Case 1:21-cv-01334-MSN-IDD Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 5
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Firm:52388866v1
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Firm:52388866v1
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`V I R G I N I A:
`
`~,~i,
`'•f ;~
`
`w• ,~' 3
`v ~~
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
`
`.. .
`~
`
`r
`C/,r~ ' ,~
`
`f.• ~
`
`MARGOT SILVA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
`INCORPORATED, d/b/a
`QUEST DIAGNOSTICS,
`
`®
`q
`
`2021 2
`e
`
` 00544
`
`
`/
`
`)
`)
`) Case No.
`)
`)
`)
`) COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND
`A Maryland Stock Corporation )
`)
`Authorized to Transact
`Bus.iness in Virginia
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMBLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`COMES NOW your Plaintiff, MARGOT SILVA, by and through
`
`her undersigned counsel, and hereby moves for entry of a
`
`judgment for certain legal and equitable relief against the
`
`Defendant, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and as grounds
`
`therefor respectfully represents as follows.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`1. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant
`
`pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-513, and 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b)
`
`and (c), and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which authorize an
`
`aggrieved person to file a complaint for relief under the
`
`Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), in a state or
`
`federal court of otherwise competent jurisdiction.
`
`2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Va.
`
`Code § 8.01-262(3), as a substantial porti.on of the
`
`1
`
`
`
`•
`
`LJ
`
`material events, acts and omissions giving rise to the
`
`claims herein occurred in Fairfax County, Plaintiff was
`
`employed by the Defendant in Fairfax County, and the
`
`records and documents relating to Plaintiff's employment
`
`with Defendant are believed to be found in Fairfax County,
`
`and the witnesses with knowledge related to this action are
`
`believed to be found in and around, Fairfax County,
`
`Virginia.
`
`3. At all relevant times herein, Mrs. Silva was and
`
`is an adult female resident and domiciliary of Chantilly,
`
`Virginia. Mrs. Silva is currently 59 years of age. From
`
`on or about November of 2015 until September 18, 2017, Mrs.
`
`Silva was immediately re-employed by the Defendant, having
`
`also been employed continuously prior to that, for some
`
`sixteen years, by Defendant's corporate predecessor-in-
`
`interest, American Medical Laboratories.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, Defendant QUEST
`
`DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED is a stock corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of Maryland, possessing a valid
`
`certificate of authority to do business in Virginia, and
`
`which during the relevant periods herein, did business, and
`
`does business, under the trade name "Quest Diagnostics" at,
`
`2
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`among other locations, facilities located at 14225 Newbrook
`
`Drive, Chantilly, VA 20151.
`
`S.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant QUEST
`
`DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED is an entity among several
`
`different, related, corporate entity shells, which entities
`
`are, upon information and belief, a common, unified
`
`enterprise, sharing use of the trade name "Quest
`
`Diagnostics."
`
`Operative Facts
`
`6. Upon information and belief, at all relevant
`
`times herein, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated had an annual
`
`gross volume of sales or business done of $750,000.00 or
`
`more.
`
`7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Quest
`
`Diagnostics Incorporated was Plaintiff's employer, for
`
`purposes of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
`
`(ADEA) .
`
`8. Quest Diagnostics is an enterprise engaged in
`
`interstate commerce, or engaged in the receipt of, and
`
`production of, goods and services, in interstate commerce,
`
`as those terms are defined in the ADE at all relevant times
`
`herein.
`
`9. At all times referenced herein, Plaintiff
`
`performed the material duties of her positions with
`
`3
`
`.bWY ~•W.SSNaF +..a~l
`
`- •z-wJ
`
`v..a-w.
`
`s
`
`.
`
`rwal.~.w
`
`'
`
`uwry
`
`— a.ussr.vesa+.a
`
`.aa»bto~•
`
`.a.xa.a..a
`
`¤ aan.®az.m~a..u¢.w~..,a.urz
`
`__—~
`
`
`
`Defendants in at least a satisfactory, if not exemplary,
`
`manner.
`
`10. At all times referenced herein, each individual
`
`owner, manager, or supervisory employee of Defendant was
`
`acting with the actual and/or apparent authority to act on
`
`behalf of, that entity.
