`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`TONY BIRITTIERI,
`
`- against –
`
`WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. and
`WHOLE FOODS MARKET,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Index No.:
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
`FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff TONY BIRITTIERI (“Plaintiff” or “BIRITTIERI”), by and through his attorneys
`
`SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, as and for his Complaint against Defendant WHOLE FOODS
`
`MARKET GROUP, INC. (“Defendant” or “WHOLE FOODS”) and WHOLE FOODS MARKET
`
`(“Defendant” or “MARKET”), states and alleges on information and belief as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`This is an action by Plaintiff, BIRITTIERI, whose employment with WHOLE
`
`FOODS and MARKET was wrongfully terminated by Defendants and against Defendants for
`
`disability discrimination, age discrimination, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation
`
`under: (a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and its
`
`Amendments (“Title VII”); (b) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1201 et seq.
`
`(“ADA”), and (c) the New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq. (“NYS Human Rights Law”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for economic, non-economic,
`
`compensatory, and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs and reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 24
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is
`
`3.
`
`an action seeking redress for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under federal law.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over any state court causes of action that arise from a common
`
`nucleus of operative facts that give rise to the federally based causes of action pleaded herein, and
`
`as against all parties that are so related to claims in this action within the original jurisdiction of
`
`this court that are formed as part of the same case or controversy.
`
`5.
`
`Pursuant to New York State Executive Law § 298-a, the provisions of the NYS
`
`Human Rights Law shall apply to acts committed outside of New York state against a resident of
`
`New York state since such acts would constitute unlawful discriminatory practice if committed
`
`within New York state.
`
`6.
`
`Venue herein is proper for the United States District Court for the Southern District
`
`of New York pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1391, because Defendants reside in this judicial district and
`
`is subject to this Honorable Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this civil action in
`
`question.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
`Within the time prescribed by law, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with
`
`7.
`
`the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging violations of federal law
`
`including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1981, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code §§ 12900,
`
`12940-12941, et seq, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1201 et seq.,
`
`annexed hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 24
`
`8.
`
`The EEOC subsequently issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue, received on or
`
`around July 26, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
`
`9.
`
`On or around October 22, 2021, a copy of this Complaint was mailed to the New
`
`York State Division of Human Rights, the New York State Department of Labor, and the Attorney
`
`General Office thereby satisfying the notice requirements of the New York State Human Rights
`
`Law and N.Y. Civ. Rights § 40-d.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues and
`
`claims set forth in this Complaint.
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff: Plaintiff BIRITTIERI is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint
`
`was, a resident of the State of New York.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant WHOLE FOODS was and still is a foreign corporation authorized to
`
`do business in the States of New York and Connecticut and the United States government.
`
`Defendant’s place of business where the following causes of action took place, was and is, in New
`
`York State and the State of Connecticut.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant MARKET is authorized to do business in the States of New York and
`
`Connecticut.
`
`14.
`
`The Defendants, and its agents, compelled, coerced, aided, and/or abetted the
`
`discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which conduct is prohibited
`
`under federal law including, but not limited to, (a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
`
`U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and its Amendments (“Title VII”); (b) the Americans with Disabilities
`
`Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1201 et seq., and (c) the New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq. (“NYS
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 24
`
`Human Rights Law”).
`
`15.
`
`The Defendants, and its agents, were responsible for the events and damages
`
`alleged herein, including on the following bases: (a) Defendants, and its agents, committed the
`
`acts alleged; (b) at all relevant times, Defendants, and its agents, was the agent or employee,
`
`and/or acted under the control or supervision, of Defendants, and its agents, and, in committing
`
`the acts alleged, acted within the course and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or
`
`are otherwise liable for Plaintiff’s damages; (c) at all relevant times, there existed a unity of
`
`ownership and interest between or among Defendants, and its agent, such that any individuality
`
`and separateness between or among those Defendants, and its agents, has ceased, and Defendants,
`
`and its agents, are the alter egos of one another. Defendants, and its agents, exercised domination
`
`and control over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of
`
`Defendants, and its agents, does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence
`
`to the fiction of the separate existence of Defendants, and its agents, would permit abuse of the
`
`corporate privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice. All actions of Defendants,
`
`and its agents, were taken by employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during
`
`employment with Defendants, were taken on behalf of Defendants, and its agents, and were
`
`engaged in, authorized, ratified, and approved of by Defendants.
