnnce or DlscRtMtNATtoN Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

This form is affected by the privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed privacy Act
Slatement and other information before completing this form. FEPA
X EEOC 525-2015-00272
New York State Division Of Human Rights and EEOC
Slate q local if
Name (indicate Mr, Ms., Mrs.) 'Date
Home Phone (lncl. Arca Code) of Birth
Ms. Marlene M. Youngman (585) 334-21e1 10-26-1959
Street Address Clty, State and ZIP Code
152 Glen lris Drive, Rochester, Ny 14623
Named ts the Employer, Labor Organization, Employrnent Agency, Apprentlceship Committee, or State
or Local Govemment Agency That Believe
Discriminated Me or Others. (tf mofe than two, /rsf under PARTICULARS below.
Name
No. Employees, Membe.s Phone No. (lnclude Area Code)
TOWN OF HENRIETTA 15 - 100 (585) 334-7700
Street Address City, State and ZIP Code
475 Calkins Road, Po Box 999, Henrietta, Ny 14tr;67
Name
No. Employ$, f,ibmbeE Phone No. (lnclude Area Code)
Street Address City, State and ZtP Code
DISCRIMINATION EASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).)

DArE(S) D|SCRIM|NAT|ON TOOK PLACE
Earliest Latest
RACE COLOR x sEx RELIGION NATIONAL ORIGIN 12.02-2014 12-02-2014
x RETALIATION AGE DrsAgtLtw GENETIC INFORMATION
OTHER fSpaci&J
CONTINUING ACTION
THE PARTICULARS ARE (lf additional paper is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):
I have worked for Respondent since 1980. My current position is Management
Assistant.
From about Jan ua ry 2014, with the start of new town Supervisor J ack Moore, have
been su bject to
h arassment AS well as different terms a nd cond itions of employment because of my gender/female and my
Eckert does not talk with ffi€, instead he screams and sends
ke pt a separate file "to docu ment my antics. Eckert
a lso insta lled spywa re on m v com puter to monitor m e;
states he h ad the spywa re nstal led at th e req uest of the District Attorney Comments
have been
made about m v ag e, includi ng comments that many employees have retired
at 55. Comments includ e
know they are both are ready to reti re ( refening to my husband don 't know why
the fuck they are not
go ne. n This com ment was made to Eckert by a coworker; Eckert did
nothing to discourage the d lscflm inatory
com ment. have been reg uired to report all my acti ons daily to Supervisor Moore.
ha VE been bypassed for
overti me ra nted to other em with less Eckert is remlss on a vacation time for me
I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or tocal Agency,
if any. I When Stato end Locat
will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will
cooperate fully with th€m in the processing of my charge in accordance with their |fdary Public - State of Yorl
procedures.
I swear or affirm that I have
I dedare under penalty of perjury trat the above is true and conect. the best of my knowledge,
Exp.12121 7
X
Date Charging
EEOC Fom s (11/09)
CHnRcr or DlscntMtNATtoN Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

This form is affected by the Privacy Acto( 1974, See enclosed privacy Act
Statement and oth6r information before completing this form.
FEPA
x EEOC 525-2015-00272
New York State Division Of Human Rishts and EEOC
State u l@al if
while providing approval for other employees in a timely manner. On or about September 16,2014,1
observed that Eckert had a compound bow sitting on his desk pointed at the door. I com plained to Safety
Officer Chuck Marshall who stated the bow did not have any arrows while rolli ng his eyes at me. I stated that
I should then be allowed to bring a gun to work without bullets. Eckert removed the bow. This violated the
no weapons policy. Eckert assigns work to me after the due date and I am then talked to about being
behind. On or about December 2,2014,1 complained about these issues with Barb Chirdo from Human
Resources. I was advised that respondent wanted to transfer me out of the Dept. of Public Works. I stated
that I did not want to transfer as I had done nothing wrong. Moore stated that he wasn't going to fire Eckert
and I stated I was not looking to have Eckert terminated but did want the harassment to be addressed and to
stop. Moore stated to me that the harassment must not be that bad if I wouldn't transfer out of the
department. The transfer would result in my moving to another building and have my hours and my pay cut.
Upon information and belief, Respondent has had plans to remove me from my Oepartment. This
information has been circulating around the department since I complained about t'he above issues and that I
believed I was being targeted because of my gender/female.
I believe I have been subject to different terms and conditions of employment, denied overtime, scrutinized
and threatened with transfer because of my gender/female, age/55 and in retaliation for complaining about
gender harassment in willful violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title Vll of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Respondent's actions after my complaint create a chilling effect for other
employees who may be afraid to support my allegations and/or may be discouraged from coming fonrard to
their hts for fear of an adverse action.
I w€nt this charge liled with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I - When and Local
will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and lwill
cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their Public - State of
procedures.
or affrm that I have
I declare under penalty of that the above is true and correct. the best of my knowledge,
sff* riur Exp. 1?21 7
SIGNATURE OF COMPTAINANT
f7Ue"J*-n^
z I 5 X SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(n1onth, day, yoat,
Date Charying Pafty