`
`11. Upon information and belief, Defendant is part of
`
`a multinational, related set of corporations, collectively
`
`known as "Quest Diagnostics," which enterprise employs,
`
`upon information and belief, over 46,000 full-time
`
`employees globally, offering clinical laboratory and
`
`medical testing service for such things as cancer,
`
`cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, neurological
`
`disorders, COVID-19, as well as employment and court-
`
`ordered drug testing, experiencing over $6 billion dollars
`
`per year in revenue per year, during the time periods
`
`relevant to this case.
`
`12. Plaintiff continued her employment with Defendant
`
`as a Medical Technologist in the Virology lab, beginning on
`
`or about May of 2016, having been employed since her date
`
`of re-hire, as as a temporary, full-time worker, in
`
`approximately seven or eight months immediately prior to
`
`that, in the Microbiology Department. Plaintiff had
`
`previously excelled in the Mycology Department. Relatively
`
`4
`
`
`
`speaking, though Plaintiff had previous experience in
`
`virology, the Virology lab, and its functions, were newer
`
`to her. Plaintiff's compensation was stated to be $ 30.00
`
`per hour, and Plaintiff was hired into this position by
`
`Cindy Belaski, the Virologist Supervisor at that time;
`
`Plaintiff is no longer employed by the Defendant.
`
`13. Plaintiff successfully performed in this position
`
`for approximately six months, also improving her virology
`
`culture and laboratory skills, as well as productivity
`
`rate, along the way, as her previous area of emphasis, in
`
`which she had been quite accomplished, was clinical
`
`microbiology, and not clinical virology.
`
`14. On or about the summer of 2016, Paul Villacreces,
`
`believed to be approximately thirty-four years of age,
`
`became Plaintiff's supervisor, assuming the position of
`
`Director of the Virology Lab.
`
`15. Mr. Villacreces seemingly took an immediate
`
`dislike to Silva, as well as to other, older members of the
`
`laboratory team.
`
`16. Villacreces also developed a rapport limited to
`
`younger lab personnel, joining them, and forming a bond
`
`with them, over planned activities, often taking place in
`
`the evenings, which Plaintiff was less able to attend, due
`
`not only to her advanced age, but also as a result of
`
`5
`
`
`
`health issues, and ongoing health issues and
`
`responsibilities relating to her adult son, also attendant
`
`to her age.
`
`Villacreces seemed markedly unsympathetic to
`
`such concerns, and as a result of a closer bond he had
`
`formed with younger members of the lab staff, afforded them
`
`more latitude in general, in connection with their
`
`performance.
`
`17. Villacreces appeared to be unduly and solely
`
`focused on criticizing the productivity and performance of
`
`Silva, while not doing so with other, younger, laboratory
`
`personnel, criticizing Silva's productivity, and lauding
`
`the rapidity of younger co-workers, but not taking into
`
`account the higher error rates in their work.
`
`18. During this period of time, Silva was also
`
`contending with, and needed to assist with the care of, her
`
`adult son, who was, at that time, experi(~ncing severe and
`
`debilitating psychiatric issues.
`
`19. On a few occasions, Plaintiff's need to be
`
`dealing with those items, caused her to be late to a team
`
`meeting or "huddle, or late to work, and Silva explained to
`
`Villacreces that this was due to Silva being needed to
`
`assist with a serious medical condition of her son; this
`
`seemingly made no difference to Villacreces, who considered
`
`such exigent medical c.ircumstances to be categorically
`
`6
`
`
`
`unacceptable, for purposes of Plaintiff's performance, and
`
`did not similarly demand medical documentation for
`
`instances of tardiness or absence from the workplace, of
`
`Plaintiff's younger co-workers, even if the same had been
`
`precipitated by things less weighty than attending to the
`
`needs of a family member with a serious health condition.
`
`20. Peculiarly, Villacreces also prohibited Silva
`
`from leaving the building on Silva's lunch break, and was
`
`variously strict about counseling Silva if she exceeded the
`
`half hour, though not similarly prohibiting Silva's younger
`
`co-workers from either leaving the building, or chiding
`
`them if they took up to an hour, or an hour and a half, for
`
`their lunch breaks.
`
`21. Villacreces also refused to authorize Silva to
`
`work extra hours, or to be paid for extra hours, associated
`
`with a microbiology project which had been assigned to her,
`
`an additional project not undertaken by Silva's coworkers,
`
`incorrectly insisting that Silva should be able to complete
`
`that additional work, during her regular 40 hours per week
`
`of work. Despite this, Silva was still somehow expected to
`
`complete this laborious and time-consuming project.
