FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No:
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------------X
`ALLISON EDWARDS,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` -against-
`
`FOUNDERS TABLE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC,
`and DOS TOROS HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`-------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`
`ALLISON EDWARDS (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Edwards”), by her attorneys, JOSEPH &
`
`
`
`NORINSBERG, LLC, complaining of the FOUNDERS TABLE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC,
`
`and DOS TOROS HOLDINGS, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), alleges upon knowledge as to
`
`her own actions, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF CASE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action based upon violations by the Defendants of one or more of
`
`Plaintiff’s rights under federal and state law, including but not limited to, the following unlawful
`
`acts: (i) violation of the Equal Benefit Clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”); (ii) illegal
`
`racial discrimination and unlawful retaliation in violation of the New York State Human Rights
`
`Law (“NYSHRL”) and Exec. L. § 296 et seq., and Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City
`
`of New York, also known as the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”); and (iii) any
`
`other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as for
`
`monetary damages, brought by Plaintiff seeking vindication for Defendants’ blatant violations of
`
`1
`
`1 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`Plaintiff’s civil rights pursuant to federal, state, and municipal law protecting the rights of
`
`employees in the workplace.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`3.
`
`Ms. Edwards is a black female who worked for Defendants and subjected to pervasive
`
`racial discrimination and a hostile work environment. Ms. Edwards was called a “nigger” (“n-word”)
`
`on multiple occasion by co-workers. Despite lodging a formal complaint, Defendant did nothing to
`
`stop it, and even defended one of the employees, who called Ms. Edwards this appalling racial epithet.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, and
`
`venue is proper pursuant to CPLR § 503. The Court also has jurisdiction under the New York
`
`Constitution, Art. VI, § 7, and New York Judiciary Law § 140-b.
`
`COVID-19 Tolling Provisions Under New York Law
`
`5.
`
`In an effort to stem the spread of COVID-19, Governor Cuomo issued Executive
`
`Order 202.8, which tolled for thirty (30) days “any specific time limit[s] for the commencement,
`
`filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion or other process or proceeding” under any New
`
`York State laws or court procedural rules. The thirty (30)-day tolling period began on March 20,
`
`2020 and continued until April 19, 2020. Thereafter, on April 7, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed
`
`Executive Order 202.14, which extended the tolling period to May 7, 2020. Subsequently, on May
`
`7, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.28, tolling all statutes of limitations for an
`
`additional thirty (30) days through June 6, 2020. On June 6, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued
`
`Executive Order 202.38, tolling all statutes of limitations until July 6, 2020. On July 7, 2020,
`
`Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.48 tolling all statutes of limitations until August 5,
`
`2020. On August 5, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.55, which tolled all
`
`statutes of limitations until September 4, 2020. On September 4, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed
`
`2
`
`2 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`Executive Order 202.60, which extended the tolling period an additional thirty (30) days to
`
`October 4, 2020. On October 4, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.67, which
`
`extended the tolling period to November 3, 2020. In total, the Executive Orders set forth herein
`
`provided for a toll of two hundred and twenty-eight (228) days.
`
`6.
`
`This action is timely filed against all Defendants pursuant to the applicable
`
`Executive Orders signed by Governor Cuomo that tolled the statute of limitations due to the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`7.
`
`This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as outlined in C.P.L.R. §
`
`1602.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues in this matter.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`At all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff Allision Edwards, is a black
`
`female, residing in the County of Rockland, in the State of New York.
`
`10.
`
`At all relevant times herein, Defendant FOUNDERS TABLE RESTAURANT
`
`GROUP is a domestic business corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`New York, with a principal place of business located at 853 Broadway Suite 606, New York, New
`
`York 10003, in the County, City and State of New York. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff
`
`worked for Defendant at its restaurant located in 2911 Broadway New York, New York 10025.
`
`11.
`
`At all relevant times herein, Defendant DOS TOROS is a domestic business
`
`corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place
`
`of business located at 853 Broadway Suite 606, New York, New York 10003, in the County, City
`
`and State of New York.
`
`3
`
`3 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`12.
`
`DOS TOROS is a fast casual taqueria, much like its larger competitor, Chipotle.1
`
`At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff worked at the DOS TOROS located in 2911 Broadway New
`
`York, New York 10025.
`
`13.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was and is a “person” and an “employee”
`
`within the meaning of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.
`
`14.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Defendants was and are an “employer” within the
`
`meaning of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL and employed four or more “employees” within the
`
`meaning of the NYCHRL.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`Assistant Manager Uses “N-Word” and Fails to Discipline a subordinate For Same
`
`15.
`
`In January 2020, Plaintiff was hired as an employee for Dos Toros’ 2911 Broadway
`
`restaurant.
`
`16.
