Preview
IRETURN DATE: JANUARY 23, 2023
IDANIA JIMENEZ SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff,
J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
AT STAMFORD
[UNCLES DELI, LLC
Defendant. December 7, 2023
COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This action arises under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”),
Os
pnd Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, ef seq.; and Connecticut state law.
w Ay
Plaintiff timely filed her claim with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights
ec”
and Opportunities (“CHRO”), and received a Release of Jurisdiction on September
11, 2023. Thus, Plaintiff timely brings this action.
PLAINTIFF
= The Plaintiff, Dania Jimenez (“Plaintiff or “Jimenez”), is a natural person and
resident of Norwalk, CT 06851.
DEFENDANT
The Defendant, Uncles Deli, LLC (“Defendant” or “Uncles Deli”), is based in the
State of Connecticut, registered with the State of Connecticut as a limited liability
company, is authorized to conduct business within the State of Connecticut, and
conducts substantial business within the State of Connecticut, having a principal
place of business located at 1041 Post Road, Darien, CT 06820. At all times relevant
herein, Uncles Deli was the employer of Plaintiff.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Sometime in the spring of 2019, Jimenez began working for Defendant as a cashier.
At the time, she only worked on the weekends.
While employed at Defendant, Jimenez performed her duties and responsibilities in
a fully successful manner. She had never been subjected to any discipline action or
write-ups from Defendant.
A. Jimenez was Subjected to Severe and Pervasive Sexually Inappropriate
Conduct.
6
At all times relevant, Melchor Vazquez (“Melchor”) (male), was a manager, who
subjected Jimenez to severe and pervasive sexual harassment throughout her
2 Ro
oef° employment.
Jimenez, throughout the relevant period, was, and still is, in a married relationship,
of which Melchor was aware.
Sometime in the fall or winter of 2019, Melchor began harassing Jimenez by calling
= her on her personal cellular phone on a Sunday, during off-work hours. Without
provocation, Melchor asked Jimenez if she wanted to “live the moment” with him —
meaning, if she wanted to engage in sexual activities with him.
10 Jimenez was surprised to receive such a call since she never provided her cell phone
number to Melchor. Later, Jimenez learned that Melchor obtained her number from
the Defendant’s records.
-2:
11 The call left Jimenez extremely uncomfortable. She then complained to the owner,
Robert Williamson (“Mr. Williamson”) (male), about the inappropriate phone call
from Melchor the following week.
12 Instead of properly addressing his employee’s inappropriate conduct, Mr.
Williamson however, simply dismissed Jimenez’s concerns, saying, “he Just has a
crush on you.”
13 Mr. Williamson’s decision to abruptly disregard Jimenez’s reported concerns and
side with Melchor clearly demonstrated a disparate attitude and treatment toward
Plaintiff.
14 Sometime in or around 2020, Jimenez commenced full-time work at the Defendant’s
Qs location.
2 IS, As weeks passed and Jimenez worked at the deli, Melchor would occasionally corner
=
eo
her in the kitchen, particularly in the narrow hallway where the bathroom was
Z3 located.
16. Feeling seriously offended, Jimenez would try to get away from him — clearly
expressing her rejection and unwillingness, multiple times.
17 To Jimenez’s dismay, Melchor was undeterred. Despite knowing that his acts were
clearly unwelcome, Melchor sexually pursued Jimenez.
18 Every time Melchor brought sandwiches to the counter, he would touch Jimenez’s
hands. He was persistent with his inappropriate and unwelcome behavior, despite
Jimenez saying “no” repeatedly and continuously.
B. The Sexual Harassment Persists and Worsens.
19 On one occasion, while in the kitchen at work, Melchor cornered Jimenez and
forcibly kissed her, despite her unwillingness, prompting her to push him away.
20. On several occasions as well, Melchor inappropriately asked Jimenez to go out with
him outside of work for non-business-related matters.
oT Feeling tired of his constant requests to meet with her, Jimenez finally agreed to meet
Melchor outside of work once to have a conversation about his overt inappropriate
acts. Jimenez was hopeful of convincing Melchor to cease his sexual advances.
