Preview
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pglof3 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
David W. Garland (NJ Bar No. 015861985)
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C
One Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311
Tel: (973) 642-1900
Attorneys for Defendants
Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
SARITA BHAT
LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Docket No. MID-L-6429-23
Plaintiff,
VS,
NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
BLOOMBERG L.P., and TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE
STEWART N. BAILEY, (individually and in his : AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT
official capacity), jointly and severally, TO R. 4:6-2(E)
Defendants.
TO Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C
dhc@dhclancylaw.com
40 Wall Street, 61‘ Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 747-1744
Attorneys for Plaintiff Sarita Bhat
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, March 1, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as counsel may be heard, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., attorneys for defendants Bloomberg L.P.
and Stewart N. Bailey (collectively, “Defendants”), shall move pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e) of the Rules
Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey for an Order dismissing certain claims in
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this Motion, Defendants will rely
upon the accompanying Brief, Certification of David W. Garland with exhibits.
FIRM:63722448
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg2of3 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is annexed hereto
pursuant to R. 1:6-2(a).
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that oral argument is requested.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that no discovery end date has been set in this
matter.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
Attorneysfor Defendants
Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey
By: _/s David W. Garland
DAVID W. GARLAND
For the Firm
DATED: February 14, 2024
-2-
FIRM:63722448
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pg3of3 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I caused a copy of the foregoing Notice of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in the Amended Complaint Pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e), supporting
Brief with exhibits, and a proposed form of Order to be served upon counsel for plaintiff
via
eCourts’ e-filing system (in conformance with the relaxation ofR. 1:5-2 on June 3, 2014), to
Donna H. Clancy, Esq., THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C., 40 Wall Street, 61‘ Floor, New
York, New York 10005.
By: /s/ David W. Garland
Dated: February 14, 2024
-3-
FIRM:63722448
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pg1of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
DavidW. Garland — Attorney No.: 015861985
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C
One Gateway Center, 13th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311
(973) 642-1900
Attorneys for Defendants
Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
SARITA BHAT
LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Docket No. MID-L-6429-23
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATION OF DAVID W.
VS.
GARLAND IN SUPPORT OF
BLOOMBERG L.P., and DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
STEWART N. BAILEY, (individually and in his CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE AMENDED
official capacity), jointly and severally, COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO R. 4:6-2(E)
Defendants.
v
DAVID W. GARLAND, of full age, hereby certifies and says:
1 lam an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey and a member of the law firm
of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., attorneys for defendants Bloomberg, L.P. (“Bloomberg”) and
Stewart N. Bailey (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-captioned matter. I submit this
Certification in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims in Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the Amended
Complaint that Plaintiff Sarita Bhat filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on December 20, 2023, before the case was remanded to this Court.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
FIRM:63732910v1
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg2of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
/s/ David W. Garland
David W. Garland
Dated: February 14, 2024
FIRM:63732910v1
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 3of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
EXHIBIT A
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 4 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-CvV-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 1 of 36 PagelD: 55
THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C.
Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
40 Wall Street, 61st Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 747-1744
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorney ID No. 041531990
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SARITA BHAT,
Plaintiff, DOCUMENT FILED ELECTRONICALLY
Civil Action No.: 23-cv-23120-RK-JBD
vs.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
BLOOMBERG L.P. and AND JURY DEMAND
STEWART N. BAILEY, (individually and
in his official capacity), jointly and severally,:
Defendants.
Plaintiff SARITA BHAT, residing in Middlesex County, by way of an amended
complaint, states against Defendants:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Sarita Bhat, a 53-year-old Indian-female, former Programmer of Defendant,
Bloomberg L.P., brings this action to remedy pervasive sex, race and age discrimination,
harassment, and hostile work environment arising under her employment with Bloomberg pursuant
to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq., the Diane B. Allen Equal
Pay Act of 2018, 42 USC 2000e-5(e)(3)(A) and the Pierce Doctrine, common law retaliation and
other applicable claims and remedies under New Jersey law.
Specially, Ms. Bhat alleges that despite 21 years of dedicated service as a highly skilled
Programmer for Defendant-Bloomberg, she was continuously paid less than her male and/or white
counterparts and subjected to disparate treatment on the basis of her sex and race throughout the
1
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg5 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 2 of 36 PagelD: 56
course of her employment. As a result of the disparate treatment, Plaintiff filed an EEOC claim for
pregnancy discrimination in 2007 and later filed a sexual harassment complaint along with internal
disparate treatment and retaliation claims. In retaliation for her complaints, Plaintiff was relegated
to being supervised by the male employee who she complained against and who she claims targeted
her performance, career, opportunity for promotion and compensation. Despite her complaints,
Defendant-Bloomberg’s Human Resources failed and refused to investigate and remedy the
intolerable discrimination. Despite her numerous complaints regarding unequal pay, Defendant-
Bloomberg failed to compensate Plaintiff equitably as compared to her male and/or white
comparators. At the time Plaintiff
was terminated, she was paid at minimum $75,000 less than her
all-male team.
After more than twenty years of dedicated service, Defendant-Bloomberg advised Plaintiff
that she could either resign with severance or be placed on a performance improvement plan.
Plaintiff declined to resign and after being placed on a performance improvement plan that set her
up for her failure, Defendant-Bloomberg terminated her shortly thereafter citing “failure to
improve.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1 This matter is properly before the State Superior Court Law Division pursuant to
R. 4:3-1(a) (5).
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims under
N.J.S.A.10:5-1 et seq.
3 This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4
and other applicable law.
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 6 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 3 of 36 PagelD: 5/
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND KEY WITNESSES
4 At all times relevant, Plaintiff Sarita Bhat (“Plaintiff’ or “Bhat”) was an employee
of the Defendants within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 10 §10:5-5 and within the statutory meaning of
the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act of 2018.
5 Defendant Bloomberg, L.P. (“Defendant-Bloomberg” or “Bloomberg”’) is a limited
partnership, a business structure that is a mixture of a general partnership and a corporation, in
which limited liability protection is maintained for certain partners. Limited partnerships consist
of two or more partners.
6 The founders of Defendant-Bloomberg are Michael Bloomberg, Thomas Secunda,
Duncan MacMillan and Charles Zegar.
7 Defendant-Bloomberg has its primary place of business located at 731 Lexington
Avenue, City of New York, County of New York, State of New York.
8 The majority of acts and omissions that give rise to this action occurred at offices
of Defendant-Bloomberg in the Princeton, New Jersey Office, located at 101 Business Park Dr,
Princeton, NJ 08540, where Plaintiff
was employed.
9 Bloomberg, Inc. is the parent organization of Defendant-Bloomberg.
10. Defendant is a $60 billion privately held financial, software, data, and media
company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The Company provides financial
software tools such as an analytics and equity trading platform, data services, and reports news to
financial companies and organizations through its publications such as Businessweek, its online
presence, television and radio reporting. Bloomberg serves customers worldwide.
11. At times relevant, Defendant-Bloomberg employed more than 16,000 employees
worldwide and was the “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-5(e).
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg7of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 4 of 36 PagelD: 58
12. At times relevant, Defendant-Bloomberg was the “employer” of Plaintiff within the
statutory meaning of the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act of 2018.
13. At all times relevant, Defendant Stewart N. Bailey (“Defendant-Bailey” or
“Bailey”) was employed by Defendant-Bloomberg as the ENG Infrastructure Console Lead at
Bloomberg L.P.
14. At all times relevant, Defendant Bailey acted in a supervisory or managerial
capacity over Plaintiff during the course of her employment at Bloomberg.
15. Defendant-Bailey resides in the state of New Jersey.
16. At times relevant, Brenda Clark was an employee and Human Resources
Representative at Defendant-Bloomberg.
17. At times relevant, Mary Quinn was an employee and Human Resources
Representative at Defendant-Bloomberg.
18. At all times relevant, Todd Schreiber was an employee within the Data Center at
Defendant-Bloomberg.
19. At all times relevant, Peter Shine was an employee and Senior Engineering
Manager at Defendant-Bloomberg.