EXHIBIT B
t
r t
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Buffalo Local Office
6 Fountain Plaza, Suite 350
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (716) 551 14'12
Fax (716) 551-4387
John E. Thornpson Jr.,
Direqtor
DETERMINA.TION
Chareine Partv Charee No: 525-2015-00272

Marlene M. Youngman
152 Glen Iris Drive
Rochester, NY 14623
Respondent
Town of Henrietta
475 Caulkins Road
Henriett4l.lY 1,+467
On behalf of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission"), I issue the
following determination on the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII) and the Age Discrimination Act (ADEA).
Respondent Town of Henrietta is an emrployer within the meaning of Title VII. All requirements
for coverage have been met. Charging Parfy alleges that she was subject to different terms and
conditions of ernployment, denied overtime, and threatened with transfer in retaliation for
complaining about harassment based on her sex/female and her age/55.
Respondent denies discriminating against Charging Party. In its position statement, Respondertt
states that the issue here is one of a personality conflict and lack of professionalism between
Charging party and her direct supervisor Craig Eckert. Respondent denies that Charging Party
ever complained about being targeted because of her sex or her age and that it offered her a
'toluntary transfef' which she declined. Respondent admits that Charging Party, as well as
seven other employees, was under investigation for employee performance. Respondent states
that the Town Supervisor, Jack Moore determined that Eckert would be demoted and Charging
Party transferred to another department as a result of an independent consultant's
recommendation for "Team Reconstnrction." Respondent maintains that Charging Party was
considered for transfer based upon the quality of her work and her lack of professionalism. As
far as overtime opportunities, Respondent states that there was a change in how overtime would
be assigned and offered in that ernployees such as Charging Party, who performed clerical work,
would not be offered overtime. Respondent admits that Eckert documented Charging Party's
performance
The Commission's investigation reveals that Respondent's defense is problematic. The evidence
shows that Respondent had notice of Charging Party's EEOC Charge of Discrimination prior to
transferring her to a different position in a different department. Charging Party had engaged in
a protected activity of complaining of sex discrimination. Testimony by the Town Supervisor is
contrary to the Respondent's statement of position in that Supervisor Moore stated he had
nothing to do with the decision to transfer the Charging Party. A recording of a meeting
between Charging Party, Supervisor Moore, HR Barb Chirdo, and Union Rep Dave Moriarity
confirms that Charging Party did indeed complain that she felt she was being targeted by Eckert
because of her sex/feinale and that she felt threatened and unsafe being around him. In this
conversation Supervisor Moore states if Charglng Party felt threatened or uncomfortable, he
would mover her to a different position. When Charging Party objected to being moved and
questioned why she should be moved and what Respondent was going to do to address Eckert's
behavior, Supervisor Moore stated he was going to do nothing to Eckert and that the harassment
couldn't be that bad if she wouldn't take a transfer. Further review of overtime records shows
that although Chargrng Party showed a history and seniority of being overtime, after Supervisor
Moore took office, she was no longer provided that opportunity, although male ernployees who
performed clerical work were provided overtime opportunities.
Based on the above, Respondent's asserted defense does not withstand scrutiny and the
Commission has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has
discriminated and retaliated against Charging Party based upon her sex/female and in retaliation
for engaging in a protected activity when she complained about the harassment.
As to the allegations of age discrimination, the evidence has failed to show that Charging Party
was targeted because of her agel55. The Charging Party may only pursue this matter by filing
suit against the Respondent within 90 days of receipt of this letter. Otherwise, the Charging
Party's right to sue will be lost.
This determination is final. Title VII requires that, if the Commission determines that there is
reasonable cause to believe that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the
alleged unlawful anployment practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and
persuasion. Having determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the
Commission now invites Respondent to join with it in an effort toward a just resolution of this
matter. Enclosed is a letter outlining the proposed terms of conciliation.
Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process may only
be made in accordance with Title VII and the Commission's Procedural Regulations. The
confidentiality provisions of Section 107 of Title VII and Comrnission Regulations apply to
information obtained during conciliation.
If Respondent declines to enter into conciliation discussions, or when the Commission's