22. During their conversation in 2020, Melchor expressed, “J want to have a relationship
with you,” to which Jimenez replied, “But can't. I'm married, and you're married.”
Oy Despite this, Melchor persisted and said, “J know, but we can try,” prompting
Jimenez to assert, “You are so disrespectful. How am I going to cheat on my
fae
husband?”
23 Additionally, Jimenez told Melchor, “I’m not going to hurt another woman, and I
think it’s disrespectful of you that you want to do that to her.” Jimenez reiterated that
she did not want to engage in any sexual relationship with Melchor, saying, “Ifyou
want to be my friend, be my friend, but nothing else besides that, and nothing else to
do about it, we are coworkers.”
24. Despite Jimenez’s repeated refusal to reciprocate his sexual advances, Melchor
vehemently insisted, even stating, “I beg you” and “Let's try.” Again, Jimenez
continued to refuse him in unequivocal terms, saying “No” multiple times.
' This conversation took place in Spanish. The relevant parts set forth here have been translated into English.
-4-
25. Notwithstanding their conversation where Jimenez clearly expressed her feelings,
Melchor did not cease his harassment and aggression. He continued to ask Jimenez
to have alcoholic drinks with him outside of work, and, as before, she refused each
time he asked.
26. The harassment continued in 2021, when Melchor began to make sexually explicit
comments to Jimenez. Without any provocation whatsoever, Melchor told Jimenez
that he wanted to “finger” her. Melchor also stated that he wanted to make love to
Jimenez and try certain sexual positions. These statements made Jimenez extremely
uncomfortable.
27. Sometime in or around January 2022, Jimenez was sexually assaulted by Melchor
Os
ml =
during her visit to Defendant deli to pick up her paycheck. As Jimenez was walking
a out, Melchor grabbed her buttocks and tried to pull her back into the store. She then
ae
+ fg
kicked him to stop him.
28 Consequently, Jimenez decided to minimize her interactions with Melchor to
discourage him from further sexually pursuing her. Jimenez refrained from speaking
to Melchor unless for work-related matters. This did not bode well for Melchor, who
started to retaliate against her.
29 For instance, Melchor became hostile towards Jimenez. Melchor would not talk to
Jimenez about work-related issues, interfering with her ability to work. Whenever
Jimenez asked him for the timings for an order, Melchor would not give her a
response.
25
C. Respondent Sides with Perpetrator and Terminates Victim.
30 As the situation became more hostile afterwards, Jimenez started to feel helpless.
Defendant management’s failure to address the harassment and its negligent
supervision of Melchor further exacerbated Jimenez’s situation.
31 In a desperate attempt to resolve the issue, Jimenez contacted Melchor’s wife, met
her at her job, and briefed her about the situation, hoping for assistance in halting the
unchecked harassment.
32 Returning to work the weekend of the same week, Jimenez greeted Melchor with a
cordial “Good morning,” but he refused to respond, illustrating the heightened
hostility.
Q3
foal
33 Subsequently, Plaintiff went on vacation from March 17 to 23. Upon her return to
13 a work, she faced immediate retaliation.
*) bla 34 On March 25, Mr. Williamson terminated Jimenez abruptly via cellular text message.
35 The message cited her “contacting Melchor’s wife” as one reason for the
termination.
36. This underscores that Mr. Williamson was well aware of Melchor’s harassment of
Jimenez but chose to side with Melchor without conducting an investigation or
attempting any corrective action.
37 Of significance is the fact that at the time of termination, Plaintiff had not been
compensated for one weekend of work. She inquired about her pay following the
termination text, asking when she could pick it up.
38 Mr. Williamson, however, never responded to Jimenez regarding her unpaid work,
further indicating his bias and disparate attitude toward her.
-6-
39) Ultimately, Jimenez’s employment with Uncles Deli was unlawfully terminated
without real, substantial, and compelling reason.
COUNT ONE
SEX DISCRIMINATION - DISPARATE TREATMENT
IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(1)
40 The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-39 with the same
force and impact as if fully set forth herein.