20. At all times relevant, Brad Vanselous was an employee and co-worker of Plaintiff
at Defendant-Bloomberg.
HISTORY AND CULTURE OF SEX AND RACE BASED DISCRIMINATION AT
BLOOMBERG
21. Bloomberg is a $60 billion privately held financial, software, data, and media
company that purports to act with the very highest moral and ethical standards.
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 8 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 5 of 36 PagelD: 59
22. Defendant-Bloomberg is a company with a long history of a systemic top-down
sexist culture created and condoned by its Founder, CEO and Owner Defendant Michael
Bloomberg.
23. On March 1, 2020, a Business Insider article reported that more than 40 current and
former Bloomberg L.P. employees confirmed that Defendant fostered a toxic, misogynistic, and
hyper-masculine workplace culture, where Management harassed and bullied female employees
without fear of impunity. When Defendant’s female employees reported claims of inappropriate
behavior to its Human Resources, their complaints were routinely ignored.1
24. In 2019, three women of color who worked at Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P.
found their overall experience at the Company so demeaning that they sent a letter to their alma
mater, a well-known historically Black college, urging it to cease cooperating in Defendant’s
recruitment efforts. The letter sent in 2019 to the College’s President and to its Director of Career
Planning and Development described Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. as a "toxic and demoralizing
system.”2
25. The letter was signed by a graduate of the college, who helped recruit for Defendant
before leaving the Company who stated that "This organization does not have people of color
sitting on their management committee, or in visible senior leadership roles, and the ones that do
have direct reports have acted in irrepressible ways towards... women of color.3
! Binbinder, Nicole and Campbell, Dakin, “More than 40 current and former Bloomberg, L.P. employees revealed
the Company’s abusive ‘trading floor’ culture, where Mike Bloomberg and his colleagues allegedly called women
“SFUs’ for ‘short fat and ugly,’ and women complained about a senior newsroom leader’s unwanted massages for
years.” Business Insider, (March 2020). https://www. businessinsider.com/bloomberg-created-culture-of-cruelty-and-
harassment-2020-2.
? Id.
3d.
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg9of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 6 of 36 PagelD: 6U
26. Defendant’s female employees, and particularly pregnant females and females over
40, who did not fit the “sexy” criteria of “BLOOMBERG’s culture” or misogynistic standards
of objectifying a woman’s physical appearance were treated unfavorably and isolated in the
workplace by their male counterparts and Defendant’s C-Suite Executive Managements
27. Despite the vast nature and number of reported discriminatory internal complaints,
Defendant has consistently denied receiving any harassment or discrimination complaints.s
28. On September 27, 2007, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) issued a press release titled: “BLOOMBERG L.P. SUED FOR PREGNANCY BIAS”
discussing the EEOC’s lawsuit against Defendant, asserting that it “engaged in a pattern or practice
of demoting and reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and
after they took maternity leave.s The lawsuit alleged that the same pregnant women and new
mothers were excluded from management meetings and subjected to stereotyping.7 Complaints
made by the women to Defendant’s Human Resources Department were dismissed.s
29. The lawsuit accused Defendants Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg L.P. of
engaging in a pattern of demoting women, diminishing their duties, and excluding them from other
job opportunities after they disclosed that they were pregnant and/or for discriminatory reasons
based upon their sex.9
4 Van Meter, Jonathan, Madam Would-Be Mayor. New York Magazine (2013).
http://nymag.com/news/features/christine-quinn-2013-2/
5 Id.
© Bloomberg L.P. sued for pregnancy bias, BLOOMBERG L.P. SUED FOR PREGNANCY BIAS | U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (2007), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/bloomberg-Ip-sued-pregnancy-bias
7 Id.
8 id.
° Einbinder, Nicole and Campbell, Dakin, “More than 40 current
and former Bloomberg, L.P. employees revealed
the Company's abusive ‘trading floor’ culture, where Mike Bloomberg and his colleagues allegedly called women
‘SFUs’ for ‘shortfat and ugly,’ and women complained about a senior newsroom leader’s unwanted massages for
years.” Business Insider, (March 2020). https.//www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-created-culture-of-cruelty-
and-harassment-2020-2
Case
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM
3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4
P
FI fe d10 12/20/23
of 39 Trans ID:
Page
LCV2024397278
/ of 36 PagelD: 61
30. The EEOC complaint alleged that "[t]his systemic top-down discrimination against
female employees is fostered, condoned, and perpetrated by the highest levels of management
within Bloomberg and by ownership of Bloomberg, to wit, Michael Bloomberg....”10
31. In 2013, Cord Jefferson authored an article entitled, “’I’d Do Her’: A Brief History
of Michael Bloomberg’s Public Sexism.”11 Jefferson documented that “[iJn 1996 and 1997, four
women filed sexual harassment suits against Bloomberg L.P. One of them, a sales executive named
Sekiko Garrison, alleged that Michael Bloomberg told her to 'Kill it!' when she shared with him
that she was pregnant.12 Asked by Ms. Garrison to repeat himself, Defendant Michael Bloomberg
said again, 'Kill it!'13 Garrison said that Defendant Michael Bloomberg went on to lament that she
was going to be the sixteenth woman in the Company to be taking maternity leave."14
32. Indeed, over the years, the company has faced a variety of employment lawsuits —
more than 40 cases involving 65 plaintiffs between 1996 and 2020.
33. The majority of those cases concerned discrimination — on the basis of gender,
race, age, disability status, or pregnant claims for failure to promote and compensate equally in
terms of protected class(es).15
34. On August 9, 2020, a class action suit was filed by Nafeesa Syeed, a woman of
color on behalf of similarly situated women. She was denied a promotion in Bloomberg’s New
York office in favor of a white male.1s The class action suit was later amended to add another
'0 Kugler, Sara, Suit: Bloomberg Condoned Discrimination. USA Today (2007).
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-10-03-2247216259_x.htm
u Jefferson, Cord, ‘I’d Do Her’: A Brief History of Michael Bloomberg’s Public Sexism. Gawker (2013).
http://gawker.com/5979679/id-do-her-a-brief-history-of-michael-bloombergs-public-sexism.
12 Id.
'3 1d.
14 1d.
15 Becky Peterson, Nicole Einbinder, and J.K. Trotter reported at Business Insider in November 2019.
'© Nafeesa Syeed v. Bloomberg, L.P. et al, New York County Supreme Court Index No.: 156215/2020.
Case
MID-L-006429-23
3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD
02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM
Document4
P
FI fe d11 12/20/23
of 39 Trans ID:
Page
LCV2024397278
8 of 36 PagelD: 62
Plaintiff, a Black woman who filed an EEOC Charge for discrimination claims based on sex and
race, disparate treatment relating to compensation, promotion and career opportunity, and a hostile
work environment against Bloomberg LP. and filed an amended complaint on her behalf and
behalf of other similarly situated women relating to class claims for disparate treatment and
disparate impact for unequal compensation and individual claims of sex and race discrimination,
hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and New York State and New York City
Human Rights laws.17
DEFENDANT’S HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FAILS AND/OR REFUSES TO
PROPERLY REMEDY INTERNAL COMPLAINTS OF SEX-BASED
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
35. Defendant-Bloomberg’s employees, both male and female, are not afforded the
proper sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training, monitoring, support, policing and/or
discipline for failure to comply with employment policies to protect employees against sexual
harassment, discrimination and retaliation.1s
36. Defendant-Bloomberg’s employees are not afforded a sufficient and/or effective
means of complaining and/or internally reporting sexual harassment.
37. Defendant-Bloomberg’s Human Resources and Legal Departments do not properly
investigate, remediate and/or take appropriate action against male employees charged by female
employees of sexual harassment.
38. Plaintiff experienced Defendant-Bloomberg’s HR practices and managers to be
solely interested in protecting Defendant as a Company, avoiding liability and not acting as an
advocate for her or any female employee who complains of discrimination, harassment and/or
discrimination.
" Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P. et al, New York Southern District Court, 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG.
