RETURN DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2022:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`KWANIA HAYES
`
`JD. OF HARTFORD
`
`VS.
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`MICHELL.BRADLEY LLC
`
`SEPTEMBER29, 2022
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COUNT ONE:
`
`SEX DISCRIMINATION - €.G.S.
`
`§ 46A-60(B)(1)
`
`1,
`
`The Plaintiff in this matter, Kwania Hayes (‘Plaintiff’), was at all times relevant to
`
`this Action a resident of City of Manchester, State of Connecticut.
`
`2,
`
`The Defendant, Michell.Bradley LLC, is a Connecticut corporation, with a business
`
`address of 334 Ella Grasso Turnpike, Suite 121, Windsor Locks, CT, 06096,
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff filed a timely administrative complaint against Defendant with the
`
`Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, and thereafter received a release of
`
`jurisdiction letter therefrom, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit 1. This Action is
`
`brought within 90 days of receipt of said release of jurisdiction letter. As such, Plaintiff has
`
`exhausted all administrative remedies, and this Action is timely.
`
`4,
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is female.
`
`Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in or around December 2016 in the position of
`
`waitress and bartender.
`
`6.
`
`At all
`
`times relevant, Plaintiff's direct supervisor was Marc Reis (“Reis”),
`
`Defendant’s General Manager.
`
`7.
`
`During Plaintiff's employment, she worked at two locations, Phillips Seafood and
`
`Two Roads Restaurant, both of which are owned and operated by the Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`KWANIA HAYES
`
`JD. OF HARTFORD
`
`VS.
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`MICHELL.BRADLEY LLC
`
`SEPTEMBER29, 2022
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COUNT ONE:
`
`SEX DISCRIMINATION - €.G.S.
`
`§ 46A-60(B)(1)
`
`1,
`
`The Plaintiff in this matter, Kwania Hayes (‘Plaintiff’), was at all times relevant to
`
`this Action a resident of City of Manchester, State of Connecticut.
`
`2,
`
`The Defendant, Michell.Bradley LLC, is a Connecticut corporation, with a business
`
`address of 334 Ella Grasso Turnpike, Suite 121, Windsor Locks, CT, 06096,
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff filed a timely administrative complaint against Defendant with the
`
`Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, and thereafter received a release of
`
`jurisdiction letter therefrom, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit 1. This Action is
`
`brought within 90 days of receipt of said release of jurisdiction letter. As such, Plaintiff has
`
`exhausted all administrative remedies, and this Action is timely.
`
`4,
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is female.
`
`Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in or around December 2016 in the position of
`
`waitress and bartender.
`
`6.
`
`At all
`
`times relevant, Plaintiff's direct supervisor was Marc Reis (“Reis”),
`
`Defendant’s General Manager.
`
`7.
`
`During Plaintiff's employment, she worked at two locations, Phillips Seafood and
`
`Two Roads Restaurant, both of which are owned and operated by the Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`During the course of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, she was regularly
`
`scheduled to work with kitchen manager, Randolph Williams (“Williams”), who would constantly
`
`subject Plaintiff to unwanted sexual advances.
`
`9,
`
`By way of example, in or around August of 2021, Plaintiff was attempting to use a
`
`microwave when Randolph stopped her by pushing his body up against hers, and subsequently
`
`shut off the electricity to the microwave. Plaintiff asked Randolph to stop, and not to touch her, to
`
`which he responded by laughing. Reis witnessed this harassment, failed to documentthe incident
`
`despite Plaintiff's requests, and instead, also laughed.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff subsequently requested to speak with Reis via text message in order to
`
`further discuss Williams’
`
`treatment. Reis subsequently conveyed to Plaintiff,
`
`in words or
`
`substance, that he had spoken to Williams, that “it would not happen again,” and directed Plaintiff
`
`to stay away from Williams.
`
`11.
`
`Williams’ conduct persisted, despite Reis’ assertions that “it would not happen
`
`again.”
`
`12.
`
`For example, Randolph would regularly try to walk by the Plaintiff in the kitchen,
`
`which is a tight space, and press his body against hers, knowing that Plaintiff had previously
`
`demanded that he not touch her.
`
`13.
`
`On another occasion following the foregoing incident and Plaintiff's concomitant
`
`complaints, Williams referred to Plaintiff as “a pussy ass bitch” in front of other co-workers.
`
`14. Williams also began intentionally giving Plaintiff incorrect food orders for her
`
`customers in an effort to make Plaintiff's work environment increasingly hostile.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`By way of further example, Randolphreferred to Plaintiff as “the two-dollar whore”
`
`and also conveyed to Plaintiff's co-workers, that Plaintiff was a prostitute and “would sell herself
`
`for the right price.”