41 At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a female employee protected from discrimination
in employment on the basis of her sex and gender.
42 It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an
employee, including discriminating against her in the terms and conditions of her
OQ:
employment, based on her sex and gender.
2 Ry
z=a - 43 Plaintiff was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her employment,
as outlined above, on the basis of her sex and gender in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat.
Zz:
§ 46A-60(b)(1)
44 Defendant unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiff because of her sex/gender with
respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment, including but not
limited to:
45 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered
adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 25, 2022.
b Plaintiff was denied proper compensation for all hours worked.
Plaintiff was forced to endure repeated sexual harassment by another
employee.
7s
46. As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-
60(b)(1).
47. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance,
emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety and loss of the ability to enjoy
life’s pleasures and activities.
48 Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
COUNT TWO
SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(1)
49 The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-48 with the same
Q:
eal!
force and impact as if fully set forth herein.
2 Du
==
+ Aye 50 At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a female employee protected from harassment in
Z: employment on the basis of her sex and gender.
51 Atall times relevant herein, Defendant participated in the harassment of Plaintiff by
its harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory behavior toward Plaintiff as alleged
herein and/or substantially assisted, encouraged and condoned the continued
harassment toward Plaintiff, creating a hostile work environment, and sanctioned and
ratified the unlawful harassing conduct.
52. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to severe and/or pervasive harassment of a sexual
manner that a reasonable woman in Plaintiff's position would have found the
environment to be hostile and abusive. The behavior was unwanted, without
Plaintiff's consent, objected to, and offensive to Plaintiff.
8-
53 As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-
60(b)(1).
54 As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance,
emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety and loss of the ability to enjoy
life’s pleasures and activities.
55 Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
COUNT THREE
RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(4)
56. The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-55 with the same
QO:
ol 2 force and impact as if fully set forth herein.
= Aa
=
-i- aT The Plaintiff participated in protected activities by complaining about the sexual
harassment by an employee.
58 Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by, including but not limited to: withholding
her paycheck and terminating her employment.
59 Among the factors that motivated Defendant’s actions were Plaintiff's complaint.
60. As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-
60(b)(4).
61 As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance,
emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety and loss of the ability to enjoy
life’s pleasures and activities.
62. Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
9
COUNT FOUR
SEXUAL HARASSMENT,
IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(8)
63 The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-39 with the same
force and impact as if fully set forth herein.
64 Defendant employs more than three employees.
65 Plaintiff, a female, is a member of a protected group.
66 Plaintiff was subjected to several years of unwelcome severe and pervasive sexually
inappropriate conduct from Melchor.
67 Melchor’s harassment was based upon Plaintiff's female sex and gender.
68 Defendant failed to take corrective action and instead targeted Plaintiff.
Or
bol ~ 69. In addition to the harassment, Plaintiff also suffered adverse employment actions,
= a
+e including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 25, 2022.
b. Plaintiff was denied proper compensation for all hours worked.
c. Plaintiff was forced to endure repeated sexual harassment by another
employee.
70. Defendant’s conduct was sexually harassing based upon Plaintiff's female sex and
gender.
71 As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-
60(b)(8).
72 Asa result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance,
10
emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety, and loss of the ability to enjoy
life’s pleasures and activities.
73. Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore the Plaintiff prays that this court award:
1. Money damages;
2. Costs;
3 . Punitive damages, attorney fees, and expert witness fees;
4. Pre-judgment interest
5 . Trial by jury; and
= 6. . Such other relief as the Court deems just, fair, and equitable.
==
--
THE PLAINTIFF,
Zs DANIA JIMENEZ
»y JU Hl FE
Michael C. McMinn (#423555)
THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT
LAW FIRM, LLC
1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 683-6007
Fax: (203) 680-9881
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
11
IRETURN DATE: JANUARY 23, 2023
IDANIA JIMENEZ SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff,
J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
AT STAMFORD
|UNCLES DELI, LLC
Defendant. December 7, 2023
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
The amount in demand is not less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) exclusive
lof interest and costs.
oO:
al
= Au
a.
cre
Z:
THE PLAINTIFF,
DANIA JIMENEZ
THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT
LAW FIRM, LLC
1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 683-6007
Fax: (203) 680-9881
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
12.