18 See also Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P., Docket No. 09136 (U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, 10/25/22)
Case
MID-L-006429-23
3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD
02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM
Document4
P
FI fe d12 12/20/23
of 39 Trans ID:
Page
LCV2024397278
Y of 36 PagelD: 63
39. Defendant’s HR is notorious among its employees for its indifference to assisting
female employees with their internal sexual harassment complaints and lack of enforcement and/or
selective enforcement of its human resources policies, retaliation and particularly, sexual
harassment policies.19
40. For decades prior, up to and including Plaintiff's employment, Defendant’s HR was
on notice of sexual harassment complaints by its female employees in its workplace and thus, has
willfully and continuously breached its duty to enforce its policies in violation of the governing
laws of the states where its employees work.
41. Revealingly, Defendant’s HR seems to follow the example of its Founder,
Defendant Michael Bloomberg, described in the book written by his employees, ""The Portable
Bloomberg:" "The Wit & Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg."" In the book, Defendant Michael
Bloomberg states, ""Whenever one of my employees designs a form or writes a memo, I walk out
into the hallway and make a big deal of tearing it up. The last thing we need are lots of forms and
procedures and policies.”
COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
42. Successful job applicants are asked by Human Resources, internal recruiting what
their current or most recent salary is (“prior pay”). HR Recruiters are directed to identify the job
applicant’s race during the hiring process.
'9"On June 1, 2016, a female BLOOMBERG employee filed suit against her direct supervisor alleging sexual
harassment and wrongful termination, in which she alleges that her complaints to BLOOMBERG HR in 2013 and
2014 of her supervisor's sexual harassment went virtually ignored, and that HR told her to ""be more professional""
and ""keep her emotions in check.’ m Her Bloomberg supervisor retaliated against her, which HR also ignored. See
Elizabeth Lisser v. Bloomberg, L.P. et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Docket No.
1:16-cv-05991.
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 13 0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 10 of 36 Pagelb: 64
43. Most news organizations have gender pay discrepancies, so that reliance on prior
pay in setting starting salary hurts women. The industry wide pay disparities average 10-15% and
are well known.
44. Defendant Bloomberg often agrees to offer more money to male employees seeking
a better salary but declines to do so for female new hires.
45. Starting pay continues to impact compensation throughout employees’ careers at
Bloomberg, as even if pay raises were given equally to male and female employees, the disparities
created with starting pay would continue, in a phenomenon recognized as “start low, stay low.”
46. For example, Bloomberg’s data reflects that the average base pay for Plaintiffs
Senior Software engineer position with the same or similar qualifications and experience was
$202,344, but Plaintiff
was only compensated $150,000.
47. Plaintiff was paid approximately $50,000 less on average compared to her similarly
situated male coworkers for at least the last five years of her employment.
48. Moreover, employees were prohibited from discussing salaries with coworkers.
Pay secrecy has been shown to hurt women by depriving them of information they need to seek
equal pay. If management or HR learns that employees have shared their own salary information
with coworkers, they have reprimanded those employees for sharing purportedly “confidential”
information.
49. Based upon employee compensation data and analysis published by the U.K.’s
Government Equalities Office, within Defendant Bloomberg, women earn 80p for every £1 that
men earn in terms of median hourly wages. Women 9gSs « median hourly wage is 20.2% lower than
2g
men's in the 2020-21 report. Prior years were similar, showing women earned 78-79p for every
£1 that men earn.
10
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 14 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 11 of 36 PagelD: 65
50. The Bloomberg Industry Group is an affiliate of Defendant Bloomberg L.P.
Employees working for the Industry Group are unionized and represented by the Guild
(Communication Workers of America). The Guild released a study of pay disparities based on
2018 data, showing a pay gap of approximately 6% between average pay for white men and white
women, with the gender disparity doubling for African American and Latina women as compared
to men of the same race/ethnicity. The Guild followed up with a study of 2020 data which reported
that median women’s salary was 9.5% lower than median men’s salary.
51. In or around approximately February 2020, an HR Representative, Angela Wiley,
disclosed to a former Bloomberg L.P. employee that women of color are paid less across the board
and on average receive worse reviews than their peers, regardless of their performance.
52. Lower ratings are then used to deny or reduce bonus awards, pay increases, and
promotions.
53. As of the end of her employment, and after numerous requests for pay equity,
Plaintiff had still not received a pay increase that would bring her compensation in line with her
white male counterparts.
54. Plaintiff
had not been provided with any equitable pay analysis that explained why
she was still paid significantly less than so many men, and white employees, in the same position
as her.
55. Defendant Bloomberg made the decisions affecting Plaintiff's compensation and
refused to authorize the equitable pay raise so that Plaintiff received a comparable salary like her
male counterparts.
11
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 15 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 12 of 36 Pagelb: 66
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANT-BLOOMBERG
Facts Asserted As Background Evidence Stemming from 2001 Sex & Pregnancy
Discrimination
56. On or about January 31, 2000, Plaintiff began working for Defendant Bloomberg,
L.P. as a Junior Programmer in Training at the Bloomberg Tower, 731 Lexington Avenue, New
York, New York.
57. During Plaintiffs interview with the Equities Group, she was asked if she was
married.
58. In or about August 2000, Plaintiff was promoted to the Equities Team as a News
Frontend Programmer where she worked at offices located at 110 East 59th Street, New York,
New York.
59. In or about February 2001, Plaintiff became pregnant.
60. Given the notorious hostility toward pregnant women at Bloomberg, Plaintiff
waited as long as she could, until she began showing, to inform her Male Team Leader, John Coyne
(“Coyne”), that she was pregnant.
61. Shortly after notifying her male supervisors of her pregnancy, she was assigned
work outside her job description. For example, on or about July 11, 2001, another Male Team
Leader and supervisor, Domenic Maida (“Maida”) emailed Plaintiff that he needed her to test
BFON from July 20, 2001, through August 3, 2001, a voluntary project for a communication
device that was not within Plaintiff's
job description.
62. On or about July 17, 2001, Plaintiff responded to Maida that the schedule may be
too difficult on her because the training would take place all day from 9:05 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for
two weeks in addition to filing reports of the test findings.
12
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 16 o0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 13 of 36 PagelD: 6/
63. The same day, Maida responded to Plaintiff in an aggressive and demeaning
manner stating “I need you to do the BFON testing. Ryan Caudy, our intern, has been able to
balance his project and the testing. Adding a new TOP category and document exactly how to do
it, should not be too time intensive.”
64. Maida demanded that Plaintiff do the BFON testing, despite being told from the
person in charge of BFON that she did not have to do so.
65. Maida praised the male intern and compared the intern to Plaintiff, an experienced
Application Builder, to justify the degree of time intensity the BFON testing would require,
implying that even an intern can balance his projects and BFON testing, failing to appreciate that
Plaintiff's workload was significantly more intense than an intern, and that Plaintiff specifically
told Maida that her other work assignments were due at the same time as the BFON testing.
66. Plaintiff further explained to Maida that she was in her sixth month of her
pregnancy and per doctor’s orders she was required to take breaks to avoid medical complications.
67. Eventually, Maida begrudgingly assigned the BFON testing to a female executive
assistant and thereafter refused to communicate with Plaintiff in any meaningful way.
68. When Plaintiff returned from FMLA maternity leave, she went to say “hello” to
Maida, who refused to even turn around to acknowledge her.
69. Plaintiff was subsequently issued an unfair negative performance evaluation for
2001, appraised by her Team Leaders Coyne and Maida.
70. Lower ratings are used to deny or reduce bonus awards, pay increases, and
promotions.
13
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 17 o0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 14 of 36 PagelD: 68
71. The 2001 performance evaluation attacked Plaintiffs “overall productivity level”
as a “strain on the group”, falsely reviewing her under a “second year Bloomberg programmer”
standard when she was actually a first year Bloomberg programmer for the covered period.
72. Indeed, Plaintiff had requested assignment from Male Team Leaders Joe Schmitz
(“Schmitz”) and Maida, but they did not provide her with any opportunity to work on any
meaningful projects during the review period.
73. Specifically, during the ten weeks before her pregnancy-related medical leave,
which she took on August 31, 2001, she approached Schmitz to request more projects to work on.