`
`At the start of her employment Plaintiff noticed that her similarly situated non-black
`
`co-workers would frequently use the “n-word” without consequence. Even more shocking, it was
`
`supervisors who also were using this type of language.
`
`17.
`
`Assistant manager Stephanie Batista (“Ms. Batista”), non-black employee, would
`
`frequently use the “n-word” when speaking to her subordinates, including Plaintiff.
`
`18.
`
`Justin Lebron (“Mr. Lebron”), a co-worker of Ms. Edwards, would also frequently
`
`use the word during conversation.
`
`19.
`
`On or about February 15, 2020, while closing the store with Mr. Lebron, Plaintiff
`
`specifically asked him to stop using the racial slur.
`
`
`1 https://www.dostoros.com/, last accessed March 10, 2023.
`4
`
`4 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`20. Ms. Batista, who was the store supervisor at the time, laughed at Plaintiff’s
`
`complaint, and sarcastically told Mr. Lebron “yeah, that’s racist!,” before they both started
`
`laughing. Ms. Batista made zero attempt to discipline Mr. Lebron or even discourage him from
`
`using the n-word.
`
`Co-Workers Continue to Make Racist Jokes to Plaintiff.
`
`21.
`
`In late February 2020, Aries Rodriguez (“Mr. Rodriguez”) a non-black colleague
`
`of Plaintiff, told racist jokes to crew members. Plaintiff overheard Mr. Rodriguez tell Luis Nery
`
`the following racist joke: “How do Chinese people pick their child’s name? They throw pots and
`
`pans down the stairs and whatever sound it makes is the name of the child. Ching Chong. Ding
`
`Dong.”
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff complained to Mr. Rodriguez that racist jokes were not funny. In response,
`
`Mr. Rodriguez spewed another racist joke to Plaintiff about black people: “When you see a black
`
`guy riding a bike, what kind of bike is it? A dirt bike because black skin is like dirt.” Plaintiff
`
`was disgusted and brought to tears.
`
`23.
`
`A few days later, Lisbett Calderon (“Ms. Calderon”), another co-worker of
`
`Plaintiff, was washing dishes when some black soot got on her arm. Ms. Calderon showed Plaintiff
`
`her arm, and said to her “[l]ook, I am morenita2 now.” Plaintiff said nothing at this shocking
`
`display of racism.
`
`24.
`
`In response, Ms. Calderon again made the same racist joke, and this time began to
`
`laugh. Plaintiff was horrified and attempted to continue working.
`
`25.
`
`As a result of the aforementioned incidents, Plaintiff complained to her manager,
`
`Sun Youn (“Youn”), about pervasive racism and hostile work environment she was experiencing.
`
`
`2 Morenita is slang for dark-skinned Latino. https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/la%20morenita, last accessed
`December 16, 2022.
`
`5
`
`5 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`Co-worker Calls Plaintiff The “N-Word” To Her Face
`
`26.
`
`On February 28, 2020, Sai Thiha (“Thiha”), a co-worker called Plaintiff the “n-
`
`word” to her face, in the front of her co-workers and customers.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff immediately texted a written complaint to Youn. (Ex. A, text exchange
`
`between plaintiff and Sun Youn, dated February 28, 2020) (“I know you said you were going to
`
`put an end to all the racist antics happening at the store, but whatever you’re doing is not working.
`
`Sai just called me a nigga multiple times in the front of the store.”) (emphasis added).
`
`28.
`
`In response, Youn defended Thiha, telling Plaintiff that “[he] spoke to Sai. He
`
`honestly did not mean to offend you. English is not his first language and he just knew the word
`
`as slang...He heard it in rap song and did not think about what was coming out of his mouth.” (Id.).
`
`Thiha was not disciplined whatsoever as a result calling Plaintiff the “n-word”.
`
`Mr. Rodriguez Calls Plaintiff the “N-Word” In Front of District Manager Matthew Nehrenz,
`Forcing Plaintiff to Resign.
`
`
`On March 1, 2020, Mr. Rodriguez was on his personal cellphone, yelling at
`
`29.
`
`someone and repeatedly using the “n-word,” directly in the presence of Plaintiff and district
`
`manager Matthew Nehrenz (“Nehrenz”).
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff confronted Mr. Rodriguez about his use of racial epithets, and the racist
`
`jokes in the presence of Mr. Nehrenz. In this conversation, Mr. Rodriguez admitted to Nehrenz
`
`that he used the word.
`
`31.
`
`Nevertheless, Nehrenz refused to take any immediate action, and told Plaintiff
`
`Defendants would “investigate” and “take steps from there.”
`
`32.
`
`Due to the ongoing hostile work environment and Defendant’s failure to address
`
`the relentless and never-ending discrimination, plaintiff was left with no choice but to resign after
`
`Nehrenz refused to discipline Mr. Rodriguez.