representative is unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement, the Director shall so
inform the parties, advising them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved
persons and the Commission.
On behalf of the Commission
sEP 2 6 201?
Ir., Date
EXHIBIT C
EEOC Form 5 (1 1/09)
CnnncE or DtscRrMrNATroN Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act FEPA
Statement and other information before completing this form.
x EEOC 525-2015-00416
New York State Division Of Human R and EEOC
State or local Agency, if any
Name (indicate Mt., Ms., Mrs,) Home Phone (lncl. Area Code) Date of Birth
Ms. Marlene M. Youngman (585) 334-21e1 10-26-1959

Street Address City, Stato and ZIP Code
152 Glen lris Drive, Rochester, NY 14623
Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (lf more than two, list under PARTICUURS below.l
Name No. Employees, tll€mb€F Phone No. (lnclude Area Code)
TOWN OF HENRIETTA 15 - 100 (s8s) 334-7700

Street Address City. State and ZIP Code
475 Calkins Road, Po Box 999, Henrietta, NY 14467
Name No. Employees, Membors Phone No. (lnclude Area Code)
Stre€t Address City, State and ZIP Code
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(as).) DATE(S) OISCRTM|NAT|ON TOOK PLACE

Earliest Latest
RACE COLOR x SEX RELIGION NATIONAL ORIGIN 03-05-2015 05.20-2015
X RETALIATION AGE DISABILITY GENETIC INFORMATION
OTHER (Spect&) CONTINUING ACTION
THE PARTICULARS ARE (lf additional paper is needed, attach exlra sheet(s)):
I have worked for Respondent since 1980. My current position is Management Assistant. On
January 20, 2A15,1 filed a Charge of Discrimination 525-2015-00272.
On or about March 5, 2015, lwas transferred from my position in the Highway Dept. to the Finance
Dept. I believe I was transferred in retaliation for complaining about gender harassment and age
discrlmination by my direct supervisor at the time, Craig Eckert, who was subsequently demoted.
Additionally, a current employee shared with me that while helping move desks in or round the first
week in March, Town Supervisor Jack Moore made a comment about moving a desk, "This desk is as
heavy as 10 dead niggers."
Additionally, Moore has engaged in inappropriate sexual based name calling refer to two employees
as "Big Marie" and "Little Marie" to distinguish them by their breast size.
On or about May 11, 2015, my husband came home to change his soiled shirt, Moore apparently
I wanl this chargg filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I NOTARY - When necessary for Stalo and Local Agency Requirements
will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and lwill
cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with-thgir
procedures. I'swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct: the b'est of my knowledge, information and belief.
OF
THIS
State of New york

^
Date Charging Party No.01 ML'S321635
Exp. 03t23t2019
EEOC Form 5 ('11l09)
CnRnCE oF DISCRIMINATION Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

This form is affected by lhe Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act FEPA
Statement and other information belore completing this form,
X EEOC 525-2015-00416
Slale or local Agency, il arry
followed him and took his picture. Moore continued to drive past my home several times including
on or about May 12,2015 and May 20, 2015. On or about May 19, 2015, my daughter noticed the
Deputy Supervisor Peter Minotti drove by my home followed by Moore a half hour later. I believe
Moore was trying to intimidate me. Finally, on or about May 26,2015,1 reported their conduct to the
police. The "drive bys" subsequently stopped.
I believe I have been transferred and subject to staking and monitoring because I have filed a
previous charge in violation of Title Vll of the Givil rights Act of 1964, as amended and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. I believe other females have been subject to sexually based
name calling based upon gender/female and that Moore continues to make discriminatory remarks
about protected individuals in violation of Title Vll of tha Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency. if any. I NOTARY - When necessary lor State and Local Agancy Requtrements
will adviso the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I 1vill.
cooperate fully with them iri the processing of my charge in accordance with their
procedures.
l sr,,rear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to
I declare under penalty of perJury that the above is true and ccjnect. the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
TURE OF COMPLAINANT
Slate of NewYork
Date
No.01 MU632163s
Charging
Qualified in Monroe County
EXHIBIT I)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