74. Despite promising to assign her additional projects, he never followed through with
his promise and did not assign her any meaningful projects to work on during the ten-week period
prior to her maternity leave, resulting in unfair demerits in Plaintiff's evaluation.
75. Plaintiff requested work on News Frontend projects before her medical leave which
would have bolstered her performance evaluation, but was denied and thereafter accused of being
“unproductive.”
76. The 2001 performance review utterly failed to acknowledge Plaintiff's performance
as the primary contact on PWHO and TOP functions which she created, and it falsely accused
Plaintiff of missing deadlines when none existed.
77. On the other hand, male counterparts were provided projects that assisted career
advancement.
78. Maida was promoted as Plaintiffs manager.
79. Plaintiff, on the other hand, was kept out of the loop from important
communications with the other group members working on the project.
14
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pg 18o0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 15 of 36 Pagelb: 69
80. Plaintiff reported to Defendant-Bloomberg HR representative Kate Wheatley to
discuss the disparate treatment following her pregnancy reveal and upon her return from pregnancy
leave.
81. Defendant-Bloomberg HR, however, failed to address her complaints, failed to
remedy the situation and allowed the negative evaluation to remain in her employee file.
82. Thereafter, throughout 2002 and 2003, Plaintiff worked in groups primarily
dominated by men and was assigned projects with unrealistic deadlines whereas the other male
team members were allowed to determine their own deadlines, was the subject of unwarranted
criticism, refused assistance and clarification on assignments, excluded from group collaboration,
excessive monitoring of Plaintiff at her desk to deprive her of the ability to freely move around
and communicate with colleagues as to work assignments and ignored with respect to her positive
performance resulting in unwarranted negative performance evaluations.
83. Consequently, in or about 2004, Plaintiff sought out a transfer to Defendant
Bloomberg, L.P. Princeton Office Campus where she accepted an entry-level position as an
Application Builder within the Data Center Operations Group, which was subsequently retitled to
the R&D DC Infrastructure Strategy Group, and later to the ENG TI Inventory Group, for which
she was overqualified in order to escape the discrimination, retaliation harassment, and hostile
work environment based on her gender and following her pregnancy, pregnancy leave and
complaint regarding the same, all of which was created and condoned by Defendant-Bloomberg
supervisors, representatives and employees.
84. Unfortunately, the new location did not improve working conditions for Plaintiff
who soon became the victim of sexual harassment by male co-worker Vanselous.
15
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 19of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 16 of 36 Pagelb: /U
85. In or about 2005, Plaintiff
was working in Defendant’s Data Center Operations
Team, which consisted of herself and Vanselous.
86. Vanselous was initially Plaintiff's mentor and their relationship started off as
friendly, but Vanselous soon began inappropriate sexual flirtations and solicitations.
87. For example, Vanselous would tell Plaintiff that she “smells good.”
88. Plaintiff tried to ignore Vanselous’ sexual advances which, in turn, resulted in him
calling Plaintiff into the conference room alone directing her on project details in a hostile and
angry manner.
89. Vanselous told Plaintiff, “If you’re nice to me, your review will be good.”
90. Other women noticed Vanselous’ harassing behavior towards Plaintiff including
Mary Dillard and Jill Johnson in the Data Entry Team, who recommended that Plaintiff report
Vanselous’ sexual harassment to Team Leader Reynoso (“Reynoso”).
91. Plaintiff went to Reynoso to discuss Vanselous’ sexual harassment, who brought
Plaintiff's complaint to Defendant’s HR Brenda Clark (“Clark”).
92. Clark contacted Plaintiff and said that she would address the issue.
93. Clark investigated Plaintiff's team members, including Tiblet Yohannes and other
women who confirmed that Vanselous’ had a pattern and practice of harassing behavior toward
many women.
94. However, Clark never reported back to Plaintiff to advise whether Vanselous was
penalized, counselled or disciplined in any way and Plaintiff
was forced to continue working with
Vanselous.
95. Following the investigation, Plaintiff was ostracized, even from the women who
encouraged her to complain.
16
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 20 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 1/ of 36 Pagelb: /1
96. Previously, co-workers would eat lunch and socialize with Plaintiff, but this ended
after the investigation.
97. Plaintiff approached Clark to discuss the ostracization. After r3ecommending a
team building event, Plaintiff suffered further hostility from her team which continued throughout
2006.
98. In or about 2007, she was assigned to work under male Team Leaders Jim Doyle
(“Doyle”) and Nathaniel Brown (“Brown”) and with male co-workers Vanselous, Adam Turco
and Bob Chan.
99. Doyle, Brown and her male co-workers joined together to undermine and exclude
Plaintiff from the team by making false accusations about Plaintiff's attendance, work on projects,
refusal to provide feedback on engineer and hardware forms, database issues, code review
suggestions and form design.
100. Moreover, Plaintiff requested to work on various projects including the Ridge Road
Migration, Blade Logic Import and Powerdown Website but was denied and instead, those projects
were assigned to Vanselous.
101. Had Plaintiff been assigned to those projects, it would have had a positive impact
on her performance evaluation.
102. Instead, she received an unjustified negative performance rating and was told by
Defendant-Brown that she would not be receiving a raise in compensation by way of base salary
adjustments or certification awards in the near future.
103. When Plaintiff questioned Defendant-Brown about his decision, he refused to give
her a substantive explanation sloughing her off by saying that she “was already making enough
money and shouldn’t expect more.”
17
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 21 0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 18 of 36 PagelD: /2
104. Meanwhile, the men on the team all received positive reviews and raises, including
the new less experienced male programmer, Adam Turco.
105. Plaintiff complained to the Defendant-Bloomberg Human Resources
representative, who in turn advised Plaintiff that her male co-workers had provided the Team
Leader with negative input about her resulting in the negative evaluation.
106. However, when Plaintiff subsequently asked the male coworkers if they had
provided negative feedback, each of them denied having been the source of any negative comments
as to Plaintiff's performance at work.
107. Oddly, as Plaintiff pointed out to the Team Leaders, Adam Turco was a new male
programmer, who only recently joined the Data Center Operations Group, and that relying on
unsolicited feedback from a new programmer about the performance of an established coworker
like Plaintiff was inappropriate.
108. Ultimately, the 2007 performance evaluation was revised, but the damage had been
done and Plaintiff
did not receive a raise, base salary increase, or certification award for that year.
109. In or about 2008, Plaintiff
was part of the EEOC’s lawsuit against Bloomberg (Civil
Action No. 07- CIV 8383) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York filed by
78 claimants alleging that Defendant-Bloomberg engaged in a pattern or practice of demoting and
reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took
maternity leave and that some women were replaced by more junior male employees, that the same
pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from management meetings and subjected to
stereotyping about their abilities to do their jobs because of their family and caregiver
responsibilities, and complaints made by the women to Bloomberg’s HR Department were
dismissed.
18
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 22 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 19 of 36 PagelD: /3
110. Following Plaintiff's participation in the EEOC litigation, Plaintiff did not receive
any negative performance evaluations and while she continued to receive less significant projects
and tasks than her male counterparts, the outright hostility quieted.
111. Despite Plaintiff
not receiving any negative performance evaluations, Plaintiff
was
still denied a salary increase that would compensate her equitably compared to her white and/or
male comparators.
112. In or about 2014, however, things reverted back to treating Plaintiff in a demeaning
and exclusionary manner after she reported at a meeting on or about June 18, 2014 that she “felt it
wasn’t always easy to assert control or leadership due to some ongoing adversities [referring to]
Brad Vanselous (who seems to have Schriber’s ears) always called shots and took the initiative
away from me even at the slightest of opportunities.”
113. Indeed, at this meeting, Team Leader Todd Schrieber (“Schrieber”) explained
Plaintiff's role as a Project Liaison, despite her understanding that she was the Project Manager, a
higher position to those in attendance.
114. Thereafter, throughout the year in 2014 Plaintiff received evasive responses from
Teal Leaders, including Schrieber, to her questions about projects, dismissive and humiliating
remarks, insults and empty promises.