`
`16. WHOLE FOODS and MARKET, and its agents, both directly and indirectly
`
`employed Plaintiff as defined by federal law including, but not limited to, (a) Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and its Amendments (“Title VII”); (b) the
`
`Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1201 et seq., and (c) the New York State Executive
`
`Law § 296 et seq. (“NYS Human Rights Law”).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 24
`
`17.
`
`In addition, WHOLE FOODS and MARKET, and its agents, compelled, coerced,
`
`aided, and abetted the retaliation and discrimination, which is prohibited under federal law
`
`including, but not limited to, (a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et
`
`seq., and its Amendments (“Title VII”); (b) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §
`
`1201 et seq., and (c) the New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq. (“NYS Human Rights Law”).
`
`18.
`
`Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendants, and its agents, acted
`
`as agents of each other in committing the acts alleged herein.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff’s hiring: Plaintiff BIRITTIERI was a dedicated employee of WHOLE
`
`FOODS and MARKET from March 15, 2019, until his termination on September 28, 2020.
`
`Plaintiff was a full-time pizza maker at the time of his termination.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff’s job performance: Plaintiff BIRITTIERI was regarded a strong worker
`
`at Whole Foods Market, located at 90 E Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, CT 06830, as Plaintiff
`
`earned a full-time position after starting in a part-time role. Plaintiff was told by his supervisors
`
`that he was doing a great job and had a future within the company.
`
`21.
`
`Shortly after being hired by WHOLE FOODS and MARKET, Bibany (last name
`
`unknown), manager, gave Plaintiff a pat on the back and told him he was doing great. Ian (last
`
`name unknown), supervisor, told Plaintiff that he can see Plaintiff moving forward at WHOLE
`
`FOODS and MARKET.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff’s protected status and activity: Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination
`
`based on, among other things, his disabilities and age.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 24
`
`23.
`
` Defendants’ adverse employment actions and behavior: Shortly after hiring,
`
`MARKET became understaffed and Plaintiff was left to handle the closing responsibilities that
`
`were originally carried out by seven (7) employees.
`
`24. While short staffed, Bibany notified Plaintiff that he could start cleaning 5 minutes
`
`to 9:00pm, which is when he ended his shift. Plaintiff sometimes started earlier and would be
`
`threatened by Bibany to receive a write-up.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff was advised that he was not allowed to clock out anytime after 10:30pm
`
`because they did not want to pay Plaintiff overtime.
`
`26.
`
`To avoid getting written up, Plaintiff would punch out early and go back and finish
`
`cleaning.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff did not receive any raises during his tenure with WHOLE FOODS and
`
`MARKET, despite making several requests.
`
`28.
`
`In July 2019, Plaintiff put his coffee cup down to help getting the food out on time.
`
`Bibany came up to the staff at the Market and asked, “who’s cup is that” and made a commotion
`
`over it, even though she saw me put it down.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, Bibany was singling Plaintiff out because other co-
`
`workers would always have stuff laying around.
`
`30.
`
`In October of 2019, Plaintiff was verbally reprimanded for using the organic
`
`cutting machine on non-organic products.
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, other employees would use the organic machine to
`
`cut non-organic items during busy times at the market.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff dealt with chronic knee issues, high blood pressure, spinal stenosis, and a
`
`workplace injury during his tenure with WHOLE FOODS and MARKET.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 24
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff advised his supervisor (Ian) and co-workers that he needed a double-knee
`
`replacement and of his other disabilities.
`
`34.
`
`On multiple occasions, Plaintiff notified Ian that he was unable to work night shifts
`
`because of complications with his knees.