Preview
IRETURN DATE: JANUARY 23, 2023 IDANIA JIMENEZ SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK AT STAMFORD [UNCLES DELI, LLC Defendant. December 7, 2023 COMPLAINT JURISDICTION AND VENUE This action arises under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Os pnd Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, ef seq.; and Connecticut state law. w Ay Plaintiff timely filed her claim with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights ec” and Opportunities (“CHRO”), and received a Release of Jurisdiction on September 11, 2023. Thus, Plaintiff timely brings this action. PLAINTIFF = The Plaintiff, Dania Jimenez (“Plaintiff or “Jimenez”), is a natural person and resident of Norwalk, CT 06851. DEFENDANT The Defendant, Uncles Deli, LLC (“Defendant” or “Uncles Deli”), is based in the State of Connecticut, registered with the State of Connecticut as a limited liability company, is authorized to conduct business within the State of Connecticut, and conducts substantial business within the State of Connecticut, having a principal place of business located at 1041 Post Road, Darien, CT 06820. At all times relevant herein, Uncles Deli was the employer of Plaintiff. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Sometime in the spring of 2019, Jimenez began working for Defendant as a cashier. At the time, she only worked on the weekends. While employed at Defendant, Jimenez performed her duties and responsibilities in a fully successful manner. She had never been subjected to any discipline action or write-ups from Defendant. A. Jimenez was Subjected to Severe and Pervasive Sexually Inappropriate Conduct. 6 At all times relevant, Melchor Vazquez (“Melchor”) (male), was a manager, who subjected Jimenez to severe and pervasive sexual harassment throughout her 2 Ro oef° employment. Jimenez, throughout the relevant period, was, and still is, in a married relationship, of which Melchor was aware. Sometime in the fall or winter of 2019, Melchor began harassing Jimenez by calling = her on her personal cellular phone on a Sunday, during off-work hours. Without provocation, Melchor asked Jimenez if she wanted to “live the moment” with him — meaning, if she wanted to engage in sexual activities with him. 10 Jimenez was surprised to receive such a call since she never provided her cell phone number to Melchor. Later, Jimenez learned that Melchor obtained her number from the Defendant’s records. -2: 11 The call left Jimenez extremely uncomfortable. She then complained to the owner, Robert Williamson (“Mr. Williamson”) (male), about the inappropriate phone call from Melchor the following week. 12 Instead of properly addressing his employee’s inappropriate conduct, Mr. Williamson however, simply dismissed Jimenez’s concerns, saying, “he Just has a crush on you.” 13 Mr. Williamson’s decision to abruptly disregard Jimenez’s reported concerns and side with Melchor clearly demonstrated a disparate attitude and treatment toward Plaintiff. 14 Sometime in or around 2020, Jimenez commenced full-time work at the Defendant’s Qs location. 2 IS, As weeks passed and Jimenez worked at the deli, Melchor would occasionally corner = eo her in the kitchen, particularly in the narrow hallway where the bathroom was Z3 located. 16. Feeling seriously offended, Jimenez would try to get away from him — clearly expressing her rejection and unwillingness, multiple times. 17 To Jimenez’s dismay, Melchor was undeterred. Despite knowing that his acts were clearly unwelcome, Melchor sexually pursued Jimenez. 18 Every time Melchor brought sandwiches to the counter, he would touch Jimenez’s hands. He was persistent with his inappropriate and unwelcome behavior, despite Jimenez saying “no” repeatedly and continuously. B. The Sexual Harassment Persists and Worsens. 19 On one occasion, while in the kitchen at work, Melchor cornered Jimenez and forcibly kissed her, despite her unwillingness, prompting her to push him away. 20. On several occasions as well, Melchor inappropriately asked Jimenez to go out with him outside of work for non-business-related matters. oT Feeling tired of his constant requests to meet with her, Jimenez finally agreed to meet Melchor outside of work once to have a conversation about his overt inappropriate acts. Jimenez was hopeful of convincing Melchor to cease his sexual advances. 22. During their conversation in 2020, Melchor expressed, “J want to have a relationship with you,” to which Jimenez replied, “But can't. I'm married, and you're married.” Oy Despite this, Melchor persisted and said, “J know, but we can try,” prompting Jimenez to assert, “You are so disrespectful. How am I going to cheat on my fae husband?” 23 Additionally, Jimenez told Melchor, “I’m not going to hurt another woman, and I think it’s disrespectful of you that you want to do that to her.” Jimenez reiterated that she did not want to engage in any sexual relationship with Melchor, saying, “Ifyou want to be my friend, be my friend, but nothing else besides that, and nothing else to do about it, we are coworkers.” 