115. Despite Plaintiff's superior qualifications for the Project than that of Vanselous, he
became the de facto Project manager and insisted on setting agendas and direction for most
meetings, and at times to Plaintiff's exclusion. For example, Vanselous excluded Plaintiff from a
meeting on June 10, 2015, with John Coyne and a group meeting on October 01, 2015, in
preparation for the tropical storm Joaquin.
19
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 23 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278
Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 2U of 36 Pagelb: /4
116. These instances occurred mostly with Schribe
Preview
MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pglof3 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 David W. Garland (NJ Bar No. 015861985) EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C One Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311 Tel: (973) 642-1900 Attorneys for Defendants Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY SARITA BHAT LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY Docket No. MID-L-6429-23 Plaintiff, VS, NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION BLOOMBERG L.P., and TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE STEWART N. BAILEY, (individually and in his : AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT official capacity), jointly and severally, TO R. 4:6-2(E) Defendants. TO Donna H. Clancy, Esq. THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C dhc@dhclancylaw.com 40 Wall Street, 61‘ Floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 747-1744 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sarita Bhat PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, March 1, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., attorneys for defendants Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey (collectively, “Defendants”), shall move pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e) of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey for an Order dismissing certain claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this Motion, Defendants will rely upon the accompanying Brief, Certification of David W. Garland with exhibits. FIRM:63722448 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg2of3 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is annexed hereto pursuant to R. 1:6-2(a). PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that oral argument is requested. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that no discovery end date has been set in this matter. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. Attorneysfor Defendants Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey By: _/s David W. Garland DAVID W. GARLAND For the Firm DATED: February 14, 2024 -2- FIRM:63722448 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pg3of3 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I caused a copy of the foregoing Notice of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in the Amended Complaint Pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e), supporting Brief with exhibits, and a proposed form of Order to be served upon counsel for plaintiff via eCourts’ e-filing system (in conformance with the relaxation ofR. 1:5-2 on June 3, 2014), to Donna H. Clancy, Esq., THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C., 40 Wall Street, 61‘ Floor, New York, New York 10005. By: /s/ David W. Garland Dated: February 14, 2024 -3- FIRM:63722448 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pg1of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 DavidW. Garland — Attorney No.: 015861985 EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C One Gateway Center, 13th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311 (973) 642-1900 Attorneys for Defendants Bloomberg L.P. and Stewart N. Bailey SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY SARITA BHAT LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY Docket No. MID-L-6429-23 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATION OF DAVID W. VS. GARLAND IN SUPPORT OF BLOOMBERG L.P., and DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS STEWART N. BAILEY, (individually and in his CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE AMENDED official capacity), jointly and severally, COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO R. 4:6-2(E) Defendants. v DAVID W. GARLAND, of full age, hereby certifies and says: 1 lam an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey and a member of the law firm of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., attorneys for defendants Bloomberg, L.P. (“Bloomberg”) and Stewart N. Bailey (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-captioned matter. I submit this Certification in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the Amended Complaint that Plaintiff Sarita Bhat filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 20, 2023, before the case was remanded to this Court. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. FIRM:63732910v1 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg2of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 /s/ David W. Garland David W. Garland Dated: February 14, 2024 FIRM:63732910v1 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 3of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 EXHIBIT A MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 4 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-CvV-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 1 of 36 PagelD: 55 THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C. Donna H. Clancy, Esq. 40 Wall Street, 61st Floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 747-1744 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorney ID No. 041531990 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SARITA BHAT, Plaintiff, DOCUMENT FILED ELECTRONICALLY Civil Action No.: 23-cv-23120-RK-JBD vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT BLOOMBERG L.P. and AND JURY DEMAND STEWART N. BAILEY, (individually and in his official capacity), jointly and severally,: Defendants. Plaintiff SARITA BHAT, residing in Middlesex County, by way of an amended complaint, states against Defendants: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Sarita Bhat, a 53-year-old Indian-female, former Programmer of Defendant, Bloomberg L.P., brings this action to remedy pervasive sex, race and age discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment arising under her employment with Bloomberg pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq., the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act of 2018, 42 USC 2000e-5(e)(3)(A) and the Pierce Doctrine, common law retaliation and other applicable claims and remedies under New Jersey law. Specially, Ms. Bhat alleges that despite 21 years of dedicated service as a highly skilled Programmer for Defendant-Bloomberg, she was continuously paid less than her male and/or white counterparts and subjected to disparate treatment on the basis of her sex and race throughout the 1 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg5 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 2 of 36 PagelD: 56 course of her employment. As a result of the disparate treatment, Plaintiff filed an EEOC claim for pregnancy discrimination in 2007 and later filed a sexual harassment complaint along with internal disparate treatment and retaliation claims. In retaliation for her complaints, Plaintiff was relegated to being supervised by the male employee who she complained against and who she claims targeted her performance, career, opportunity for promotion and compensation. Despite her complaints, Defendant-Bloomberg’s Human Resources failed and refused to investigate and remedy the intolerable discrimination. Despite her numerous complaints regarding unequal pay, Defendant- Bloomberg failed to compensate Plaintiff equitably as compared to her male and/or white comparators. At the time Plaintiff was terminated, she was paid at minimum $75,000 less than her all-male team. After more than twenty years of dedicated service, Defendant-Bloomberg advised Plaintiff that she could either resign with severance or be placed on a performance improvement plan. Plaintiff declined to resign and after being placed on a performance improvement plan that set her up for her failure, Defendant-Bloomberg terminated her shortly thereafter citing “failure to improve.” JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1 This matter is properly before the State Superior Court Law Division pursuant to R. 4:3-1(a) (5). 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims under N.J.S.A.10:5-1 et seq. 3 This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4 and other applicable law. MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 6 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 3 of 36 PagelD: 5/ IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND KEY WITNESSES 4 At all times relevant, Plaintiff Sarita Bhat (“Plaintiff’ or “Bhat”) was an employee of the Defendants within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 10 §10:5-5 and within the statutory meaning of the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act of 2018. 5 Defendant Bloomberg, L.P. (“Defendant-Bloomberg” or “Bloomberg”’) is a limited partnership, a business structure that is a mixture of a general partnership and a corporation, in which limited liability protection is maintained for certain partners. Limited partnerships consist of two or more partners. 6 The founders of Defendant-Bloomberg are Michael Bloomberg, Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan and Charles Zegar. 7 Defendant-Bloomberg has its primary place of business located at 731 Lexington Avenue, City of New York, County of New York, State of New York. 8 The majority of acts and omissions that give rise to this action occurred at offices of Defendant-Bloomberg in the Princeton, New Jersey Office, located at 101 Business Park Dr, Princeton, NJ 08540, where Plaintiff was employed. 9 Bloomberg, Inc. is the parent organization of Defendant-Bloomberg. 