`
`16.
`
`On another occasion, Williams would comment upon Plaintiffs body and
`
`appearance, stating to other employees and in Plaintiff's presence, “Damn, look at that ass—it
`
`looks bigger than yesterday.”
`
`17.
`
`On another occasion, and on or about January 21, 2022, Plaintiff was carrying a
`
`plate of food and attempting to pass by Williams, whereupon Plaintiff was caused to trip on
`
`Williams’ foot. As she lost balance, the plate of food made contact with Williams’ arm, whereupon
`
`he stated to Plaintiff, “On somereal shit. Say excuse me next time or watch what I am going to do
`
`to you.” Accordingly, Williams wasfalsely insinuating that Plaintiff was on drugs, and was further
`
`threatening violence againsther.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Williams has sexually harassed numerous other
`
`female employees of Defendant.
`
`19.
`
`In response to Williams’ threat, Plaintiff contacted the State Police, who conducted
`
`an investigation into Plaintiff's complaint concerning Williams’ threat.
`
`20.
`
`After contacting the State Police, Plaintiff also called Defendant’s main office,left
`
`a voicemail and ultimately spoke to
`
`21.
`
`In or around January 26, 2022, Plaintiff asked for a meeting with Reis and the
`
`Defendant’s Senior Director of Operations, Tyrone Davis (“Davis”).
`
`22,
`
`In this meeting, Plaintiff made Davis aware that she was being harassed by
`
`Williams in front of Reis, who failed to take any remedial action to curb Williams’ sexually
`
`harassing conduct, or escalate Plaintiff's complaints. During the course of the meeting, Plaintiff
`
`
`
`outlined much of Williams’ sexually harassing conduct.
`
`In response, Davis stated that he did not
`
`care about sexual harassment, and further stated, “All I care about is my money.”
`
`23.
`
`At the conclusion of the meeting, Plaintiff said that she did not want to work with
`
`Williams.
`
`24.‘
`
`Inresponse, Defendantinstructed Plaintiffthat she would need to continue working
`
`with Williams while it conducted its investigation.
`
`25.
`
`Following the meeting, Reis began retaliating against Plaintiff on account of her
`
`for having complained to Davis about management’s failure to address her report of Williams’
`
`sexual harassment. For instance, Reis would intentionally assign Plaintiff to work with Williams,
`
`or reduced her working hours in responseto her having lodged the preceding complaint.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff thereafter continued to contact Davis in an attempt to inquire about the
`
`status of the investigation, but received no response.
`
`27,
`
`Having received no meaningful response to her internal complaints of sexual
`
`harassment, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint, alleging claims of sexual harassmentandretaliation
`
`with the Connecticut Commission on HumanRights and Opportunities on February 16, 2022,
`
`28.
`
`During the pendency ofher complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human
`
`Rights and Opportunities, Defendant continued to subject Plaintiff to sexual harassment and
`
`retaliation.
`
`29,
`
`Specifically, Defendant continued to force Plaintiff to work alongside Williams,
`
`who would openly mockher for having lodged her myriad complaints against him concerninghis
`
`sexual harassment, and who continued to disparage Plaintiffto her peers and otherwise deliberately
`
`make her work environmenthostile.
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Defendant continued to subject Plaintiff to sexual harassment and retaliatory
`
`conduct through April 8, 2022, another occasion on which it instructed Plaintiff that she would
`
`need to work alongside Williams, whose sexual harassment had persisted through both Plaintiffs
`
`mytiad internal complaints to Defendant management, and her formal complaint with the
`
`Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant constructively discharged Plaintiffs employment on April 8, 2022, in
`
`that it had subjected her to discriminatory, retaliatory, and sexually harassing conduct to such an
`
`extent that no reasonable person would be expected to continue to endureit.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant
`
`is an “employer” within the meaning of the Connecticut Fair
`
`Employment Practices Act.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs
`
`employment on account of her sex.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant
`
`subjected Plaintiff
`
`to a pervasive and continuing course of
`
`discriminatory comments and conduct which had the purpose or effect of substantially interfering
`
`with Plaintiffs work performance and/orthe creation of an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
`
`environment.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment action, motivated by
`
`Plaintiff’s sex.