`
`35.
`
`Ian repeatedly told Plaintiff that, due to the short staff, Plaintiff needed to come in
`
`and work the night shifts.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff suffered from several disabilities (high blood pressure, knee issues, spinal
`
`stenosis, and his workplace injury in 2020).
`
`37.
`
`Following Plaintiff’s request to provide a doctor’s note for nights off, Ian advised
`
`Plaintiff that, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you.”
`
`38.
`
`In May 2020, Plaintiff’s wife passed away. Plaintiff requested to take time off to
`
`attend the funeral mass and Plaintiff received a verbal approval from Ian to take the leave.
`
`39.
`
`On the day of the mass, Plaintiff was advised that he needed to log his day off in
`
`the company portal, but Plaintiff was never shown how to do that. Plaintiff then paid a co-worker
`
`to show him how to use the system.
`
`40.
`
`Following the death of Plaintiff’s wife, Plaintiff was asked by Bibany why he was
`
`not wearing his boots. Plaintiff advised Bibany that his boots were wet, and the slip-ons did not
`
`fit him.
`
`41.
`
`During this day, Plaintiff observed four other employees not wearing the proper
`
`shoes.
`
`42.
`
`As Plaintiff was walking back to the charcuterie station, Bibany asked Plaintiff
`
`why he was upset, and Plaintiff advised her that he was upset about his wife. Bibany responded,
`
`“Well isn’t she dead?”
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 8 of 24
`
`43.
`
`Later in May 2020, Plaintiff took a personal call with his daughter who was
`
`experiencing an anxiety attack related to her mother’s death.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Ian threatened Plaintiff with a write-up for taking the call.
`
`In July 2020, Plaintiff accompanied his daughter to the emergency room for a cyst
`
`located on her ovary.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff was given permission from Ian to accompany his daughter to the hospital.
`
`However, upon returning to work, Plaintiff was issued a warning for being late.
`
`Plaintiff attempted to provide a doctor’s note, but it was not accepted by Ian.
`
`In September 2020, Plaintiff injured his back while cleaning kitchen equipment.
`
`Plaintiff was cleaning underneath the stove and hurt his back bending over to reach the floor.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff went to the doctor’s office and obtained a note advising Defendants that
`
`Plaintiff should take a week off from work.
`
`51.
`
`The doctor’s note stated that Plaintiff should take a week off from work and then
`
`return to work with restrictions on physical labor.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff was forced to return to work four days later with no accommodations or
`
`adjustments to Plaintiff’s schedule.
`
`53.
`
`On several occasions, Plaintiff was a witness to unsanitary conditions at the
`
`Market.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff witnessed molded and expired vegetables being served to customers and
`
`molded food in the charcuterie area of the Market.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`After attempting to remedy the situation, Plaintiff was told not to worry about it.
`
`Plaintiff complained multiple times about employees not wearing safety gloves
`
`because they could get injured.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 9 of 24
`
`57.
`
`In September 2020, during an employee review session, Plaintiff was told that he
`
`had to write positive reviews about his peers, or he would be let go.
`
`58.
`
`In fear of losing his job, Plaintiff gave everyone at MARKET positive peer
`
`reviews.
`
`59.
`
`Prior to Plaintiff’s termination, Plaintiff noticed a trend in hiring younger and more
`
`able employees.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was replaced with a younger and more able
`
`employee.
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, during Plaintiff’s tenure, African American
`
`employees were receiving preferential treatment by supervisor Collin (last name unknown), as
`
`they would get scheduling preference over Plaintiff.
`
`62.
`
`Several times, Plaintiff told Collin and Ian that he needed Sundays off to go to
`
`church. These requests were continuously denied throughout Plaintiff’s tenure.
`
`63.