10. Defendant is a $60 billion privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The Company provides financial software tools such as an analytics and equity trading platform, data services, and reports news to financial companies and organizations through its publications such as Businessweek, its online presence, television and radio reporting. Bloomberg serves customers worldwide. 11. At times relevant, Defendant-Bloomberg employed more than 16,000 employees worldwide and was the “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-5(e). MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg7of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 4 of 36 PagelD: 58 12. At times relevant, Defendant-Bloomberg was the “employer” of Plaintiff within the statutory meaning of the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act of 2018. 13. At all times relevant, Defendant Stewart N. Bailey (“Defendant-Bailey” or “Bailey”) was employed by Defendant-Bloomberg as the ENG Infrastructure Console Lead at Bloomberg L.P. 14. At all times relevant, Defendant Bailey acted in a supervisory or managerial capacity over Plaintiff during the course of her employment at Bloomberg. 15. Defendant-Bailey resides in the state of New Jersey. 16. At times relevant, Brenda Clark was an employee and Human Resources Representative at Defendant-Bloomberg. 17. At times relevant, Mary Quinn was an employee and Human Resources Representative at Defendant-Bloomberg. 18. At all times relevant, Todd Schreiber was an employee within the Data Center at Defendant-Bloomberg. 19. At all times relevant, Peter Shine was an employee and Senior Engineering Manager at Defendant-Bloomberg. 20. At all times relevant, Brad Vanselous was an employee and co-worker of Plaintiff at Defendant-Bloomberg. HISTORY AND CULTURE OF SEX AND RACE BASED DISCRIMINATION AT BLOOMBERG 21. Bloomberg is a $60 billion privately held financial, software, data, and media company that purports to act with the very highest moral and ethical standards. MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 8 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 5 of 36 PagelD: 59 22. Defendant-Bloomberg is a company with a long history of a systemic top-down sexist culture created and condoned by its Founder, CEO and Owner Defendant Michael Bloomberg. 23. On March 1, 2020, a Business Insider article reported that more than 40 current and former Bloomberg L.P. employees confirmed that Defendant fostered a toxic, misogynistic, and hyper-masculine workplace culture, where Management harassed and bullied female employees without fear of impunity. When Defendant’s female employees reported claims of inappropriate behavior to its Human Resources, their complaints were routinely ignored.1 24. In 2019, three women of color who worked at Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. found their overall experience at the Company so demeaning that they sent a letter to their alma mater, a well-known historically Black college, urging it to cease cooperating in Defendant’s recruitment efforts. The letter sent in 2019 to the College’s President and to its Director of Career Planning and Development described Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. as a "toxic and demoralizing system.”2 25. The letter was signed by a graduate of the college, who helped recruit for Defendant before leaving the Company who stated that "This organization does not have people of color sitting on their management committee, or in visible senior leadership roles, and the ones that do have direct reports have acted in irrepressible ways towards... women of color.3 ! Binbinder, Nicole and Campbell, Dakin, “More than 40 current and former Bloomberg, L.P. employees revealed the Company’s abusive ‘trading floor’ culture, where Mike Bloomberg and his colleagues allegedly called women “SFUs’ for ‘short fat and ugly,’ and women complained about a senior newsroom leader’s unwanted massages for years.” Business Insider, (March 2020). https://www. businessinsider.com/bloomberg-created-culture-of-cruelty-and- harassment-2020-2. ? Id. 3d. MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg9of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 6 of 36 PagelD: 6U 26. Defendant’s female employees, and particularly pregnant females and females over 40, who did not fit the “sexy” criteria of “BLOOMBERG’s culture” or misogynistic standards of objectifying a woman’s physical appearance were treated unfavorably and isolated in the workplace by their male counterparts and Defendant’s C-Suite Executive Managements 27. Despite the vast nature and number of reported discriminatory internal complaints, Defendant has consistently denied receiving any harassment or discrimination complaints.s 28. On September 27, 2007, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a press release titled: “BLOOMBERG L.P. SUED FOR PREGNANCY BIAS” discussing the EEOC’s lawsuit against Defendant, asserting that it “engaged in a pattern or practice of demoting and reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leave.s The lawsuit alleged that the same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from management meetings and subjected to stereotyping.7 Complaints made by the women to Defendant’s Human Resources Department were dismissed.s 29. The lawsuit accused Defendants Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg L.P. of engaging in a pattern of demoting women, diminishing their duties, and excluding them from other job opportunities after they disclosed that they were pregnant and/or for discriminatory reasons based upon their sex.9 4 Van Meter, Jonathan, Madam Would-Be Mayor. New York Magazine (2013). http://nymag.com/news/features/christine-quinn-2013-2/ 5 Id. © Bloomberg L.P. sued for pregnancy bias, BLOOMBERG L.P. SUED FOR PREGNANCY BIAS | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/bloomberg-Ip-sued-pregnancy-bias 7 Id. 8 id. ° Einbinder, Nicole and Campbell, Dakin, “More than 40 current and former Bloomberg, L.P. employees revealed the Company's abusive ‘trading floor’ culture, where Mike Bloomberg and his colleagues allegedly called women ‘SFUs’ for ‘shortfat and ugly,’ and women complained about a senior newsroom leader’s unwanted massages for years.” Business Insider, (March 2020). https.//www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-created-culture-of-cruelty- and-harassment-2020-2 Case MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 P FI fe d10 12/20/23 of 39 Trans ID: Page LCV2024397278 / of 36 PagelD: 61 30. The EEOC complaint alleged that "[t]his systemic top-down discrimination against female employees is fostered, condoned, and perpetrated by the highest levels of management within Bloomberg and by ownership of Bloomberg, to wit, Michael Bloomberg....”10 31. In 2013, Cord Jefferson authored an article entitled, “’I’d Do Her’: A Brief History of Michael Bloomberg’s Public Sexism.”11 Jefferson documented that “[iJn 1996 and 1997, four women filed sexual harassment suits against Bloomberg L.P. One of them, a sales executive named Sekiko Garrison, alleged that Michael Bloomberg told her to 'Kill it!' when she shared with him that she was pregnant.12 Asked by Ms. Garrison to repeat himself, Defendant Michael Bloomberg said again, 'Kill it!'13 Garrison said that Defendant Michael Bloomberg went on to lament that she was going to be the sixteenth woman in the Company to be taking maternity leave."14 32. Indeed, over the years, the company has faced a variety of employment lawsuits — more than 40 cases involving 65 plaintiffs between 1996 and 2020. 33. The majority of those cases concerned discrimination — on the basis of gender, race, age, disability status, or pregnant claims for failure to promote and compensate equally in terms of protected class(es).15 34. On August 9, 2020, a class action suit was filed by Nafeesa Syeed, a woman of color on behalf of similarly situated women. She was denied a promotion in Bloomberg’s New York office in favor of a white male.1s The class action suit was later amended to add another '0 Kugler, Sara, Suit: Bloomberg Condoned Discrimination. USA Today (2007). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-10-03-2247216259_x.htm u Jefferson, Cord, ‘I’d Do Her’: A Brief History of Michael Bloomberg’s Public Sexism. Gawker (2013). http://gawker.com/5979679/id-do-her-a-brief-history-of-michael-bloombergs-public-sexism. 12 Id. '3 1d. 14 1d. 15 Becky Peterson, Nicole Einbinder, and J.K. Trotter reported at Business Insider in November 2019. '© Nafeesa Syeed v. Bloomberg, L.P. et al, New York County Supreme Court Index No.: 156215/2020. Case MID-L-006429-23 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Document4 P FI fe d11 12/20/23 of 39 Trans ID: Page LCV2024397278 8 of 36 PagelD: 62 Plaintiff, a Black woman who filed an EEOC Charge for discrimination claims based on sex and race, disparate treatment relating to compensation, promotion and career opportunity, and a hostile work environment against Bloomberg LP. and filed an amended complaint on her behalf and behalf of other similarly situated women relating to class claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact for unequal compensation and individual claims of sex and race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and New York State and New York City Human Rights laws.17 DEFENDANT’S HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FAILS AND/OR REFUSES TO PROPERLY REMEDY INTERNAL COMPLAINTS OF SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 35. Defendant-Bloomberg’s employees, both male and female, are not afforded the proper sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training, monitoring, support, policing and/or discipline for failure to comply with employment policies to protect employees against sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation.1s 36. Defendant-Bloomberg’s employees are not afforded a sufficient and/or effective means of complaining and/or internally reporting sexual harassment. 37. Defendant-Bloomberg’s Human Resources and Legal Departments do not properly investigate, remediate and/or take appropriate action against male employees charged by female employees of sexual harassment. 