6 Fountain Plaza, Suite 350
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (716) 551-4442
Fax (716) 551-4387
John E. Thompson Jr.,
Director
DETERMINATION
Charging Party Charge No: 525-2015-00416

Marlene M. Youngman
152 Glen Iris Drive
Rochester, NY 14623
Respondent
Town of Henrietta
475 Caulkins Road
Henrietta, NY 14467
On behalf of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission"), I issue the
following determination on the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). Respondent Town of Henrietta is an anployer
within the meaning of Title VII. All requirernents for coverage have been met. Charging Party
alleges that she was transferred, subject to stalking and monitoring in retaliation for filing a
previous charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Additionally, Charging Party alleges that the
Town Supervisor continues to engage in making inappropriate comments of a racial nature to
employees. Charging Party alleges that other fernales have been subject to sexually based name
calling based upon sex/female.
Respondent denies discriminating against Charging Party. In its position statement, Respondent
states that it has documented longstanding issues with Charging Party and this was the reason for
transferring Charging Party to a different department. Respondent denies the Supervisor
engaged in any racial comments and even if he did, it was singular in nature and cannot
constitute a violation under Title VII. Respondent denies engaging in any inappropriate name
calling based on sex, stating that any comments made were innocent in nature. Finally,
Respondent denies stalking stating that the Supervisor drove by Charging Party's home to snap a
picture of her husband in the driveway while on town time.
The Commission's investigation reveals that Respondent's defense is problematic. The evidence
shows that Respondent had notice of Charging Party's EEOC Charge of Discrimination prior to
transferring her to a different position in a difTerent department. Charging Party had engaged in
a protected activity of complaining of sex discrimination. Testimony by the Town Supervisor is
contrary to the Respondent's statement of position in that Supervisor Moore stated he had
nothing to do with the decision to transfer the Charging Party. Witness testimony verifies that
Supervisor made the comment "this desk is heavier than 10 dead niggers" while moving
Charging Party's desk during her involuntary transfer. Additionally, witness testimony also
shows that Supervisor Moore engaged in inappropriate sexually charged name calling when he
distinguished two women as "Big Marie" and "Little Marie" based on their breast size. Both
women are similar in stature and weight. Finally, it is clear that Charging Party and her family
were targeted by Supervisor Moore and other supervisory employees drove past Charging party's
house on several occasion and is documented through camera and witness testimony. While
admitting that Charging Party was home during working hours, he was home to charge his shirt
that had become soiled at work. Additionally, the investigation revealed that many employees,
including the Supervisor Moore conducted private business while on town time or when using a
town vehicle.
The investigation further revealed that Charging Party's daughter, as well as two other children
of individuals who also filed EEOC Charges had a history of being hired as seasonal employees.
After the individuals filed EEOC Charges, these three one time seasonal employees were never
re-hired again.
Based on the above, Respondent's asserted defense does not withstand scrutiny and the
Commission has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has
discriminated and retaliated against Charging Party as well as other individuals on account of
sex, race, and filing of previous EEOC Charges.
This determination is final. Title VII requires that, if the Cornmission determines that there is
reasonable cause to believe that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the
alleged unlawful employment practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and
persuasion. Having determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the
Commission now invites Respondent to join with it in an effort toward a just resolution of this
matter. Enclosed is a letter outlining the proposed terms of conciliation.
Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process may only
be made in accordance with Title VII and the Commission's Procedural Regulations. The
confidentiality provisions of Section 107 of Title VII and Commission Regulations apply to
information obtained during conciliation.
If Respondent declines to enter into conciliation discussions, or when the Commission's

representative is unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement, the Director shall so
inform the parties, advising them of the court enforcement altematives available to aggrieved
persons and the Commission.
On behalf of the Commission:
sEP 2 0 2017
E. Date
Buffalo Local Offrce
'n
t-
r v-
rl Case 6:19-cv-06019-MAT Document 1 Filed 01/07/19 Page 28 of 31
EEOC Fonn 5 (r1109)
Cnnnce oF DtscRtMtNATtoN Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

This form is afked by lha Pdvacy Aa of 1974. Sec enclosed Prtve€y Ad FEPA
Stabment and othsr inbrmalion b€furo completing lhis torm,
x EEOC 52S2017-00673
S|ade r local Agenay, il any
Name (indlcate Mr., Ms,, Mn.) Home Phone (lncl. Aree Ccda,) Oats of Blrth
Ms. Marlene M. Youngman (58s) 33+21e1 1959