`
`Termination of Plaintiff’s Employment: During the Plaintiff’s last week of work,
`
`he was not supposed to be working because of the doctor’s note he received. On September 27,
`
`2020, Ian called Plaintiff and told him he was supposed to be working. Plaintiff was not scheduled
`
`to work. Plaintiff was told to call Collin.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff called multiple times asking to speak with the store manager. Finally,
`
`Collin picked up and notified Plaintiff that he was terminated by Defendants. Plaintiff asked
`
`Collin what he meant, and Collin told him that he was separated from Defendants and to not come
`
`back to work. Collin hung up the phone.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`There was no reason provided for Plaintiff’s termination.
`
`Plaintiff received his final pay on September 30, 2020.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 10 of 24
`
`67.
`
`Immediately following Plaintiff’s workplace injury, Plaintiff was terminated
`
`without any accommodations and offered no cooperative dialog or engagement concerning his
`
`disabilities.
`
`68.
`
`Economic damages: As a consequence of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment benefits,
`
`damage to his career, and lost wages, overtime, unpaid expenses, and penalties, as well as interest
`
`on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which those wages should have
`
`been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial.
`
`69.
`
`Non-economic damages: As a consequence of Defedants’ conduct, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered and will suffer psychological and emotional distress, humiliation, and mental and
`
`physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial.
`
`70.
`
`Punitive damages: The conduct of Defendants’ was outrageous and malicious,
`
`was intended to injure Plaintiff, and was done with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected
`
`civil rights, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages under Federal Law. In addition,
`
`Defendant’s conduct constitutes malicious, willful, wanton and/or reckless indifference to
`
`Plaintiff’s protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants under State
`
`Law.
`
`71.
`
`Attorneys’ fees: Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 11 of 24
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990 and its Amendments, 42
`U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. for Discrimination Based on Plaintiff’s Disabilities; Failure to
`Provide Reasonable Accommodations – Against all Defendants
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and
`
`72.
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`73.
`
`At all times herein mentioned, the ADA and its amendments, were in full force
`
`and effect and was binding on Defendants. This law, and corresponding regulations, prohibit
`
`disability discrimination and requires Defendants to provide reasonable accommodations to
`
`employees who they know are disabled.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff’s high blood pressure, knee issues, workplace injury, and spinal stenosis
`
`constitute disabilities within the meaning of the ADA.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff, at all times relevant, was able to perform in a reasonable manner the
`
`activities involved in his job upon the provision of reasonable accommodations. For example,
`
`employees in the same position as Plaintiff, who did not have a disability, were granted preferential
`
`treatment regarding the night shift. Requiring Plaintiff to work the night shift was thus a
`
`reasonable accommodation available to Defendants that would not create an undue burden on
`
`WHOLE FOODS and MARKET.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants wholly failed to attempt any reasonable accommodation of Plaintiff’s
`
`known disabilities. Instead, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment based on his
`
`disabilities, request for disability leave, and retaliated against Plaintiff for seeking to exercise rights
`
`guaranteed under the ADA and its amendments and/or opposing Defendants’ failure to provide
`
`such rights, including rights of reasonable accommodation, leave rights, intermittent leave rights,
`
`and/or the right to be free of discrimination, in violation of the ADA and its amendments.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 12 of 24
`
`77.
`
`Under the ADA, after Plaintiff requested accommodation, Defendants were
`
`obligated to engage in a good faith interactive process with Plaintiff in order to address and
`
`accommodate his disabilities, including a duty to investigate a feasible accommodation for
`
`Plaintiff’s disabilities.
`
`78.
`
`At all times relevant, Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s disabilities yet never initiated
`
`the required interactive, individualized process. Instead, Defendants’ denied Plaintiff’s request for
`
`reasonable accommodation and discriminated against Plaintiff for informing Defendants of his
`
`disabilities and requesting accommodation from his employer. Plaintiff believes, and on that basis
`
`alleges, that his disabilities, the need to accommodate those disabilities, and his request for
`
`accommodations were substantial motivating factors in Defendants’ termination of his
`
`employment.
`
`79.
`
`As a proximate result of Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiff based on his
`
`disabilities, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses, including the loss of
`
`past and future earnings and employment benefits together with attorneys’ fees and expenses.