24. Despite Jimenez’s repeated refusal to reciprocate his sexual advances, Melchor vehemently insisted, even stating, “I beg you” and “Let's try.” Again, Jimenez continued to refuse him in unequivocal terms, saying “No” multiple times. ' This conversation took place in Spanish. The relevant parts set forth here have been translated into English. -4- 25. Notwithstanding their conversation where Jimenez clearly expressed her feelings, Melchor did not cease his harassment and aggression. He continued to ask Jimenez to have alcoholic drinks with him outside of work, and, as before, she refused each time he asked. 26. The harassment continued in 2021, when Melchor began to make sexually explicit comments to Jimenez. Without any provocation whatsoever, Melchor told Jimenez that he wanted to “finger” her. Melchor also stated that he wanted to make love to Jimenez and try certain sexual positions. These statements made Jimenez extremely uncomfortable. 27. Sometime in or around January 2022, Jimenez was sexually assaulted by Melchor Os ml = during her visit to Defendant deli to pick up her paycheck. As Jimenez was walking a out, Melchor grabbed her buttocks and tried to pull her back into the store. She then ae + fg kicked him to stop him. 28 Consequently, Jimenez decided to minimize her interactions with Melchor to discourage him from further sexually pursuing her. Jimenez refrained from speaking to Melchor unless for work-related matters. This did not bode well for Melchor, who started to retaliate against her. 29 For instance, Melchor became hostile towards Jimenez. Melchor would not talk to Jimenez about work-related issues, interfering with her ability to work. Whenever Jimenez asked him for the timings for an order, Melchor would not give her a response. 25 C. Respondent Sides with Perpetrator and Terminates Victim. 30 As the situation became more hostile afterwards, Jimenez started to feel helpless. Defendant management’s failure to address the harassment and its negligent supervision of Melchor further exacerbated Jimenez’s situation. 31 In a desperate attempt to resolve the issue, Jimenez contacted Melchor’s wife, met her at her job, and briefed her about the situation, hoping for assistance in halting the unchecked harassment. 32 Returning to work the weekend of the same week, Jimenez greeted Melchor with a cordial “Good morning,” but he refused to respond, illustrating the heightened hostility. Q3 foal 33 Subsequently, Plaintiff went on vacation from March 17 to 23. Upon her return to 13 a work, she faced immediate retaliation. *) bla 34 On March 25, Mr. Williamson terminated Jimenez abruptly via cellular text message. 35 The message cited her “contacting Melchor’s wife” as one reason for the termination. 36. This underscores that Mr. Williamson was well aware of Melchor’s harassment of Jimenez but chose to side with Melchor without conducting an investigation or attempting any corrective action. 37 Of significance is the fact that at the time of termination, Plaintiff had not been compensated for one weekend of work. She inquired about her pay following the termination text, asking when she could pick it up. 38 Mr. Williamson, however, never responded to Jimenez regarding her unpaid work, further indicating his bias and disparate attitude toward her. -6- 39) Ultimately, Jimenez’s employment with Uncles Deli was unlawfully terminated without real, substantial, and compelling reason. COUNT ONE SEX DISCRIMINATION - DISPARATE TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(1) 40 The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-39 with the same force and impact as if fully set forth herein. 41 At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a female employee protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of her sex and gender. 42 It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discriminating against her in the terms and conditions of her OQ: employment, based on her sex and gender. 2 Ry z=a - 43 Plaintiff was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her employment, as outlined above, on the basis of her sex and gender in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Zz: § 46A-60(b)(1) 44 Defendant unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiff because of her sex/gender with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment, including but not limited to: 45 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 25, 2022. b Plaintiff was denied proper compensation for all hours worked. Plaintiff was forced to endure repeated sexual harassment by another employee. 7s 46. As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a- 60(b)(1). 47. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance, emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety and loss of the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures and activities. 