`
`6
`
`6 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`FIRST CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`(Racial Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981)
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each allegation set forth above with the
`
`same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`34.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits discrimination and retaliation in the terms, conditions,
`
`and privileges of employment because of an individual’s race.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants, as described above, discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in
`
`violation of the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by making material decisions regarding Plaintiff’s employment
`
`such as allowing its employees to use the N-word, despite Plaintiff’s multiple complaints.
`
`36.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory
`
`conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary
`
`and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of future income, compensation and
`
`benefits for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
`
`37.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory
`
`conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer to this day,
`
`severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression,
`
`humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, emotional
`
`pain and suffering, and lost earnings, for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages
`
`and other relief.
`
`SECOND CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`(Racial Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the NYSHRL)
`
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges every allegation set forth above with the
`
`38.
`
`same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`39.
`
`The NYSHRL prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of
`
`employment based on an individual’s race.
`
`7
`
`7 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`40.
`
`Defendants, as described above, discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the
`
`NYSHRL by permitting a persistent, widespread and long-term practice of racial discrimination
`
`and use of racially pejorative terms against Plaintiff during the course of her employment.
`
`41.
`
`By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the New York State Human Rights Law, in that Plaintiff was disparately treated based on
`
`her racial affiliation.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants acted intentionally with malice, or with reckless disregard for
`
`Plaintiff’s rights, proximately causing Plaintiff mental anguish, pain and suffering, emotional
`
`distress, severe mental anguish, and the loss of income and other related benefits, thereby entitling
`
`Plaintiff to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
`
`THIRD CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`(Retaliation in Violation of the NYSHRL)
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges every allegation set forth above with the
`
`same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`44.
`
`The NYSHRL prohibits retaliation by any person against any individual who in
`
`good faith complains about discriminatory practices to which he/she has been subjected.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff is an “employee” within the meaning of the NYSHRL, while Defendants
`
`are “employers” under the NYSHRL.
`
`46.
`
`As described above, the Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the
`
`NYSHRL when Plaintiff, in good faith, voiced her opposition to Defendants’ unlawful labor
`
`practices and discriminatory practices based on race.
`
`47.
`
`By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the New York State Human Rights Law in that Plaintiff was retaliated against for opposing
`
`discriminatory practices by Defendants.
`
`8
`
`8 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`48.
`
`Defendants acted intentionally, with malice or with reckless disregard for
`
`Plaintiff’s rights, proximately causing plaintiff mental anguish, pain and suffering, emotional
`
`distress, and the loss of income and other related benefits, thereby entitling plaintiff to an award
`
`of monetary damages and other relief.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`(Racial Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the NYCHRL)
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges every allegation set forth above with the
`
`same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of
`
`employment based on an individual’s race.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants, as described above, discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the
`
`NYCHRL by permitting racial discrimination during Plaintiff’s employment.
`
`52.
`
`By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the New York City Human Rights Law in that Plaintiff was disparately treated based on
`
`racial affiliation.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants acted intentionally with malice, or with reckless disregard for
`
`Plaintiff’s rights, proximately causing Plaintiff mental anguish, pain and suffering, emotional
`
`distress, severe mental anguish, and the loss of income and other related benefits, thereby entitling
`
`Plaintiff to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
`(Retaliation in Violation of the NYCHRL)
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges every allegation set forth above with the
`
`same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation by any person against any individual who in
`
`good faith complains about discriminatory practices to which he/she has been subjected.
`
`9
`
`9 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2023 12:16 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. 152416/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2023
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff is an “employee” within the meaning of the NYCHRL, while Defendants
`
`are “employers” under the NYCHRL.
`
`57.
`
`As described above, the Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the
`
`NYCHRL when Plaintiff, in good faith, voiced his opposition to Defendants’ unlawful labor
`
`practices and discriminatory practices based on race.
`
`58.
`
`By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the New York City Human Rights Law in that Plaintiff was retaliated against for opposing
`
`discriminatory practices by Defendants.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants acted intentionally, with malice or with reckless disregard for
`
`Plaintiff’s rights, proximately causing plaintiff mental anguish, pain and suffering, emotional
`
`distress, and the loss of income and other related benefits, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award
`
`of monetary damages and other relief.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Defendants and their officers,
`
`owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in
`
`concert with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and
`
`usages set forth herein;
`
`b.
`
`A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in
`
`violation of the laws of the United States, New York State and New York City;
`
`c.
`
`An order restraining Defendants from any retaliation against Plaintiff in any form
`
`for her participation in this litigation;
`
`d.
`
`An award for all monetary damages which Plaintiff has sustained as a result of the
`
`Defendants’ conduct, including back pay, front pay, general a