Stre€t Address City, State and ZIP Code
152 Glen lris Drive, Rochester, NY 14623
Named is the Employer, LaborOryanization, EmploymentAgenry, Apprenticeship Commltte€, or State or Local Govemment Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Other. (lf more than two, list under PARTICU|ARS below.l
Name No. E doye€., frombsrs Phone !{o. (lncludo Atea Code)
TOWN OF HENRIETTA 201 - 500 (585) 35$7000

Addr$s
Stre€t Clty, State and ZIP Code
475 Calkins Road, Henriefta, NY 14467

Name No. Eryloyec1 i'lgnbq! Phon a{o. (hnh.de Ana Ccd/e)
Slreet Addrsss clty, stab and ZIP code
DISCRIMNAnON BASED ON (Chack appropriate DATE(S) DlSCRlMltrlATlON TOOK PLACE

'p,x($).) Eadlest Lat st
RACE COLOR x sEx RELIGION
n nmoHlLoRrGrN 0$0&2017 07-13-2017
x RtrALIATION AGE x OISABILTTY GENENC NFORMATION
OTHER (Specifi) CONTINUING ACTION
THE PARTICULARS ARE (rf addtrtona, !FllF/.is neecled, attach exta she'l(s)):
I had worked for Respondent since 1980. My last position was Management Assistant. I am a
qualified individual with a disability.
On or about January 6,2017,1 returned to work from dlsability leave. t was out of disability leave
related to stress and anxiety due to abuse of Town Supervisor, Jack Moore. So much so that I filed
I raant lhis chaqe frled wifi both the EEOC and the Strete or local Agorc1, if any. I NOTARY - Wien necesssry for State and Local Agoncy Requircmenls
vdll advise lhe agencies if I change my addrcss or phone number and I wlll
coop€rete fully with th€rn in lhe prcc€slng of my chaqe in acoodance with their
Woc€dutes. I swear or affrm that I have read the above cfiarye and that it is tru€ to
I dedare under penalty of perjury ttat the above is bue and conect. the b€st of my knowledge, inbrmailon and belief.
STGMTUREOFCpMPI IMNT
//
I
X l'faru2.*-V4
suBscRt8Eo ANOaSWOBN oAFp.n
X (npnth, dey, Wd J cJl/ '7ffi8,^5tr/ti'" p,_,r-llicnoru M E R RELI
I Nolary _ State of Ner Vr
Date ChagingPaA
%L// lio.01ME6343869
\ily Comnrission Exp 06\20120

-EOC Fom 5 (rrng)
Cnnnee OF DISCRIMINATION Ghaqe Prcented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

ThE hrn b etk€d by the privacV
fct 9f !974. Seo cnclocett privacy Act
Str.bment and other infomition beta compfctr[fif, form. FEPA
x EEOC 52$2017.00673
New York State Division of Human and EEOC
tlor,al if
urant lhis charge fled with both lho EEOC

and tho State
will advise ul€ agencles if chang€ my address phone or local Agency, al any. NOTARY -When nacassary Stato and Loca! Agency Raquiren ents
or number and will
cooperale tully wi0t lhem m the prcoessing d
my charge in accordanc€ wilh their
procedules.
under of p€riury
f swearoraffrm thail have read he above charge
the is true and conect and ttrat it is tue to
he best of my knowledge, inbmafon and belief.
S]GMTURE OF COMPTAINANT
X;?'laru/-..-_-)u
1 X SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEF9CE
(nrotth, clay, yearl ME DAbrnrupoN
Date
d,t l7 I vtu 7et7 MERrI
''fe
Charytng peily Notary Public - Sieie of
No 0lME
iuiy Commission Exp. 06lzAftCIi
EXI{IBIT E
U.S. Department of Justice

Civil fughts Division
you choose to commence a civil action,

srroh
Theref,'ola, you
unab:le to locate an convenietce. If you are
at yoru earliest
ts the appropriate coult, since that coufi
nea1, appoint Section 706(0(l) of Title VII, 4 I U.S.C. 2000e-5(0(l).
We are refurn,ing to'EEOC's Buffalo tr ocal Office. If you ol'your attorney have
any questions concerning
files, ploase feel free to address your.inquiry
to: John E. Thonapson, Jr., 3,5O, Buff?ilo, NY 1,4202
Sincerely,
John M. Gore
Assistant Af.tor,ney G ener,al
Civil Rights Division
Karen D. Wooclard
'
Principal, Deputy Chief
Employrnent Litigation Section
cc: T'owrr ol Henrietta