38. Plaintiff experienced Defendant-Bloomberg’s HR practices and managers to be solely interested in protecting Defendant as a Company, avoiding liability and not acting as an advocate for her or any female employee who complains of discrimination, harassment and/or discrimination. " Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P. et al, New York Southern District Court, 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG. 18 See also Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P., Docket No. 09136 (U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York, 10/25/22) Case MID-L-006429-23 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Document4 P FI fe d12 12/20/23 of 39 Trans ID: Page LCV2024397278 Y of 36 PagelD: 63 39. Defendant’s HR is notorious among its employees for its indifference to assisting female employees with their internal sexual harassment complaints and lack of enforcement and/or selective enforcement of its human resources policies, retaliation and particularly, sexual harassment policies.19 40. For decades prior, up to and including Plaintiff's employment, Defendant’s HR was on notice of sexual harassment complaints by its female employees in its workplace and thus, has willfully and continuously breached its duty to enforce its policies in violation of the governing laws of the states where its employees work. 41. Revealingly, Defendant’s HR seems to follow the example of its Founder, Defendant Michael Bloomberg, described in the book written by his employees, ""The Portable Bloomberg:" "The Wit & Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg."" In the book, Defendant Michael Bloomberg states, ""Whenever one of my employees designs a form or writes a memo, I walk out into the hallway and make a big deal of tearing it up. The last thing we need are lots of forms and procedures and policies.” COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 42. Successful job applicants are asked by Human Resources, internal recruiting what their current or most recent salary is (“prior pay”). HR Recruiters are directed to identify the job applicant’s race during the hiring process. '9"On June 1, 2016, a female BLOOMBERG employee filed suit against her direct supervisor alleging sexual harassment and wrongful termination, in which she alleges that her complaints to BLOOMBERG HR in 2013 and 2014 of her supervisor's sexual harassment went virtually ignored, and that HR told her to ""be more professional"" and ""keep her emotions in check.’ m Her Bloomberg supervisor retaliated against her, which HR also ignored. See Elizabeth Lisser v. Bloomberg, L.P. et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Docket No. 1:16-cv-05991. MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 13 0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 10 of 36 Pagelb: 64 43. Most news organizations have gender pay discrepancies, so that reliance on prior pay in setting starting salary hurts women. The industry wide pay disparities average 10-15% and are well known. 44. Defendant Bloomberg often agrees to offer more money to male employees seeking a better salary but declines to do so for female new hires. 45. Starting pay continues to impact compensation throughout employees’ careers at Bloomberg, as even if pay raises were given equally to male and female employees, the disparities created with starting pay would continue, in a phenomenon recognized as “start low, stay low.” 46. For example, Bloomberg’s data reflects that the average base pay for Plaintiffs Senior Software engineer position with the same or similar qualifications and experience was $202,344, but Plaintiff was only compensated $150,000. 47. Plaintiff was paid approximately $50,000 less on average compared to her similarly situated male coworkers for at least the last five years of her employment. 48. Moreover, employees were prohibited from discussing salaries with coworkers. Pay secrecy has been shown to hurt women by depriving them of information they need to seek equal pay. If management or HR learns that employees have shared their own salary information with coworkers, they have reprimanded those employees for sharing purportedly “confidential” information. 49. Based upon employee compensation data and analysis published by the U.K.’s Government Equalities Office, within Defendant Bloomberg, women earn 80p for every £1 that men earn in terms of median hourly wages. Women 9gSs « median hourly wage is 20.2% lower than 2g men's in the 2020-21 report. Prior years were similar, showing women earned 78-79p for every £1 that men earn. 10 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 14 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 11 of 36 PagelD: 65 50. The Bloomberg Industry Group is an affiliate of Defendant Bloomberg L.P. Employees working for the Industry Group are unionized and represented by the Guild (Communication Workers of America). The Guild released a study of pay disparities based on 2018 data, showing a pay gap of approximately 6% between average pay for white men and white women, with the gender disparity doubling for African American and Latina women as compared to men of the same race/ethnicity. The Guild followed up with a study of 2020 data which reported that median women’s salary was 9.5% lower than median men’s salary. 51. In or around approximately February 2020, an HR Representative, Angela Wiley, disclosed to a former Bloomberg L.P. employee that women of color are paid less across the board and on average receive worse reviews than their peers, regardless of their performance. 52. Lower ratings are then used to deny or reduce bonus awards, pay increases, and promotions. 53. As of the end of her employment, and after numerous requests for pay equity, Plaintiff had still not received a pay increase that would bring her compensation in line with her white male counterparts. 54. Plaintiff had not been provided with any equitable pay analysis that explained why she was still paid significantly less than so many men, and white employees, in the same position as her. 55. Defendant Bloomberg made the decisions affecting Plaintiff's compensation and refused to authorize the equitable pay raise so that Plaintiff received a comparable salary like her male counterparts. 11 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 15 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 12 of 36 Pagelb: 66 PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANT-BLOOMBERG Facts Asserted As Background Evidence Stemming from 2001 Sex & Pregnancy Discrimination 56. On or about January 31, 2000, Plaintiff began working for Defendant Bloomberg, L.P. as a Junior Programmer in Training at the Bloomberg Tower, 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. 57. During Plaintiffs interview with the Equities Group, she was asked if she was married. 58. In or about August 2000, Plaintiff was promoted to the Equities Team as a News Frontend Programmer where she worked at offices located at 110 East 59th Street, New York, New York. 59. In or about February 2001, Plaintiff became pregnant. 60. Given the notorious hostility toward pregnant women at Bloomberg, Plaintiff waited as long as she could, until she began showing, to inform her Male Team Leader, John Coyne (“Coyne”), that she was pregnant. 61. Shortly after notifying her male supervisors of her pregnancy, she was assigned work outside her job description. For example, on or about July 11, 2001, another Male Team Leader and supervisor, Domenic Maida (“Maida”) emailed Plaintiff that he needed her to test BFON from July 20, 2001, through August 3, 2001, a voluntary project for a communication device that was not within Plaintiff's job description. 62. On or about July 17, 2001, Plaintiff responded to Maida that the schedule may be too difficult on her because the training would take place all day from 9:05 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for two weeks in addition to filing reports of the test findings. 12 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 16 o0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 13 of 36 PagelD: 6/ 63. The same day, Maida responded to Plaintiff in an aggressive and demeaning manner stating “I need you to do the BFON testing. Ryan Caudy, our intern, has been able to balance his project and the testing. Adding a new TOP category and document exactly how to do it, should not be too time intensive.” 64. Maida demanded that Plaintiff do the BFON testing, despite being told from the person in charge of BFON that she did not have to do so. 65. Maida praised the male intern and compared the intern to Plaintiff, an experienced Application Builder, to justify the degree of time intensity the BFON testing would require, implying that even an intern can balance his projects and BFON testing, failing to appreciate that Plaintiff's workload was significantly more intense than an intern, and that Plaintiff specifically told Maida that her other work assignments were due at the same time as the BFON testing. 66. Plaintiff further explained to Maida that she was in her sixth month of her pregnancy and per doctor’s orders she was required to take breaks to avoid medical complications. 67. Eventually, Maida begrudgingly assigned the BFON testing to a female executive assistant and thereafter refused to communicate with Plaintiff in any meaningful way. 68. When Plaintiff returned from FMLA maternity leave, she went to say “hello” to Maida, who refused to even turn around to acknowledge her. 69. Plaintiff was subsequently issued an unfair negative performance evaluation for 2001, appraised by her Team Leaders Coyne and Maida. 70. Lower ratings are used to deny or reduce bonus awards, pay increases, and promotions. 13 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 17 o0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 14 of 36 PagelD: 68 71. The 2001 performance evaluation attacked Plaintiffs “overall productivity level” as a “strain on the group”, falsely reviewing her under a “second year Bloomberg programmer” standard when she was actually a first year Bloomberg programmer for the covered period. 72. Indeed, Plaintiff had requested assignment from Male Team Leaders Joe Schmitz (“Schmitz”) and Maida, but they did not provide her with any opportunity to work on any meaningful projects during the review period. 73. Specifically, during the ten weeks before her pregnancy-related medical leave, which she took on August 31, 2001, she approached Schmitz to request more projects to work on. 74. Despite promising to assign her additional projects, he never followed through with his promise and did not assign her any meaningful projects to work on during the ten-week period prior to her maternity leave, resulting in unfair demerits in Plaintiff's evaluation. 