`
`22. On or about February 5, 2017, Silva was issued a
`
`written warning by Mr. Villacreces, for working late to
`
`process a high volume of flu culture, during a period when
`
`7
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the lab was short-staffed and the work had to be done
`
`timely, being cited for working this overtime, without his
`
`approval.
`
`23. Villacreces did not similarly warn or discipline
`
`one or more younger, female, co-workers, for her working of
`
`overtime, or for that co-worker's alleged failure to
`
`complete the assigned work within an eight-hour period,
`
`particularly during high virus and flu season.
`
`24. Mr, Villacreces also cited Silva for not adhering
`
`to an instructive he has pressed for all viral cultures of
`
`a daily nature, to be prepped and ready by 3:00 p,m. each
`
`day, a practice defendant purported to impose upon the
`
`whole lab staff, but which in reality, defendant went back
`
`and forth on, as a work priority; in particular,
`
`Villacreces was more lenient about adhering to this time
`
`stricture and rule, with Plaintiff's younger co-workers.
`
`25. In the meantime, within the same year of his
`
`becoming the Virology Lab Supervisor, Villacreces had fired
`
`a 10-year veteran Technologist, as well as forcing a
`
`resignation of another Technologist of over 20 years'
`
`service.
`
`26. On or about July 31, 2017, Silva's supervisor,
`
`Mr. Villacreces, issued a final warning to Silva,
`
`involving, among other things, prioritization of work, a
`
`8
`
`
`
`supposed metri.c of work not visited upon, nor second-
`
`guessed, as to any of Plai.ntiff's younger co-workers.
`
`27. On or about August 15, 2017, Silva registered a
`
`complaint regarding the treatment she had been undergoing
`
`from Villacreces for a period of close to a year,
`
`explicitly referencing her belief that she was being
`
`harassed and discriminated against on the basis of age, in
`
`events not visited upon other similarly situated employees
`
`of Defendant, under 40, including being disciplined, warned
`
`and threatened with termination for, among other things:
`
`(a) working over 40 hours per week, (b) attendance and
`
`punctuality, (c) taking a lunch break longer than 30
`
`minutes, (d) going off-premises for lunch,
`
`(e)prioritization of work, use of marking dots on cell
`
`culture plates, (f) volume of work, (g) commendation or
`
`comparison of younger workers for their productivity, but
`
`not factoring in into account the error rate associated
`
`with the performance of that work, and the number of tests
`
`which had to be re-done as a result, otherwise dismissing
`
`errors of younger workers at "a little careless," and (h)
`
`being instructed to have a vision test [on or about June 2,
`
`2017], as a result of an alleged error reading on a given
`
`test result, the existence of which error was questions
`
`and/or not affirmed by one or more others; and (i) a
`
`C
`
`.d.~r.wnn+.w.a.mwnw.~n~
`
`. . w
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`...v~a
`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`.
`
`3
`. ~..~~.~-r.`.....
`
`—
`... .~.~......~......._.....,..
`
`.
`
`.
`
`+
`
`....
`
`..~
`
`--,...~~ -
`
`
`
`disparity in not being afforded training opportunities, as
`
`had taken place with her younger co-workers;
`
`28. Three days later, on August 18, 2017, Villacreces
`
`called Mrs. Silva into a hastily arranged meeting with Dr.
`
`Richard Clark, Clinical Director of Virology, at which
`
`meeting Mr. Villacreces stated he had been made aware that
`
`Plaintiff had complained to human resources, that she was
`
`being singled out and harassed, further stating "if you
`
`feel harassed, you might as well turn in your [premises
`
`access] badge right now," whereupon her access card to the
`
`company work site was taken by him,.Mrs. Silva was escorted
`
`off the premises and terminated, and told not to come back,
`
`even for purposes of collecting her personal belongings,
`
`which had also been left behind.
`
`29. Silva's institution her above-described written
`
`complaint, internal to Quest Diagnostics, about being
`
`harassed, treated, differently, and singled out, on the
`
`basis of her age, was a protected activity under the Age
`
`Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
`
`30. The termination of Silva was a direct and
`
`proximate result of her having lodged the subject
`
`harassment and discrimination complaint with the Quest
`
`office of Human Resources.