Patr.ick B. Naylon. Esquire
EEOC, Buffalo Local Office
Case 6:19-cv-06019-MAT Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 2
JS44 (Rev.08/r8) CIVIL COVER SHEET

purpose of inrtiating the civil docket sheet. (sttlt lNST'Rw:ltoNS oN Nt':x1' PA(;ti ot;7'Hls l<)RM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

MARLENE M. YOUNGMAN TOWN OF HENRIETTA, JACK MOORE, CRAIG
ECKERT, AND PETER MINOTTI
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Monroe County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Monroe
(EXCEPT tN It.S. P|.ArN1',il.l" (-ASDS) (IN U.S. PI-4tNTil;t; (-ASLS ONLy)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USETHE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
.. (c) .Attorngy F.(Firn! Nqnt,, 4d.lrrts, anl 'l\'ltlthottt NunthLr) Attorneys (lJ Knou,n)
Urid'erberg & Kbssler LLP
Rochester, New York 14604 (585) 258-2800
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION 1'ro.. o tt )-" in onL Box onty) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES Qtace on "X" in one Roxfor Ptainri/l'
(t'or Only)
Di\)ersity Cases aud One Box.fbr DeJbndant)
OI U.S. Governrnent d 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plairtiff (tl.S. Goternnrcnl Nol a l'qrly) CitizenofThisState Dl D I hrcorporatedorPrincipalPlace J4 O4
ofBusiness In This State
O 2 U.S. Goverrrnent 04 Diversity CitizenofAnotherState J 2 D 2 Incorporatedarr/PrincipalPlace o 5 05

Defendant (Indicqtc Cilizenship ol Partie.\ in Itcnt III) ofBrsiness In Another State
Citizen or Subject ofa O3 O 3 ForeignNation J6 D6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT ail "X" in Onc Rox Click here for:
'f RTS RANKRf IPT..Y
O I l0 lnsurance PITRSONAI, IN.IT]RY PEIISONAL IN.IURY O 625 Drug Related Seizure O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 O 375 Fals€ Clairns Act
O 120 Marine O 310 Airplane O 365 Personal hlury - ofProperty 21 USC 881 O 423 Withdrawal O 376 Qui Tarn (31 USC
D 130 Miller Act D 3 15 Airplane Product Product Liability D 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
D 140 Negotiable Inshurnent Liability f, 367 Health Care/ 0 400 State R€apporljonrnent
O 150 Recovery ofOverpaylnent 0 320 Assault. Libel & Pharrnaceutical D 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Slander Personal Iniury D 820 Copyrights D 430 Banks and Banking
O 151 Nledicare Act O 330 Fctleral Ernployers' Product Liability O 830 Patcrrt D 450 Commerce
O 152 Recovery ofDefaulted Liability O 368 Asbestos Personal O 835 Patent - Abbreviated D 460 Deportation
Student Loans f, 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application O 470 Racketeer Ilfluenced and
(Excludes Veterans) O 345 Marirre Product Liability D 840 Tradernark CoIupt Orgilizations
D 153 Recovery ofover?ayment Liability PERSONAL PROPBRTY 3 480 Consuurer Credit
ofVeteran's Benefits O 350 Motor Vehicle O 370 Other Fraud O 710 Fail Labor Standards o 861 HrA (1395f0 O 485 Telephone Consurner
O 160 Stockholders' Suits O 355 Motor Vehicle D 371 'fruth in Leuding Act D 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
O 190 Othcr Conbact Product Liability O 380 Other Personal O 720 Labor/Managernent D 863 DIwC/DIww (a05(g)) D 490 Cable/Sat TV
D 195 Contract Product Liability D 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations O 864 SSID TitIE XVI O 850 Securities/Cornmodities/
O 196 Franclrise Injury O 385 Property Darnage O 740 Railway Labor Act D 86s RSI (40s(g)) Exchange
D 362 Personal lnjury - Prcduct Liability O 751 Family ard Medical D 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice l,eave Act D 891 Agricultural Acts
CTVII, RIGHTS DPISNNFP DFTITIr|NS 0 790 Other Labor Litigation NTIT--FI|AI-TAY SIIITS D 893 Environrnental Matters
D 2 l0 Land Condernnation D 440 Other Civil Rights Habcas Corpus: 0 791 Ernployee Retirement D 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff D 895 Freedorn oflnfonnation
D 220 Foreclosure D 441 Voting D 463 Alien Detainee Income Secudty Act or Defendant) Act
O 230 Rent Lease & Ej€ctment d 442 Ernployrnent n 510 MotioDs to Vacate O 871 IRS-]'hird Paily 0 896 Arbitration
O 240 Tolts to Land O 443 Housing/ Senlence 26 USC 7609 O 899 Adrninishative Procedure
D 245 Tort Product Liability Accornmodations 0 530 General Act/Revierv or Appeal of
D 290 All Other Real Property O 445 Arner. w/Disabilities O 535 Death Pcnalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Elnployment Othcr: O 462 Naturalization Application O 950 ConstitutioDality of
O 446 Amer. w/Disabilities O 540 Mardarrus & Othcr O 465 Other lurrnigration State Statutes
Other O 550 Civil Rights Actions
O 448 Education O 555 Prison Condition
D 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions ol
Confinernent
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in Onc Box only)