48 Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. COUNT TWO SEXUAL HARASSMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(1) 49 The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-48 with the same Q: eal! force and impact as if fully set forth herein. 2 Du == + Aye 50 At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a female employee protected from harassment in Z: employment on the basis of her sex and gender. 51 Atall times relevant herein, Defendant participated in the harassment of Plaintiff by its harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory behavior toward Plaintiff as alleged herein and/or substantially assisted, encouraged and condoned the continued harassment toward Plaintiff, creating a hostile work environment, and sanctioned and ratified the unlawful harassing conduct. 52. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to severe and/or pervasive harassment of a sexual manner that a reasonable woman in Plaintiff's position would have found the environment to be hostile and abusive. The behavior was unwanted, without Plaintiff's consent, objected to, and offensive to Plaintiff. 8- 53 As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a- 60(b)(1). 54 As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance, emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety and loss of the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures and activities. 55 Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. COUNT THREE RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(4) 56. The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-55 with the same QO: ol 2 force and impact as if fully set forth herein. = Aa = -i- aT The Plaintiff participated in protected activities by complaining about the sexual harassment by an employee. 58 Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by, including but not limited to: withholding her paycheck and terminating her employment. 59 Among the factors that motivated Defendant’s actions were Plaintiff's complaint. 60. As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a- 60(b)(4). 61 As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance, emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety and loss of the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures and activities. 62. Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 9 COUNT FOUR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, IN VIOLATION OF CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46A-60(b)(8) 63 The Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and reincorporates paragraphs 1-39 with the same force and impact as if fully set forth herein. 64 Defendant employs more than three employees. 65 Plaintiff, a female, is a member of a protected group. 66 Plaintiff was subjected to several years of unwelcome severe and pervasive sexually inappropriate conduct from Melchor. 67 Melchor’s harassment was based upon Plaintiff's female sex and gender. 68 Defendant failed to take corrective action and instead targeted Plaintiff. Or bol ~ 69. In addition to the harassment, Plaintiff also suffered adverse employment actions, = a +e including, but not limited to, the following: a. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 25, 2022. b. Plaintiff was denied proper compensation for all hours worked. c. Plaintiff was forced to endure repeated sexual harassment by another employee. 70. Defendant’s conduct was sexually harassing based upon Plaintiff's female sex and gender. 71 As such, Defendant’s actions and conduct are a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a- 60(b)(8). 72 Asa result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including but not limited to lost wages, fringe benefits, health insurance, 10 emotional and psychological distress, stress, anxiety, and loss of the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures and activities. 73. Plaintiff is seeking damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore the Plaintiff prays that this court award: 1. Money damages; 2. Costs; 3 . Punitive damages, attorney fees, and expert witness fees; 4. Pre-judgment interest 5 . Trial by jury; and = 6. . Such other relief as the Court deems just, fair, and equitable. == -- THE PLAINTIFF, Zs DANIA JIMENEZ »y JU Hl FE Michael C. McMinn (#423555) THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, LLC 1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 683-6007 Fax: (203) 680-9881 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 11 IRETURN DATE: JANUARY 23, 2023 IDANIA JIMENEZ SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK AT STAMFORD |UNCLES DELI, LLC Defendant. December 7, 2023 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND The amount in demand is not less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) exclusive lof interest and costs. oO: al = Au a. cre Z: THE PLAINTIFF, DANIA JIMENEZ THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, LLC 1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 683-6007 Fax: (203) 680-9881 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 12.