`
`10
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`31. As a direct and proximate result of the above
`
`events, as well as her complaint, and the above-described
`
`termination of employment, Plaintiff has suffered lost
`
`wages, lost health insurance, loss of other economic
`
`benefits of employment, and the unlawful circumstances of
`
`her separation from Defendant has compromised her ability
`
`to obtain suitable replacement employment, as a result of
`
`her complaints, as well as the above-described termination
`
`of her employment, in an amount subject to proof at trial,
`
`in the approximate, liquidated amount of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY
`
`THOUSAND DOLLARS ($450,000).
`
`32. On or about September 20, 2017, Silva filed an
`
`administrative charge of discrimination against Quest
`
`Diagnostics, with the Fairfax County Office of Human Rights
`
`and Equity Programs, and later memorialized and filed a
`
`written charge as to the above-referenced facts and events,
`
`charging discrimination on the basis of age, and
`
`retaliation, in the form of termination of employment for
`
`her protected activity. This charge was dual filed with
`
`the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
`
`Washington Field Office (EEOC).
`
`33. Upon information and belief, on or about
`
`September 11, 2020, the the EEOC issued, and on or about
`
`October 15, 2020 Silva received, a Dismissal and Notice of
`
`11
`
`
`
`s
`
`Suit Rights to Silva, in connection with the said charge,
`
`and this action is filed within ninety days of Silva's
`
`receipt of the EEOC's Dismissal and Notice of Suit Rights;
`
`your Plaintiff has otherwise exhausted all administrative
`
`prerequisites to her judicial pursuit of remedies herein.
`
`A copy of said Notice of Right to Sue, and the envelope it
`
`arrived in, are attached hereto at Exhi.bit #1.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Disparate Treatment to Quest Diagnostics, contrary to the
`Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29
`U.S.C. §§623(a))
`
`34, Paragraphs 1 through through 33 above are hereby
`
`incorporated and restated herein.
`
`35. Upon information and belief, at all relevant
`
`times herein, Defendant employed more than twenty-five
`
`employees for each working day in each of twenty or more
`
`calendar workweeks in the year of, or the year preceding,
`
`the year of Plaintiff's termination referenced above.
`
`36. The Plaintiff's age was the predominant
`
`motivating factor, without which the following decisions
`
`and acts taken by, and on behalf of, Defendant, in
`
`connection with the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's
`
`employment, would not have occurred: (a) assignment of
`
`additional projects and duties, without allotting a
`
`sufficient number of hours and dispensation to timely and
`
`_
`
`--
`
`w sw~ .i4 dYt~s •
`
`a
`
`~
`
`_.vayw~.._..
`
`-
`
`Y
`
`.
`
`c u.
`
`12
`
`
`
`•
`
`professionally complete the same;(b) Defendant's continuing
`
`failure to reassign and/or divide work, to take account of
`
`Plaintiff's workload, at any given time; (c) purporting to
`
`require performance of uncompensated overtime hours, in
`
`order for Plaintiff to perform expected work, and/or
`
`requiring Plaintiff to be present and available for work,
`
`throughout her lunch break; (d) forbidding the Plaintiff
`
`from leaving the premises for lunch, whereas allowing co-
`
`workers to return from hour--and-a-half lunches, off
`
`premises; (e) exhaustively documenting and purporting to
`
`discipline alleged deficiencies or insufficiencies in
`
`Plaintiff's work, while not documenting any volume or other
`
`problems with the work of her younger co-workers; (f)
`
`disciplining and citing of Plaintiff for attendance,
`
`punctuality, and taking a lunch break longer than 30
`
`minutes, while ignoring and/or not requiring medical notes
`
`for frequent such occurrences, from Plaintiff's younger co-
`
`workers; (g) disciplining and warning of Plaintiff
`
`regarding prioritization of work, use of marking dots on
`
`cell culture plates, (h) intentionally incorrect
`
`assessments as to Plaintiff's volume of work and/or
`
`productivity, and (i) commendation or comparison of younger
`
`workers for their productivity, but with a lack of
`
`scientific method, purposefully not taking into account
`
`13
`
`
`
`I~
`~
`
`other, younger employees' error rates associated with the
`
`performance of that work, and the number of tests which had
`
`to be re-done as a result, otherwise dismissing errors of
`
`younger workers at "a little careless," and (j) being
`
`instructed to have a vision test [on or about June 2,
`
`2017], as a result of an alleged error reading on a given
`
`test result, the existence of which error was questions
`
`and/or not affirmed by others; and (k) a disparity i.n not
`
`being afforded training opportunities, as had taken place
`
`with her younger co-workers.
`
`37. Similarly situated employees and Medical
`
`Technologists, also employed by Defendant, under the age of
`
`forty, were not similarly treated as to acts and subjects
`
`described at (a) through (k) in the paragraph above.
`
`38. These actions had the further effect of limiting,
`
`segregating, or classifying Silva into a category of older
`
`employees, whereby as a direct result of her age, she was
`
`expected by the Defendant not only to work longer hours,
`
`but also to be held to standards of production and
`
`performance higher than those experienced by her
`
`counterparts under 40, and/or not experienced in such
`
`volume, if at all, by her counterparts under 40.
`
`39. Upon information and belief, Silva was replaced
`
`by, and/or a substantial portion of her former duties are
`
`14
`
`
`
`•
`
`now performed by, one or more persons under the age of
`
`forty years.
`
`40. The above actions of Defendants were taken
`
`intentionally, and with actual knowledge of, or at the
`
`least, in reckless disregard, as to whether such conduct
`
`was prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Retaliation and Retala.atory Discharge to Quest Da.agnostics
`under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §
`623 (d) )
`
`41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 above are hereby
`
`incorporated and restated as if set forth verbatim in this
`
`Count.
`
`42. As described above, Mrs. Silva engaged in
`
`statutorily protected activity, in complaining to
`
`defendant's personnel about harassment and belittling
`
`behavior on the basis of age, and the lack of any
`
`justification for why her counterparts under forty, were
`
`not similarly so required, and treated.
`
`43. Mrs. Silva's complaint of harassment and
`
`disparate treatment on the basis of her age not only
`
`immediately preceded her termination, and this same
`
`complaint, was the reason explicitly given by Mr.
`
`Villacreces, to Plaintiff, three days after it was made,
`
`as the reason for his termination of her employment.
`
`15
`
`
`
`44. Silva had a good faith, reasonable belief that
`
`Defendant's treatment of the terms and conditions upon
`
`which she was employed, constituted a violation of the Age
`
`Discrimination in Employment Act.
`
`45. As a direct and proximate result of this
`
`complaints, and this protected activity, Plaintiff was
`
`terminated, escorted off the premises without any
`
`opportunity to retrieve her belongings, with concordant
`
`loss of wages and economic benefits of employment, both
`
`past and future, a11 of which acts and results which would
`
`dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting such
`
`a similar charge of discrimination.
`
`Prayer for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that she be awarded a
`
`judgment against Defendant, as follows:
`
`(i)in a monetary amount to be determined at trial,
`
`inclusive of back pay, pecuniary damages, and lost
`
`benefits, and front pay in lieu of reinstatement, estimated
`
`to be in the principal, liquidated amount of FOUR HUNDRED
`
`FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($450,000.00); together with
`
`(ii)pursuant to the ADEA, an amount equal to the
`
`compensation awarded, or awardable, in connection with (i)
`
`above, as liquidated damages; together with
`
`
`
`a
`
`ti
`
`C.
`
`~
`
`(iii) pre- and post-judgment interest at the Virginia
`
`implied rate of 6% per annum on all amounts awarded;
`
`together with,
`
`(iv) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 29 U.S.C. §
`
`626(b) [ADEA incorporating legal procedures and remedies of
`
`FLSA], her reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, costs,
`
`incurred in prosecution hereof; together with
`
`(v) such other relief as this Court considers just
`
`and proper.
`
`Consent to Status as Party Plaintiff
`
`I hereby affirm that the above complaint is mine, and
`
`I consent to being the Plaintiff in this action, and I
`
`further request that my attorney/s be awarded reasonable
`
`attorney's fees and costs for time spent in the preparation
`
`and prosecution of this action.
`
`Date Signed: 1 11 ?A2
`
`m~y01
`Margot Silva
`
`Jury Demand
`
`Your Plaintiff hereby demands tri.al by jury as to all
`
`claims so triable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MARGOT , S ILVA
`
`B y :
`
`Of Counsel
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`~
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Christopher R. Rau (VSB No. 34135)
`Law Offices of Christopher R. Rau
`200 Little Falls Street, Suite 501
`Falls Church, VA 22046
`(703) 536-1660 - Telephone
`CRRAU@AOL.COM - E-Mail
`Counsel for Plaint.iff Margot Silva
`
`Datedo January 11, 2021
`
`18
`
`
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