`
`80.
`
`As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
`
`continues to suffer impairment and damage to Plaintiff’s good name and reputation by Defendants.
`
`81.
`
`As a further proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
`
`continues to suffer severe and lasting embarrassment, humiliation and anguish, and other
`
`incidental and consequential damages and expenses.
`
`82.
`
`The conduct of Defendants was willful, outrageous, malicious, intended to injure
`
`Plaintiff, and was done with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected civil rights and the
`
`requirements of federal law, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 13 of 24
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990 and its Amendments, 42
`U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. for Retaliation Against Plaintiff for Requesting Accommodation of
`His Disabilities – Against all Defendants
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`83.
`
`herein by reference.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in the protected activity of requesting accommodation for his
`
`disabilities, specifically by 1) informing his supervisors at WHOLE FOODS and MARKET that
`
`he could not work nights, 2) attempting to provide a doctor’s note to Defendants regarding his
`
`disabilities, and 3) providing a doctor’s note following his workplace injury in September 2020.
`
`85.
`
`Defendants was alerted of Plaintiff’s requests for reasonable accommodation and
`
`Plaintiff was terminated from his employment because Defendants retaliated against him.
`
`86.
`
`As a proximate result of Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses, including the loss of past and future earnings
`
`and employment benefits together with attorneys’ fees and expenses.
`
`87.
`
`As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation
`
`against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and
`
`physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including expert costs) in an
`
`amount according to proof.
`
`89.
`
`Defendants’ conduct constitutes malicious, willful, wanton, and/or reckless
`
`indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights, and this entitles Plaintiff to punitive damages against
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 14 of 24
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of New York State Human Rights Law for Disability Discrimination – Against all
`Defendants
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`90.
`
`herein by reference.
`
`91.
`
`The New York Executive Law §296(1)(a) provides that: “It shall be an unlawful
`
`discriminatory practice for an employer or licensed agency, because of the age, race, creed, color,
`
`national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic
`
`characteristics, marital status, or domestic violence victim status, to refuse or hire or employ or to
`
`bar or to discharge from employment such individual in compensation or in terms, condition or
`
`privileges of employment.”
`
`92.
`
`Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated the New York State Human Rights Law,
`
`including but not limited to, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. Defendants committed unlawful employment
`
`practices, including but not limited to, the following bases for liability:
`
`• Taking adverse employment actions against Plaintiff such as discharging, barring, refusing
`to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise discriminating against
`Plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of Plaintiff’s disabilities and/or other good faith
`complaints in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, including but not
`limited to, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; Failing to engage plaintiff in a good faith interactive
`process regarding his request for accommodation in violation of the New York State
`Human Rights Law, including but not limited to, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296;
`
`• Harassing Plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment in whole or in part on the
`basis of Plaintiff’s disabilities and/or good faith complaints in violation of the New York
`State Human Rights Law, including but not limited to, N.Y. Exec. Law §296;
`
`• Failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation
`based on Plaintiff’s disabilities and/or other good faith complaints, and/or other protected
`characteristic or activity
`
`• Plaintiff’s disabilities, and/or good faith complaints protected by the New York State
`Human Rights Law, including but not limited to, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, were motivating
`factors in Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, not to retain, hire, or
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 15 of 24
`
`otherwise employ Plaintiff in any position, and/or to take other adverse job actions against
`Plaintiff.
`
`93.
`
`Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated the New York Civil Rights Law,
`
`
`
`including but not limited to, N.Y. Civ. Rights § 40-c by subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination in
`
`his civil rights and/or to harassment.
`
`94.
`
`As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional
`
`discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses
`
`of earnings and other employment benefits.
`
`95.
`
`As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional
`
`discrimination against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation,
`
`emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according
`
`to proof.
`
`96.
`
`Defendants’ conduct constitutes malicious, willful, wanton and/or reckless
`
`indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against
`
`Defendants.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of New York State Human Rights Law for Failure to Provide Reasonable
`Accommodations to Known Disability – Against all Defendants
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`97.