x Original D2
Proceeding
Rerrovedfrorn
State Court
D 3 Remanded frort
Appellate Court
fl 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
fl 5 Transferredfrorn O 6 Multidistrict O 8 Multidistrict
Litigation - Litisation -
District
Transfer DireEt File
Cite the U.S. which liing (Do not cite jurislictiutd stuutct unless diversit))).
42 U.S.C. on et U.S.C. Section 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Discrimination, hostile work environment, sexual harassment and retaliation
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK iF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only rf denranded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURYDtrMAND: X Yes DNo
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(Sce instrilclions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NTJMBER
DATE SIGNATURE
01t07t2019
FOR
RECEIPT # AMOTJNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG, JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev.08/18)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service ofpleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 7974,is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, flrst, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
onlythefullnameorstandardabbreviations. Tftheplaintiffordefendantisanofficial withinagovernmentagency,identiftfirsttheagencyand
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) CountyofResidence. Foreachcivilcasefiled,exceptU.S.plaintiffcases,enterthenameofthecountywherethefirstlistedplaintiffresidesatthe
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county ofresidence ofthe "defendant" is the location ofthe tract ofland involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the fimr name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires thatjurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (l) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers ofthe United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
totheConstitution,anactofCongressoratreatyoftheUnitedStates. IncaseswheretheU.S.isaparty,theU.S.plaintiffordefendantcodetakes
precedence, and box I or 2 should be marked.
Diversityofcitizenship. (4)Thisreferstosuitsunder23U.S.C. l332,wherepartiesarecitizensofdifferentstates. WhenBox4ischecked,the
citizenshipofthedifferentpartiesmustbechecked. (SeeSectionIIIbelow;NOTE:fedcral questionactionstaheprecedenceoverdiversity
cases.)
III. Residencc (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. NatureofSuit. Placean"X"intheappropriatebox. Iftherearemultiplenatureofsuitcodesassociatedwiththecase,pickthenatureofsuitcode

that is most applicable. Click here for: Natule of Suit Code Descriptions.
v. Origin, Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (l) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state coufis may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transfened from Another District. (5) For cases transfered under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transfered into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLtrAStr NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI Cause ofAction. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause ofaction and give a briefdescription ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VlI. Requestcd in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases, This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the correspondingjudge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
Uxrrpn Srarps Drsrrucr CoURT

for the
MARLENE M. YOUNGMAN )
)
)
)
Plaintffis) )
) Civil Action No.
)
TOWN OF HENRIETTA, JACK MOORE, )
CRAIG ECKERT, AND PETER MINOTTI )
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) PETER MINOTTI

4724 Easl Henrietta Road
Henrietta, New York 14467
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this sulnmons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee -
of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of- Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintifPs attorney,
whose name and address are:
paur F. Keneaily, Esq.
Alina Nadir, Esq.
Underberg & Kessler LLP
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not befiled with the court unless required by Fed, R, Civ, P, 4 (l))
This summons for fuame of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
I I personally served the summons on the individual at @lace)

on (date) ;or
il I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person ofsuitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
il I served the summonS ort (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of fuame of organization)
on (date) ;or
D I returned the summons unexecuted because ;or
il Other (specifu).
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true
Date
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

UmrBn SrarBs Drsrrucr CoURT

for the
)
)
)
Plaintffis) )
) CivilAction No.
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: 6Defiendant's name and address) CRAIG ECKERT