75. Plaintiff requested work on News Frontend projects before her medical leave which would have bolstered her performance evaluation, but was denied and thereafter accused of being “unproductive.” 76. The 2001 performance review utterly failed to acknowledge Plaintiff's performance as the primary contact on PWHO and TOP functions which she created, and it falsely accused Plaintiff of missing deadlines when none existed. 77. On the other hand, male counterparts were provided projects that assisted career advancement. 78. Maida was promoted as Plaintiffs manager. 79. Plaintiff, on the other hand, was kept out of the loop from important communications with the other group members working on the project. 14 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41AM Pg 18o0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 15 of 36 Pagelb: 69 80. Plaintiff reported to Defendant-Bloomberg HR representative Kate Wheatley to discuss the disparate treatment following her pregnancy reveal and upon her return from pregnancy leave. 81. Defendant-Bloomberg HR, however, failed to address her complaints, failed to remedy the situation and allowed the negative evaluation to remain in her employee file. 82. Thereafter, throughout 2002 and 2003, Plaintiff worked in groups primarily dominated by men and was assigned projects with unrealistic deadlines whereas the other male team members were allowed to determine their own deadlines, was the subject of unwarranted criticism, refused assistance and clarification on assignments, excluded from group collaboration, excessive monitoring of Plaintiff at her desk to deprive her of the ability to freely move around and communicate with colleagues as to work assignments and ignored with respect to her positive performance resulting in unwarranted negative performance evaluations. 83. Consequently, in or about 2004, Plaintiff sought out a transfer to Defendant Bloomberg, L.P. Princeton Office Campus where she accepted an entry-level position as an Application Builder within the Data Center Operations Group, which was subsequently retitled to the R&D DC Infrastructure Strategy Group, and later to the ENG TI Inventory Group, for which she was overqualified in order to escape the discrimination, retaliation harassment, and hostile work environment based on her gender and following her pregnancy, pregnancy leave and complaint regarding the same, all of which was created and condoned by Defendant-Bloomberg supervisors, representatives and employees. 84. Unfortunately, the new location did not improve working conditions for Plaintiff who soon became the victim of sexual harassment by male co-worker Vanselous. 15 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 19of39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 16 of 36 Pagelb: /U 85. In or about 2005, Plaintiff was working in Defendant’s Data Center Operations Team, which consisted of herself and Vanselous. 86. Vanselous was initially Plaintiff's mentor and their relationship started off as friendly, but Vanselous soon began inappropriate sexual flirtations and solicitations. 87. For example, Vanselous would tell Plaintiff that she “smells good.” 88. Plaintiff tried to ignore Vanselous’ sexual advances which, in turn, resulted in him calling Plaintiff into the conference room alone directing her on project details in a hostile and angry manner. 89. Vanselous told Plaintiff, “If you’re nice to me, your review will be good.” 90. Other women noticed Vanselous’ harassing behavior towards Plaintiff including Mary Dillard and Jill Johnson in the Data Entry Team, who recommended that Plaintiff report Vanselous’ sexual harassment to Team Leader Reynoso (“Reynoso”). 91. Plaintiff went to Reynoso to discuss Vanselous’ sexual harassment, who brought Plaintiff's complaint to Defendant’s HR Brenda Clark (“Clark”). 92. Clark contacted Plaintiff and said that she would address the issue. 93. Clark investigated Plaintiff's team members, including Tiblet Yohannes and other women who confirmed that Vanselous’ had a pattern and practice of harassing behavior toward many women. 94. However, Clark never reported back to Plaintiff to advise whether Vanselous was penalized, counselled or disciplined in any way and Plaintiff was forced to continue working with Vanselous. 95. Following the investigation, Plaintiff was ostracized, even from the women who encouraged her to complain. 16 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 20 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 1/ of 36 Pagelb: /1 96. Previously, co-workers would eat lunch and socialize with Plaintiff, but this ended after the investigation. 97. Plaintiff approached Clark to discuss the ostracization. After r3ecommending a team building event, Plaintiff suffered further hostility from her team which continued throughout 2006. 98. In or about 2007, she was assigned to work under male Team Leaders Jim Doyle (“Doyle”) and Nathaniel Brown (“Brown”) and with male co-workers Vanselous, Adam Turco and Bob Chan. 99. Doyle, Brown and her male co-workers joined together to undermine and exclude Plaintiff from the team by making false accusations about Plaintiff's attendance, work on projects, refusal to provide feedback on engineer and hardware forms, database issues, code review suggestions and form design. 100. Moreover, Plaintiff requested to work on various projects including the Ridge Road Migration, Blade Logic Import and Powerdown Website but was denied and instead, those projects were assigned to Vanselous. 101. Had Plaintiff been assigned to those projects, it would have had a positive impact on her performance evaluation. 102. Instead, she received an unjustified negative performance rating and was told by Defendant-Brown that she would not be receiving a raise in compensation by way of base salary adjustments or certification awards in the near future. 103. When Plaintiff questioned Defendant-Brown about his decision, he refused to give her a substantive explanation sloughing her off by saying that she “was already making enough money and shouldn’t expect more.” 17 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 21 0f39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Cv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 18 of 36 PagelD: /2 104. Meanwhile, the men on the team all received positive reviews and raises, including the new less experienced male programmer, Adam Turco. 105. Plaintiff complained to the Defendant-Bloomberg Human Resources representative, who in turn advised Plaintiff that her male co-workers had provided the Team Leader with negative input about her resulting in the negative evaluation. 106. However, when Plaintiff subsequently asked the male coworkers if they had provided negative feedback, each of them denied having been the source of any negative comments as to Plaintiff's performance at work. 107. Oddly, as Plaintiff pointed out to the Team Leaders, Adam Turco was a new male programmer, who only recently joined the Data Center Operations Group, and that relying on unsolicited feedback from a new programmer about the performance of an established coworker like Plaintiff was inappropriate. 108. Ultimately, the 2007 performance evaluation was revised, but the damage had been done and Plaintiff did not receive a raise, base salary increase, or certification award for that year. 109. In or about 2008, Plaintiff was part of the EEOC’s lawsuit against Bloomberg (Civil Action No. 07- CIV 8383) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York filed by 78 claimants alleging that Defendant-Bloomberg engaged in a pattern or practice of demoting and reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leave and that some women were replaced by more junior male employees, that the same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from management meetings and subjected to stereotyping about their abilities to do their jobs because of their family and caregiver responsibilities, and complaints made by the women to Bloomberg’s HR Department were dismissed. 18 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 22 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 19 of 36 PagelD: /3 110. Following Plaintiff's participation in the EEOC litigation, Plaintiff did not receive any negative performance evaluations and while she continued to receive less significant projects and tasks than her male counterparts, the outright hostility quieted. 111. Despite Plaintiff not receiving any negative performance evaluations, Plaintiff was still denied a salary increase that would compensate her equitably compared to her white and/or male comparators. 112. In or about 2014, however, things reverted back to treating Plaintiff in a demeaning and exclusionary manner after she reported at a meeting on or about June 18, 2014 that she “felt it wasn’t always easy to assert control or leadership due to some ongoing adversities [referring to] Brad Vanselous (who seems to have Schriber’s ears) always called shots and took the initiative away from me even at the slightest of opportunities.” 113. Indeed, at this meeting, Team Leader Todd Schrieber (“Schrieber”) explained Plaintiff's role as a Project Liaison, despite her understanding that she was the Project Manager, a higher position to those in attendance. 114. Thereafter, throughout the year in 2014 Plaintiff received evasive responses from Teal Leaders, including Schrieber, to her questions about projects, dismissive and humiliating remarks, insults and empty promises. 115. Despite Plaintiff's superior qualifications for the Project than that of Vanselous, he became the de facto Project manager and insisted on setting agendas and direction for most meetings, and at times to Plaintiff's exclusion. For example, Vanselous excluded Plaintiff from a meeting on June 10, 2015, with John Coyne and a group meeting on October 01, 2015, in preparation for the tropical storm Joaquin. 19 MID-L-006429-23 02/14/2024 10:05:41 AM Pg 23 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024397278 Case 3:23-Ccv-2312U-RK-JBD Document4 Filed 12/20/23 Page 2U of 36 Pagelb: /4 116. These instances occurred mostly with Schribe