Hill v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., John Doe # 1-5, XYZ Corp. # 1-5. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 30314)Document filed by Lana Hill.(ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
LANA HILL,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12 cv 1281 (GBD)

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND

vs.
HUGO BOSS FASHIONS, INC.,
JOHN DOE #1-5 and XYZ CORP. #1-5
Defendants.
___________________________________________

Plaintiff, Lana Hill, by and through her attorney Joseph H. Neiman, complaining
of the Defendants, alleges the following upon information and belief:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

This is an action brought by Lana Hill against her former

employer, Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated
against as a result of her former employers’ policies and practices of discrimination on
the basis of race. In addition, Plaintiff alleges claims for damages for breach of the
employment agreement between Defendant and herself. By this action, Plaintiff seeks
money damages for lost wages and benefits, liquidated, compensatory and punitive
damages and attorney’s fees.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
2.

The Plaintiff, Lana Hill, filed a complaint in writing with the

EEOC charging Defendant, Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., with unlawful discrimination
under Title VII.
1

3.

More than six (6) months have elapsed and the Plaintiff, Lana Hill, has

received notice of her right to sue under the aforementioned statue.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

Jurisdiction over this action is based upon the unlawful discrimination

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title 7) 42 U.S.C. Section
1981 et seq; 42 U.S.C. Section 2000 et seq; and the pendent jurisdiction of this Court.
5.

In the alternative, jurisdiction over the New York State claims is conferred

pursuant to section 297 of the New York State Executive Law and jurisdiction over the
New York City claims is conferred pursuant to section 8-502 of the New York City
Administrative Code.
6.

All civil rights violations alleged occurred within the Southern District of

New York where Defendant, Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. presently does business. Venue is
properly had in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e5(f) (3) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.
PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff, Lana Hill, is an individual of legal age, residing at 330 West

145th Street, New York, New York 10039.
8.

Plaintiff Lana Hill was hired with the above-named employer on

January 2, 2006 as a front desk receptionist.
9.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., is

a business entity having a principal place of business in the State of New York and does
business at 601 West 26th Street, Suite 845, New York, New York 10001.
10.

Defendants, JOHN DOE #1-5 and XYZ CORP. #1-5, are Defendants who

2

may be liable to Plaintiff by their action and or legal standing, but at this time are
unknown to plaintiff. More specifically, but not limited to, John Does #1-5 being
individuals who by their actions or policies contributed to the complained of conduct.
XYZ Corp. #1-5 may be entities who either own or control entities legally responsible for
the actions complained of.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11.

Plaintiff, Lana Hill, repeats and realleges each and every

allegation contained in the Paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Complaint as though each
were fully set forth and length herein.
12.

Plaintiff was hired by Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. on January 2, 2006 as a

front desk receptionist.
13.

On January 20, 2011, Grace Eapen, Director of Human Resources of Hugo

Boss Fashions, Inc. advised Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be terminated as of January 20,
2011.
14.

The reason given for Plaintiff’s termination was “poor judgment in

sending out the e-mail” and “lack of judgment should have known not to forward email”.
15.

Plaintiff was paid through January 20, 2011 and was out of work from

January 20, 2011 through present.
16.

During her employment, plaintiff was deprived the opportunity to advance

with the company. Plaintiff was made to clean the bathrooms and a kitchen area when it
was not in the job description and was not provided any coverage when she needed to use
the bathroom. Also, she was not allowed to use the restrooms.

3

17.

Plaintiff was also denied access to interview. African American

receptionists were not given the opportunity to advance up the corporate ladder. Plaintiff
was told by the human resource manager that she was not “sales material”. She was told
that she was not allowed to interview unless someone specifically asked for her to
interview with them. To the best of her knowledge, this was not the policy for prior
receptionists who were not of African American decent.
18.

Upon information and belief, plaintiff was terminated because of her race

and denied access to move up the corporate latter because of her race.
19.

In terminating Plaintiff, Defendant willfully, knowingly and intentionally

discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race.
20.

As a proximate result of Defendant’s willful, knowing and intentional

discrimination against Plaintiff, Lana Hill, she has sustained and continues to sustain
substantial losses in earnings, retirement benefits and other employment benefits and has
suffered and continues to suffer humiliation and mental and physical pain and anguish.
In light of Defendant’s willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff,
Lana Hill, Plaintiff seeks an award of liquidated damages equal to the amount found
owing and an award of punitive damages to be determined by the trier of fact.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21.

Plaintiff, Lana Hill, repeats and realleges each and every

allegation contained in the Paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint as though each
were fully set forth at length herein.
22.

During all times Plaintiff, Lana Hill, was employed by the

4

Defendant, Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., Defendant had certain policies and practices, both
in the written handbook and otherwise which taken together constitute an express
agreement on the part of the Defendant, which would have awarded the Plaintiff, Lana
Hill, her continued position as front desk receptionist, had the agreement been followed.
The Plaintiff at all times had been ready, willing and able to perform, had offered to
perform all of the conditions of the agreement to be performed by her. By terminating
the Plaintiff, Defendant breached said total employment agreement.
23.

As a proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the total employment

agreement with Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial
losses, earnings, retirement benefits and other employment benefits which he would have
received if the Defendant did not breach the agreement.
24.

The Plaintiff as been damaged in an amount to be determined by the trier

of fact.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS:
DISCRIMINATION
25.

Plaintiff, Lana Hill, repeats and realleges each and every

allegation contained in the Paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as though each
were fully set forth at length herein.
24.

The acts herein alleged are in violation of Section 296, at seq., of the New

York State Executive Law.
25.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s discriminatory

employment practices, plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, economic loss, physical
and mental distress, embarrassment, humiliation and indignity.
5

26.

The discriminatory and unlawful employment practices complained of

have been willful, wanton, malicious, and in negligent disregard of plaintiff’s rights.
27.

As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, counsel fees,

punitive damages and for such other and further relief as this court deem just and proper.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS:
DISCRIMINATION
28.

Plaintiff, Lana Hill, repeats and realleges each and every allegation

contained in the Paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint are realized and incorporated
herein by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
29.

The actions of the defendants’ herein are in violation of the Administrative

Code of the City of New York, Sections 8-101 et. seq.
30.

The discriminatory and unlawful employment practices complained of

have been willful, wanton, malicious, and in negligent disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays this court enter judgment on all
Counts for compensatory damages in the sum of $5,000,000.00, punitive damages to be
determined by the trier of fact, attorney’s fees to be determined by the court, liquidated
damages in the amount found owing, as well as interest and costs incurred in this action
and for such other further relief as this court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 13, 2012
s/Joseph H. Neiman, Esq.__________________
Joseph H. Neiman, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
39 Hudson Street, Suite 203
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
[phone]

6

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury with respect to all issues so triable.
Dated: February 13, 2012
s/Joseph H. Neiman, Esq.__________________
Joseph H. Neiman, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
39 Hudson Street, Suite 203
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
[phone]

7