`
`herein by reference.
`
`98.
`
`The New York Executive Law §296(3)(a) provides that: “It shall be an unlawful
`
`discriminatory practice for an employer . . . to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations to the
`
`known disabilities, or pregnancy-related conditions, of an employee, prospective employee or
`
`member in connection with a job or occupation sought or held or participation in a training
`
`program.”
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 16 of 24
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiff’s high blood pressure, knee issues, workplace injury, and spinal stenosis
`
`constitute disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law.
`
`100. Defendants had notice of the disabilities, both at the time of Plaintiff’s hiring, and
`
`through Plaintiff’s repeated requests for accommodation of his disabilities.
`
`101. Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his position at WHOLE FOODS
`
`and MARKET with the requested accommodations.
`
`102. Defendants refused to make such accommodations.
`
`103. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated the New York State Human Rights Law,
`
`including but not limited to, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(3)(a).
`
`104. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional failure to
`
`provide reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial
`
`losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
`
`105. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional failure to
`
`provide reasonable accommodations, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation,
`
`emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according
`
`to proof.
`
`106. Defendants’ conduct constitutes malicious, willful, wanton and/or reckless
`
`indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against
`
`Defendants.
`
`///
`///
`///
`///
`///
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 17 of 24
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of New York State Human Rights Law for Retaliation for Requesting Reasonable
`Accommodation – Against all Defendants
`
`
`
`107. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`108. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated the New York State Human Rights Law,
`
`specifically N.Y. Exec. Law sections 296(1)(e) and 296(7), and Defendants committed unlawful
`
`employment practices, including by the following, separate bases for liability: retaliating against
`
`Plaintiff, including by reprimanding him for clocking out to avoid having to pay him overtime, to
`
`reprimand him for being late when he notified his supervisors, for writing up Plaintiff, for forcing
`
`Plaintiff to come back to work despite doctor’s order, and ultimately terminating his employment
`
`for seeking to exercise rights guaranteed under the New York State Human Rights Law and/or
`
`for opposing Defendants’ failure to provide such rights, including the right to be free from
`
`discrimination and harassment based on disabilities, and the right to engage in the interactive
`
`process, in violation of New York State Human Rights Law sections 296(1)(e) and 296(7).
`
`109. Plaintiff engaged in the protected activity under the NYSHRL of opposing
`
`WHOLE FOODS and MARKET’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation for his
`
`disabilities, specifically by repeatedly asking for reasonable accommodations and complaining to
`
`management.
`
`110. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional
`
`discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain
`
`substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
`
`111. As a proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional
`
`discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Case 7:21-cv-08703 Document 1 Filed 10/22/21 Page 18 of 24
`
`humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum
`
`according to proof.
`
`112. Defendants’ conduct constitutes malicious, willful, wanton and/or reckless
`
`indifference to Plaintiff protected rights, entitling plaintiff to compensatory damages against
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and its
`Amendments for Age/Disability Discrimination – Against all Defendants
`
`113. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged and incorpo-
`
`rated herein by reference.
`
`114. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, violated Title VII, U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq and
`
`its Amendments. Defendants committed unlawful employment practices, including by the
`
`following bases for liability:
`
`• Taking adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, such as discharging, barring,
`refusing to transfer, retain, hire, select, and/or employ, and/or otherwise discriminating
`against Plaintiff, in whole or in part on the basis of Plaintiff’s age/disability in violation
`of Title VII, U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq and its Amendments;
`
`• Plaintiff’s age/disability was a motivating factor in, among other things, Defendants’
`decision to ignore Plaintiff’s good faith complaints about discrimination, providing
`unjustified performance reviews, harassing Plaintiff, overworking Plaintiff, terminating
`Plaintiff, and/or otherwise discriminating against Plaintiff, in whole or in part based on
`Plaintiff’s age/disability.
`
`115. As a pro