`
`36.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has sustained
`
`lost wages and benefits of employment, has been deprived of the benefits of gainful employment
`
`into the future, has sustained substantial emotional distress, and has incurred or will
`
`incur
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`COUNT TWO:
`
`SEXUAL HARASSMENT- C.G.S. § 46A-60(B)(8)
`
`37.
`
`All preceding allegations are hereby repeated and realleged in this Countasif fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant
`
`is an “employer” within the meaning of the Connecticut Fair
`
`Employment Practices Act.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment in one or more of the following
`
`ways, in that:
`
`a. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual
`
`favors;
`
`b. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to unsolicited comments or conduct of a
`
`sexual nature;
`
`c. Plaintiff's submission to such conduct was made explicitly or implicitly a
`
`term or condition of Plaintiff's employment;
`
`d. Plaintiff's submissionto or rejection of such conduct was used as the basis
`
`for Defendant’s employment decisions concerning Plaintiff; and/or
`
`e.
`
`Such conduct had the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with
`
`Plaintiff's work performance and/or created an intimidating, hostile, or
`
`offensive working environment.
`
`AO.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has sustained
`
`lost wages and benefits of employment, has been deprived of the benefits of gainful employment
`
`into the future, has sustained substantial emotional distress, and has incurred or will
`
`incur
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`COUNT THREE:
`
`RETALIATIONIN VIOLATION OF C.G.S. § 464-60(B)(4)
`
`
`
`41._—_All preceding allegations are hereby repeated and realleged in this Count as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant
`
`is an “employer” within the meaning of the Connecticut Fair
`
`Employment Practices Act.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by opposing Defendant’s discriminatory
`
`employmentpractices.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment action, further and deliberate
`
`retaliatory conduct, and further sexually harassing conduct, motivated by Plaintiff having engaged
`
`in such protected activity.
`
`45,
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has sustained
`
`lost wages and benefits of employment, has been deprived of the benefits of gainful employment
`
`into the future, has sustained substantial emotional distress, and has incurred or will incur
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`Money damages;
`
`2.
`
`Reinstatement, or in lieu thereof, front pay;
`
`Punitive Damages;
`
`Attorneys’ fees and costs of this Action; and
`
`All other awardablerelief.
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`. KWANITA HAYES
`
`
`
`Cicchiell6°& Cicchiello, LLP
`364 Franklin Avenue
`Hartford, CT 06114
`Phone: 860-296-3457
`Fax: 860-296-0676
`Email: mparadisi@cicchielloesq.com
`
`
`
`RETURN DATE: OCTOBER25, 2022:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`KWANIA HAYES
`
`VS.
`
`MICHELL.BRADLEY LLC
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`J.D. OF HARTFORD
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`SEPTEMBER29, 2022
`
`STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
`
`The amount in demand exceeds $15,000.00, excluding costs and interests.
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`KWANIA HAYES
`
`364 Franklin Avenue
`Hartford, CT 06114
`Phone: 860-296-3457
`Fax: 860-296-0676
`Email: mparadisi@cicchielloesq.com
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`CHRO Neo. 2210307
`EEOC No. 16A-2022-00662
`
`Kwania Hayes
`COMPLAINANT
`
`Vv.
`
`Mitchell Bradley Enterprises, LLC
`RESPONDENT
`
`RELEASE OF JURISDICTION
`
`The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hereby releasesits jurisdiction over the above-identified
`complaint. The Complainant is authorized to commencea civil action in accordance with CONN. GEN.
`STAT. § 46a-100 against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the judicial district
`in which the
`discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred,
`in which the Complainant resides or in which the
`Respondent transacts business.
`If this action involves a state agency orofficial, it may be broughtin the
`Superior Court for thejudicial district of Hartford.
`
`A copy of any civil action brought in accordance with this release must be served on the Commission by email
`at ROJ@ct.govor by regular U.S. mail at 450 Columbus Blvd. — Suite 2, Hartford, CT 06103 at the sametimeall
`otherparties are served. Service by email is preferred. THE COMMISSION MUST BE SERVED BECAUSEIT
`HAS A RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN ANY ACTION BASED ON A RELEASE OF JURISDICTION PURSUANT
`TO CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46a-103.
`
`The Complainant must bring an action in Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of this release and within
`two years of the date offiling the complaint with the Commission unless circumstances tolling the
`statute of limitations are present,
`
`DATE:
`
`September 19, 2022
`
`_enya ASNgore
`
`Tanya A. Hughes, Executive Director
`
`cc: Michael J. Reilly, Esq., via email: mreilly@cicchielloesgq.com
`Michael J. Spagnola, Esq., via email: mspagnola@fordharrison.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