54 North Horseshoe Lane
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an - in Fed. R. Civ.
officer or employee of the United States described
P . 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
-
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney,
Alina Nadir, Esq.
You also must file your answer or motion with the couft.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not befiled with the court unless required by Fed, R. Civ, P, 4 (l))
This summons for fuame of individual and title, if any)
il I personally served the summons on the individual at @tace)

on (date) ;or
il I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abo de with fuame)

D I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ;or
n I returned the summons unexecuted because ;or
n Other ftpecify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted selvice, etc:

UNrrBr Srarps Drsrrucr CoURT

for the
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
) Civil Action No
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant's name and address) JACK MOORE

6500 West Henrietta Road
Rush, New York 14543
Within 2l days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
-
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule l2 of
-
Alina Nadir, Esq.
If you fail to respond, judgrnent by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Surnnrons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be jiled with the court unless required by Fed, R, Civ, P, 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
I I personally served the summons on the individual at @lace)

on (date) ;or
tr I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode wilh (name)

D I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service ofprocess on behalfof fuame oforganization)

on (date) ;or
il I returned the summons unexecuted because ;or
D Other 6pecify)
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true'
Date
Server's signature
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Sumrnons in a Crvil Action
UmrBn Srerps Dlsrnrcr CoURT

for the
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
) Civil Action No
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant's name and address) TOWN OF HENRIETTA

475 Calkins Road
Within 2l days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
-
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P . 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
-
Alina Nadir, Esq.
You also must file your answer or motion with the cout1.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Surmnons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be jiled with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
il I personally served the summons on the individual al (place)

on (date) ;or
fl I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abo de wilh lname)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

D I served the summons on (name of indtuidual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of fuame of organization)
on (date) or
il I returned the summons unexecuted because ;or
O Other (specifu)
My fees are $ for travel and $ for serices, for a total of $ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true
Date:
Server's signature
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc

Youngman Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Youngman Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Youngman Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 6:19-cv-06019-MAT Document 1 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COTIRT

Commission ("EEOC"), Charge Nos. 525-20 15 -00 15 5 and 525 -2015-004 1 6.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

pursuant to the United States Constitution,42U.S.C. $1983, 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-5(f)(3)(Title VII), 28

U.S.C. $ 1367 to adjudicate Plaintifls claims under state statutory law.

8. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Plaintiff was Defendants' "employee" as

defined by the Title VII and NYSHRL.

9. Defendant the Town is a municipality in Monroe County, New York State.

12. Defendant Peter Minotti is the Town's Deputy Town Supervisor.

Youngman's position was Management Assistant in the Public Works/Highway Department.

experiencing harassment and discrimination in the workplace due to her gender.

18. He claimed falsely the District Attorney requested his action.

than her male coworkers.

timely processing male employees' requests.

Officer Chuck Marshall, who brushed off her concerns.

Chirdo, as well as Mr. Moore and Union Representative Dave Moriarly.

transferred to a different position and Department despite her protests.

See the probable cause determination attached hereto as Exhibit B.

transferred her to a different position in a different Department.

if that was true, he would transfer her position.

office, she was no longer given those opportunities.

male clerical employees were still given overtime.

Mr. Moore. (Exhibit C).

moved in the office.

followed Mr. Youngman home and took his picture.

conduct to the police.

49. The EEOC again investigated Ms. Youngman's additional allegations. As

the time of the transfer (Exhibit D).

was Tim Briggs.

confirming Mr. Moore's use of these terms was Marie Armstrong.

confirmed by witness testimony and cameras.

in a town vehicle andlor on town time.

discriminated and retaliated against (Exhibit D).

retaliated against due to sex, race, and filing EEOC Charges.

environment at the Town.

Youngman, and she went out of work on disability leave.

was subjected to retaliatory medical examinations, including a psychological examination, before

being allowed back to work.

in Personnel was appropriate.

her it was cleared through the local union representation.

underneath her desk, and her co-workers discovered a recording device.

complaint was filed by Kristin Kreiser.

Eavesdropping, a felony, and Possession of an Eavesdropping Device.

she was participating.

and found the recording device.

repeatedly posted online.

she could no longer continue working for the Town.

a hostile and retaliatory environment.

office, as per a Town Councilman, Rob Barley.

two additional reasonable cause findings that will be issued soon.

destroyed after a flurry of media reports about her.

out on disability leave resulting from the Town's treatment.

accrued vacation, sick and personal time.

retaliation, and her retirement benefits are forever reduced as a result.

charges were appropriately dismissed in full.

reasonable cause to believe she experienced harassment and discrimination.

many of his retaliatory actions were recorded.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF