Preview

Betty Biggs Case

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
582 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Betty Biggs Case
Plaintiff Betty Biggs,,("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Biggs"), presents her Complaint in this action against Defendant Admiral Health. ("Defendant" or "employer"), hereby alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CLAIMS
1. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages, to redress Defendant's unlawful employment practices and retaliation against Plaintiff, including Defendant's unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff because of his race/color, national origin and/or disabilities, and because of his repeated complaints about such unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation, in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section
…show more content…
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as this action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of Plaintiff's civil rights under Title VII, Section 1981. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's related claims arising under state and local law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or o practices alleged herein, occurred in this district missions giving rise to this action, including the unlawful employment
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Betty Biggs is an Ecuadorian immigrant to the United States. From in or around June 2000 to the present, Ms. Biggs has been an employee at Defendant's Admiral Health in New York City. At all relevant times, Ms. Biggs met the definition of an "employee" under all applicable statutes. 4.Admiral Health, Defendant, is a corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of New York with its principle executive office located at 1111 Blue Ridge Road , Suite 800 Dublin, New York, 10701. At all relevant times, Defendant owned, operated and maintained the Admiral Health. At all relevant times, Defendant met the definition of an "employer" under all applicable statutes.
PROCEDURAL
…show more content…
On August 15, 2012, Ms. Biggs filed a Verified Complaint (the "August 15, 2012 Complaint") with the EEOC charging Defendant with unlawful discriminatory employment practices based on its unlawful retaliation against him for having filed the May 21, 2012 Complaint. On October 26, 2012, the EEOC rendered a determination finding probable cause to support the allegations of the August 15, 2012 Complaint. 8. On October 27, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued Ms. Biggs a notice of right to bring suit in federal district court based on the allegations of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race/color, national origin set forth in the May 21, 2012 Complaint. 9. On October 27, 2012, the EEOC issued Ms. Biggs a notice of right to bring suit in federal district court based on the allegations of unlawful retaliation set forth in the August 15, 2012 Complaint. 10. This action has been filed within 90 days of Plaintiff's receipt of his right-to-sue letters from the EEOC. 11. Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Shortly after plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi (Khajavi), an anesthesiologist, and defendant, Robert Del Pero, a surgeon, engaged in an altercation over the wisdom of proceeding with a particular surgery, defendant Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (Feather River) terminated Khajavi’s employment. At trial, the court non-suited Khajavi’s claims that defendants Feather River and Robert Del Pero had discharged him, and conspired to discharge him, in violation of public policy -- that is, in retaliation for advocating “medically appropriate health care” in violation of Business and Professions Code section 2056.…

    • 1548 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This is an action for damages in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this court.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    According to the lawsuit filed by Ms. Dimanche in the Boston-based US District Court in 2015, “Defendants subjected Ms. Dimanche to racial harassment…

    • 196 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: Ms. Deters, the plaintiff, sued Equifax, the defendant, in the United States District Court for the district of Kansas after being sexually harassed on several different occasions by three different co-workers and also the original male supervisor. Violating Title VII, prohibiting discrimination of employees based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Ms. Deters filed multiple complaints on the daily sexual harassment that had taken place at the office. Mr. Taylor indicated he would handle the sexual harassment, him being the highest managerial position in the office. Mr. Taylor was also designated by Equifax to enact its human resource policies. The courts entry of judgment in the favor of the employee denied the defendants motion on the issue of punitive damages. However, Equifax did not agree with the decision of the court and wanted a judgment as a mater of law de novo. Equifax litigates that the evidence was not in support of the punitive damages.…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    PA205

    • 428 Words
    • 2 Pages

    This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims presented in this complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because plaintiff is a resident of Illinois and the defendant is a citizen of Missouri and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of fees and costs.…

    • 428 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    This Court should grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment because this Court should apply the law of East Kansas. This case involves a conflict of law issue because West Kansas’s law provides that worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees, who are victims of intentional torts, while East Kansas says that worker’s compensation is not the exclusive remedy. Under the governmental interest approach to conflicts of law, this Court should resolve this conflict in favor of East Kansas because it has an interest in applying its law, while West Kansas does not.…

    • 974 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Harrison V

    • 852 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The court case Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville involves a dispute concerning the employment of John Harrison (plaintiff) at a company called Benchmark Electronics Huntsville Inc (BEHI). Aerotek is a company that helps with placing temporary workers at BEHI and they assigned the plaintiff to work at the company as a Debug Tech. The plaintiff suffers from epilepsy, but he takes barbiturates to help keep his condition under control and it was determined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this isn't considered a disability as noted by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The company screens their temporary employees if their supervisor suggests them for permanent positions and with a request made by his supervisor Don Anthony, on May 19, 2006, the plaintiff submitted an application for permanent employment. The plaintiff consented to a drug test that came back positive as noted by Lena Williams who was employed in the human resources department of the company.…

    • 852 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. In March of 1998, Ledbetter submitted a questionnaire to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging sex discrimination against her employer. In July of 1998, she filed a formal EEOC charge against the company.…

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    However, no statements made by any party during the conciliation process can be used in any subsequent lawsuit. The conciliation process is not a prerequisite for an individual to file a lawsuit in state or federal court. Under the ADEA, the employee must merely wait 60 days after filing a charge with the EEOC and the appropriate state agency before filing a lawsuit against the employer. Title VII and the ADA require the EEOC to issue a "Notice of Right to Sue," also known as a "right to sue letter," before an individual can file a suit in court. The right to sue letter can be issued at the complaining party's request or by the EEOC following its disposition of a discrimination charge. The employee has 90 days after receiving the right to sue letter to file…

    • 4069 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Manner Case Summary

    • 956 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in several positions. The Plaintiff alleges twelve different incidents occurred where she was treated differently than her white co-workers. These includes incidents such as dress code violations that white employees did not receive. Another involved her supervisor advising the Plaintiff not to steal anything. There were other race-based comments such as a supervisor referring to the Plaintiff’s hair as “nappy.”…

    • 956 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Williamson V Houston

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The IAD investigation determined that there was no basis for Williamson’s allegations. Williamson sued the City of Houston under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for hostile work environment sexual harassment and for retaliation against her for reporting the harassment. In a District Court, a jury found the city liable for both sexual harassment and for retaliation. Williamson was awarded back pay and compensatory damages, as well as court costs and attorney’s fees. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, the City of Houston challenged the judgment on the grounds that it did not have notice of the harassment until April 1992 and that her notification to her supervisor should not have constituted notice to the city. The District Court’s ruling was affirmed by the Appeals Court. 3. Main Issue: Can a supervisor’s knowledge of harassing behavior be imputed to the city to show that the city knew, or should have known, of the harassing behavior and can therefore be held liable for failing to stop the behavior? 4. Court Deciding: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 5. Decision: Summary judgment affirming the decision of the District…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Vaughn Case Brief

    • 3486 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Albert H. Hanemann, Jr., Lemle & Kelleher, John D. Fitzmorris, Jr., Legal Dept. New Orleans, La., for Texaco.…

    • 3486 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    James Barnes, Aggrieved Person (AP) initiated an Informal EEO complaint on June 5, 2015. AP’s claim is Harassment /Hostile Work Environment (Non-sexual). He specified disability (Physical) because he has been on work restriction as an accommodation. He identified his Supervisor, Julius Salley, as the Responding Management Official (RMO).…

    • 139 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    EMPLOYMENT LAW: TITLE VII ZAB TITLE VII: Prohibits policies or practices that are not intended to be discriminatory, but which have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities DISPARATE TREATMENTS, IMPACT & CLAIMS .What does disparate treatment means? .Employment discrimination .What does disparate impact means? .A…

    • 368 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1994, workers at 10 facilities of Boeing filed a case against the company's alleged discriminatory practices with respect to compensation. They alleged that the company paid them less than their male…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays