Preview
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
ALICIA CRINITI
Plaintiff,
Civil Docket#: MICV2021-0466 2/27/2024
v.
F.W. WEBB COMPANY, ROBERT
MUCCIARONE, and BRENDAN
MONAGHAN
Defendants
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Exhibit Title
Exhibit A Plaintiff Alicia Criniti’s Answers and Objections to Defendants F.W.
Webb Company and Robert Mucciarone’s First Set of Interrogatories
Exhibit B Incentive Unit Agreement
Exhibit C February 26, 2024 Email Re Incentive Unit Agreement
Exhibit D PitchBook Deal Exiters/Sellers Download Spreadsheet
Date: February 27, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANTS F.W. WEBB COMPANY and
ROBERT MUCCIARONE,
By their attorney,
/s/ James Nicholas
James Nicholas (BBO#653892)
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
Boston, MA 02116
Tel:617-535-4000
jnicholas@mwe.com
Rachel Cowen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60606-0029
Tel: 312-984-6944
rcowen@mwe.com
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
Margaret H. Warner (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-756-8228
mwarner@mwe.com
Neda Hefzi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
415 Mission St., Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA 94105-2616
Tel: 650-815-7460
nhefzi@mwe.com
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
EXHIBIT A
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
ALICIA CRINITI,
Plaintiff,
v. C.A. NO: 2181CV00466
F.W. WEBB COMPANY, ROBERT
MUCCIARONE and BRENDAN
MONAGHAN.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF ALICIA CRINITI’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO DEFENDANTS F.W. WEBB COMPANY AND ROBERT MUCCIARONE’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Alicia Criniti (“Criniti” or “Plaintiff”)
hereby responds to Defendants F.W. Webb Company and Robert Mucciarone’s (“Company” or
“Defendants”) First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. The following answers and objections are
based on information reasonably available to Plaintiff as of the date of this response. Plaintiff
reserves the right, consistent with the applicable Rules, to revise, amend, correct, supplement,
modify, or clarify her objections and answers to the Interrogatories as appropriate.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1. Criniti objects to Definition No. 3 of “Describe” to the extent that it is overly broad and
unduly burdensome.
2. Criniti objects to Definition No. 10 of “State the Basis” to the extent that it purports to
impose obligations greater than set forth by Superior Court Rule 30A.
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
RESPONSES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
State your name, date of birth, residential address, business address, employer,
occupation, and job title.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not
relevant to any party’s claims or defenses.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers as
follows:
Plaintiff’s name is Alicia Criniti. Her date of birth is October 28, 1969. Her current
residential address is 10 Franklin Road, Lexington, MA 02420. Her current employer’s name is
The Granite Group, where she is the Senior Vice President, Marketing, and its address is 6 Storrs
Street, Concord, NH 03301.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all individuals by name and residential address who have information relating to
the allegations in the Complaint and provide a detailed description of the facts possessed by each
such individual.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
unduly burdensome, particularly to the extent that it seeks discovery concerning matters that are
not in material dispute. Criniti further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, spousal privilege,
psychotherapist-patient privilege, patient-doctor privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege
or legal doctrine protecting such information from disclosure (“Privileged Information”).
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that the
following individuals are likely to have discoverable knowledge of relevant material facts in
dispute upon which Criniti may rely in support of the allegations in the Complaint:
1. Alicia Criniti: Criniti has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the
Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s
employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture,
Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double
standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, Defendants’
retaliation against her, Defendants’ terminating Criniti, and Criniti’s damages. Criniti
may be contacted through undersigned counsel.
2. Robert Mucciarone (“Mucciarone”): Mucciarone has knowledge of facts relevant to
the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including
without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club”
2
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’
applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination,
Defendants’ retaliation against her, and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of
Criniti’s knowledge, Mucciarone is a current employee of the Company.
3. Brendan Monaghan (“Monaghan”): Monaghan has knowledge of facts relevant to the
claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including
without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club”
and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’
applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination,
Defendants’ retaliation against her, and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of
Criniti’s knowledge, Monaghan is a current employee of the Company.
4. Jeff Pope (“Pope”): Pope has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the
Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s
employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture,
Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double
standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, and Defendants’
terminating Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Pope is a current employee of the
Company.
5. Ruth Martin (“Martin”): Martin has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth
in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation
Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture,
Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double
standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, Defendants’
retaliation against her and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s
knowledge, Martin is a current employee of the Company.
6. Jeff Thompson (“Thompson”): Thompson has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims
set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company and Defendants’ false accusations of her
job performance. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Thompson is a current employee of
the Company.
7. Kristin McGann (“McGann”): McGann has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims
set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, and Defendants’ false accusations of her
job performance. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, McGann is a current employee of
the Company.
8. Mike Michaud (“Michaud”): Michaud has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set
forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, and the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or
sexist culture. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Michuad is a current employee of the
3
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
Company.
9. Richard Boynton (“Boynton”): Boynton has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims
set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company and Defendants’ treatment of her. To the
best of Criniti’s knowledge, Boynton is a current employee of the Company.
10. Lynda Jemson (“Jemson”): Jemson has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set
forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company and the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or
sexist culture. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Jemson is a current employee of the
Company.
11. Lisa Mooradian (“Mooradian”): Mooradian has knowledge of facts relevant to the
claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including
without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, Criniti’s job performance, the
Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, and Defendants’ applying a double
standard based on gender. Mooradian is a former employee of the Company.
12. Amy Carzo (“Carzo”): Carzo has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in
the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation
Criniti’s employment at the Company, Criniti’s job performance, the Company’s “boys’
club” and/or sexist culture, and Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender.
Carzo is a former employee of the Company.
13. Phyllis Laorenza (“Laorenza”): Laorenza has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims
set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture. Laorenza is a former
employee of the Company.
14. Brent Dumont (“Dumont”): Dumont has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set
forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation Monaghan’s treatment of Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Dumont
is a current employee of the Company.
15. Alfred Criniti (“Mr. Criniti”): Mr. Criniti has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims
set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without
limitation the emotional distress suffered by Criniti. Mr. Criniti may be contacted through
undersigned counsel.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise, or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
4
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
State the name, residence, business address, occupation, and specialty of each person you
expect may be called by you as an expert witness at trial in this action, setting forth:
a. the subject matter, in detail, on which each such person may be expected
to testify;
b. in detail, the substance of all facts about which each such person may be
expected to testify;
c. in detail, the contents of all opinions to which each such person may be
expected to testify; and
d. in detail, a summary of the grounds for each such opinion and the
substance of all facts on which such opinions are based.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as premature and to the extent it seeks to
impose discovery obligations beyond those required under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil
Procedure. No decisions have yet been made with regard to trial; Criniti will supplement this
response in accordance with all applicable rules and court orders.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
With the exception of the allegation that Mucciarone’s leadership team is predominantly
male, State the Basis for your allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and Identify all
practices, policies, acts and omissions, and all sexist, degrading comments about, and treatment
of, women in support of your allegations.
Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following
substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation:
As alleged in the Complaint, Mr. Mucciarone has created and fostered a “boys’ club”
culture in which he and several of his male reports feel permitted to engage in sexist, degrading
comments about, and treatment of, women. The specific events that Criniti can presently recall
observing, or being informed by other employees who had observed them, are the following:
• In late Summer of 2012, during a telephone call with Criniti discussing Amy Carzo
(“Carzo”), then a candidate for the position of General Manager for the Riverbend Home
e-Commerce Business, Monaghan said, “Too bad she’s not a guy” and laughed.
• In late Summer of 2012, during a meeting regarding the Riverbend Home project which
Criniti attended, someone commented on the bright shirt color Curt Burgess (“Burgess”),
a member of Riverbend Home e-Commerce Business, was wearing. Burgess replied,
“My girlfriend dressed me this morning.” Mike Michaud (“Michaud”) responded, “She’s
supposed to undress you.”
• In October 2012, while sitting with Mucciarone and Mike Michaud (“Michaud”) at the
Orlando airport awaiting a flight back to Boston from a work trip, Criniti realized the
zipper on the back of her dress was not fully zipped up. Embarrassed, Criniti asked,
5
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
“Why didn’t you tell me my zipper was down?” Mucciarone looked at Michaud and said:
“I wish she’d take it all the way down.”
• In August 2013, Carzo shared with Criniti that Carzo heard Monaghan say to an IT
personnel, Ed Pirky, “What are you smiling about? Did you have morning sex?”
• In September 2013, Curt Burgess (“Burgess”) shared with Criniti that Michaud refers to
women in the office as “JAGs,” which stands for “Just Another Girl.”
• In the Winter of 2013, Carzo told Criniti that Michaud and Monaghan joked about
referring to the Riverbend Home as “River-bendover,” and suggested selling women’s
“dirty underwear” on it. Also in the Winter of 2013, Carzo told Criniti that Michaud
commented that he categorizes women as “Chicks, Broads, or Bitches.” Carzo also told
Criniti that she complained about these comments to Martin.
• In August 2016, Phyllis Laorenza (“Laorenza”), then Marketing Copywriter, told Criniti
in Criniti’s office the following: in August 2016, when taking a photograph for the
Company’s 150th anniversary promotion celebration at Fenway Park, Mucciarone told
Laorenza to hike up her skirt a little; in the Winter of 2016, when taking a group
photograph outside of the Company’s corporate office, Monaghan shouted “Say
Orgasm!” instead of “Say Cheese”; and on another occasion around this time, during a
meeting with a representative from an industry trade publication, Mucciarone told her to
sit on his lap.
• In April 2017, Criniti learned that when Lisa Mooradian (“Mooradian”), executive
assistant and event coordinator, raised the concern to Martin that there were many
complaints from hotels about Monaghan’s disruptive behaviors at Company events,
Monaghan yelled at Mooradian, calling her “just a clerk” or words to that effect, causing
Mooradian to resign shortly thereafter.
• In January 2018, Laorenza, then Marketing Copywriter, told Criniti and Martin the events
described to Criniti in August 2016.
• In January 2020, Mucciarone laughed while he told Criniti that Monaghan had told a
female subordinate employee, Jennifer Calouro, that “she’ll have to do [Monaghan’s]
laundry” or words to that effect.
• In early February 2020, Michaud told Criniti that he was having lunch with Monaghan
and Thompson at the annual Superbowl luncheon at the corporate office on Friday,
January 31, 2020, during which “they said [Criniti] had [her] ‘panties in a twist’” over the
truck graphics work.
In further answering, Criniti refers to the Affidavit of Amy Carzo, the Affidavit of Lisa
Mooradian, the LinkedIn message from Lynda Jemson to Criniti, and text message from
Laorenza to Criniti to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents and the allegations in the Complaint.
6
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify all disparaging, demeaning, or disrespectful comments Mucciarone allegedly
made about any female Webb employee(s), including those alleged in Paragraphs 12 and 14 of
the Complaint.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it misstates the allegations
in the Complaint. Criniti further objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No.
4.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs
Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4, and the allegations in the Complaint.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
State the Basis for your allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint that Monaghan
made demeaning comments about women, and treated women in a demeaning and undermining
manner, and Identify all such Communications.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 4.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs
Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4, and the allegations in the Complaint.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
State the Basis for your allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and Identify all
specific statements, including without limitation the quoted statements, acts or omissions that
you contend constitute mistreatment.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and
6.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs
7
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4 and the allegations in the Complaint. In
further answering, Criniti refers to communications and writings in her possession to be
produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Identify the conversation wherein Mr. Monaghan said Ms. Criniti “was not part of the
club,” as alleged in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
Answer: Criniti refers to Affidavit of Lisa Mooradian to be produced by her in response to
Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
State the Basis for your allegations in the last sentence of Paragraph 25.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 7.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti refers to the
allegations in the Complaint and communications and writings in her possession to be produced
by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
State the Basis for your contention that Exhibits B and C to the Complaint refer to you.
Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following
substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation:
The Vice President of Sales was terminated in January 2020 and was not replaced.
Thereafter, Criniti had to work more closely with Monaghan and he began to unfairly undermine
her role and criticize her work. Criniti was the Vice President of Marketing and was the only one
with such a title and role. As such, when Monaghan falsely changed his title in the signature of
his email dated March 9, 2020,12:14 p.m. to more than 100 managers and/or Company leaders as
“Sr. Vice President of Operations, Sales and Marketing,” this further undermined Criniti’s role
publicly. Criniti objected to this email to Pope. A few hours thereafter on March 9, 2020, at 2:27
p.m., Monaghan sent another email (Exhibit B to the Complaint) correcting the earlier email and
8
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
saying that “the humor was missed by some.” Given that Criniti had just complained to Pope
about the first March 9th email and it seemed Pope had intervened, she believed the “humor”
reference was directed at her.
On March 11, 2020, in the late afternoon, Monaghan entered Criniti’s office angrily
saying, “I’ve been spoken to by Bob, Jeff and Ruth.” He did not apologize to Criniti. Instead,
Monaghan then said in a harsh tone and loudly that Criniti knew he was “joking” when he
changed his job title in the March 9, 2020 email. Monahan was clearly upset and angry with
Criniti for going to Pope about the first March 9th email, further leading her to believe that he
was referring to her when he made the “humor” reference in his second March 9th email.
Unable to move on from the issue, on March 14, 2020 at 2:15 p.m., Monaghan sent
another email (Exhibit C to the Complaint) to all managers regarding employees selling toilet
paper, while making a note at the bottom making another change to his title in his email
signature that was an obvious joke and adding, “For the humorless that are offended, I suggest
you go flush yourselves.” Monaghan was not moving on from the issue, further suggesting that
his earlier expressed anger toward Criniti for going to Pope about the matter persisted.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify all unprofessional behavior or unprofessional comments perpetrated by
Monaghan that you contend Webb left “unchecked” or without correction, setting forth with
specificity the alleged unprofessional behavior or unprofessional comments and the date(s) upon
which Monaghan allegedly engaged in unprofessional behavior or unprofessional comments.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, and
7.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that she
presently recalls the following:
Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4, the allegations in her
Complaint, and refers to the writings to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set
of Requests for Production of Documents.
In further answering:
• In the Spring of 2017, Criniti learned that during a corporate event at a Celtics game
in a suite at TD Garden, Monaghan, while intoxicated, flipped a table and engaged in
other aggressive behavior, which caused TD Garden security to intervene. Criniti also
learned that during the same event, Monaghan was inappropriately and physically
intimate with Meghan Machutta (“Machutta”), an accountant. Criniti also learned that
9
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
Monaghan commented when Machutta changed her attire: “She changed into a skirt
for me,” or words to that effect.
• In 2018, Michaud told Criniti that in a “Good to Great” council meeting where Criniti
was not present, Monaghan was outwardly critical of Criniti and sarcastically called
Criniti “the Queen” and also referred to Scott Nelson, then Manager of the
redistribution business, “Lord Nelson.”
• In November 2019, there was a planned retirement party after work at a restaurant for
Ernie Coutermarsh. At an industrial sales meeting at F.W. Webb’s corporate office
earlier the same day of the planned retirement party, Monaghan walked into the
meeting and handed Mike Leander, Director of Industrial Sales, a pile of small bags
used for vomiting and said out loud, “you might need these at the party tonight,” or
words to that effect, publicly expressing his dislike of Mr. Coutermarsh.
• In January 2020, at the company’s annual sales meeting at the Marriot in Waltham,
Massachusetts, there was a sit down dinner and an awards ceremony. The next
morning, Rich Fox, Propane Division Sales Manager, telephoned Criniti upset and
told her that after the dinner he was talking to some colleagues and Monaghan came
up to him and told him that he was “ten pounds of shit in a Brooks Brothers shirt,” or
words to that effect.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Identify all examples of allegedly sexist, inappropriate, and unprofessional behavior by
Monaghan and the corporate culture that you described during the March 16, 2020 meeting
referred to in Paragraphs 33 through 35 of the Complaint.
Answer: During the March 16, 2020 meeting with Mucciarone, Martin and Pope, Criniti
stated the following:
Criniti first referenced Monaghan’s March 9, 2020 and March 14, 2020 emails and
complained that these were demeaning, disrespectful and inappropriate. Criniti expressed that
she was upset by these emails. Criniti also said that on March 11, 2020, Monaghan came to her
office and angrily confronted her about going to Pope about his first March 9th email.
Criniti then said: “This isn’t 1950. This isn’t a frat house. This is 2020.” Criniti stated
that every F.W. Webb employee deserves “respect, dignity, and consideration.” Criniti then
proceeded to list additional examples, one after another, as follows: “Saying that someone’s
‘panties are in a twist’ is not appropriate; telling someone that they’re ‘10 pounds of shit in a
Brooks Brothers shirt’ is not appropriate; bringing barf bags to a meeting before Ernie
Coutermarsh’s retirement party is not appropriate…” At this point, Mucciarone angrily
interrupted Criniti and she stopped listing examples.
10
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
In further answering, Criniti refers to the writings to be produced by her in response to
Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Identify the person who told you that Monaghan had made a comment about your
“panties in a twist” in January 2020.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it misstates the allegations
in the Complaint.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs
Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 12.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Identify all Communications at Webb where your body language was mentioned.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that she
presently recalls the following:
• On March 20, 2019, Criniti, McGann, Mucciarone, Monaghan, Thompson and Pope met
regarding the Re-Branding project at the Company’s corporate office. This was the first
meeting regarding the project. McGann prepared a PowerPoint presentation titled “Retail
Private Label Naming” and began presenting it. However, before McGann could finish
her presentation, Monaghan and Thompson repeatedly interrupted her in raised voices
and questioned how McGann and Criniti arrived at the nine name choices, falsely
insinuating that they acted outside of their roles. Criniti was extremely uncomfortable
with Monaghan’s and Thompson’s aggressive and dismissive treatment. After this
meeting, Mucciarone came to Criniti’s office and said she had “bad body language”
during the meeting.
• In or around November 2019, after a business meeting dinner at the Capital Grille in
Burlington, Massachusetts, when Mucciarone, Thompson, Pope, Monaghan, and Criniti
remained, the men brought up and began talking about Criniti’s body language. Pope
commented that one can tell Criniti’s mood by the way she walks. Thompson said
Criniti’s eyebrows give her away.
• During a March 14, 2020 telephone conversation with Mucciarone, Criniti complained
about Monaghan’s March 14, 2020 unprofessional email with a note “go flush
11
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
yourselves.” During this conversation, Mucciarone brought up and angrily stated that
Criniti’s body language and facial expressions are “bad.”
• At a March 16, 2020 meeting with Mucciarone, Martin, and Pope at the Company’s
corporate office, after Criniti described some of Monaghan’s inappropriate and
unprofessional behavior, Mucciarone again criticized her allegedly “bad” body language.
• At a March 17, 2020 meeting with Monaghan and Thompson at the Company’s corporate
office, Criniti was again told that her body language was “bad”, and that she allegedly
showed her disapproval and objection through her body language. Monaghan said, for
example, that Criniti was “always showing [her] disapproval and objection” through her
body language and that they “all see it and talk about it.”
• At a March 20, 2020 meeting with Monaghan, Mucciarone and Thompson in
Monaghan’s office, Monaghan criticized Criniti’s body language and Mucciarone joined
to say: “Yeah, you get all contorted.”
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
State the Basis for your contention that male Webb employees planned “to gang up on
and intimidate” you, as alleged in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and Identify all employees
who engaged in such a plan and the factual basis supporting the allegation that such a plan
existed.
Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following
substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation:
The March 20, 2020 meeting occurred after Monaghan had raised the months-old Re-
Branding project in an effort to further unfairly criticize Criniti’s performance and undermine her
job. Monaghan, Mucciarone and Thompson were already present for the meeting together
before Criniti arrived. Monaghan ran the meeting and his litany of false and unfair accusations
against Criniti occurred without any interjection by Mucciarone, nor did Mucciarone ask Criniti
any questions to obtain her view. McGann, who clearly possessed relevant information having
co-run the project with Criniti, was not allowed to join the meeting despite Ms. Criniti’s request.
In preparation for the meeting, Monaghan had already spoken with McGann beforehand and had
asked her for information concerning the project. During the meeting, Monaghan left and came
back with Pope, who seemed to be expecting the question then posed by Monaghan.
In further answering, Criniti refers to the allegations in the Complaint and the writings to
be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents.
12
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
To Criniti’s best knowledge, Monaghan, Mucciarone, Thompson, and Pope are all
current employees of the Company.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
State the Basis for your contention that Mucciarone directed or blessed Monaghan’s
alleged interference with your job, as alleged in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following
substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation:
On April 22, 2020, at around 9:00 a.m., Richard Boynton spoke with Criniti on the
telephone and informed her that Mucciarone “was really angry,” that he “was pacing around the
office” talking to Monaghan earlier that morning on speaker phone, and that he told Monaghan:
“You have my permission to go after her as hard as you want to.”
Further answering, Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 15,
and refers to the allegations in the Complaint and the writings and communications to be
produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to
supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Identify every communication you had with Jeff Pope concerning the Re-Branding
Project.
Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, particularly to the extent it employs no time constraint and
seeks discovery concerning matters that are not in material dispute.
Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that she
presently recalls the following:
• On March 20, 2019, Criniti attended a meeting at the Company’s corporate office with
Pope, Mucciarone, Monaghan, Thompson, Kristin McGann (“McGann”), and Tom
Santer (“Santer”), then-Vice President of Sales, in which they discussed the Re-Branding
Project.
• On April 3, 2019, Criniti attended a meeting at the Company’s corporate office with
Pope, Mucciarone, Monaghan, Thompson, McGann, and Santer in which they discussed
13
954022.3
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2181CV00466
the Re-Branding Project and decided on nine names to submit for a preliminary
trademark search.
• On April 5, 2019, Criniti had a discussion with Pope at the Company’s corporate office
summarizing the trademark search and findings on potential replacement names for the
Re-Branding Project.
• On May 14, 2019, Criniti attended a meeting at the Company’s corporate office regarding
logo options for the name “Olio” with Pope, Mucciarone, Monaghan, McGann, and
Santer. Santer attended the meeting via telephone.
• On July 1, 2019, Criniti spoke with Pope in his office about the disadvantageous
trademark result on “Olio” making the name a challenge going forward. As a potential
alternate to “Olio,” Pope responded that he had to “check with [his] family” about “Eleo”
because Eleo was a nickname for his aunt. Within hours of this conversation, Pope sent
an email to Criniti approving the name Eleo.
• In August 2019, Criniti attended a meeting with Po
Preview
Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT ALICIA CRINITI Plaintiff, Civil Docket#: MICV2021-0466 2/27/2024 v. F.W. WEBB COMPANY, ROBERT MUCCIARONE, and BRENDAN MONAGHAN Defendants INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Exhibit Title Exhibit A Plaintiff Alicia Criniti’s Answers and Objections to Defendants F.W. Webb Company and Robert Mucciarone’s First Set of Interrogatories Exhibit B Incentive Unit Agreement Exhibit C February 26, 2024 Email Re Incentive Unit Agreement Exhibit D PitchBook Deal Exiters/Sellers Download Spreadsheet Date: February 27, 2024 Respectfully submitted, DEFENDANTS F.W. WEBB COMPANY and ROBERT MUCCIARONE, By their attorney, /s/ James Nicholas James Nicholas (BBO#653892) McDermott Will & Emery LLP 200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58 Boston, MA 02116 Tel:617-535-4000 jnicholas@mwe.com Rachel Cowen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) McDermott Will & Emery LLP 444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60606-0029 Tel: 312-984-6944 rcowen@mwe.com Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 Margaret H. Warner (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) McDermott Will & Emery LLP 500 North Capitol Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-756-8228 mwarner@mwe.com Neda Hefzi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) McDermott Will & Emery LLP 415 Mission St., Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105-2616 Tel: 650-815-7460 nhefzi@mwe.com Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 EXHIBIT A Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT ALICIA CRINITI, Plaintiff, v. C.A. NO: 2181CV00466 F.W. WEBB COMPANY, ROBERT MUCCIARONE and BRENDAN MONAGHAN. Defendants. PLAINTIFF ALICIA CRINITI’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS F.W. WEBB COMPANY AND ROBERT MUCCIARONE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Alicia Criniti (“Criniti” or “Plaintiff”) hereby responds to Defendants F.W. Webb Company and Robert Mucciarone’s (“Company” or “Defendants”) First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. The following answers and objections are based on information reasonably available to Plaintiff as of the date of this response. Plaintiff reserves the right, consistent with the applicable Rules, to revise, amend, correct, supplement, modify, or clarify her objections and answers to the Interrogatories as appropriate. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 1. Criniti objects to Definition No. 3 of “Describe” to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 2. Criniti objects to Definition No. 10 of “State the Basis” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations greater than set forth by Superior Court Rule 30A. Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 RESPONSES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State your name, date of birth, residential address, business address, employer, occupation, and job title. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers as follows: Plaintiff’s name is Alicia Criniti. Her date of birth is October 28, 1969. Her current residential address is 10 Franklin Road, Lexington, MA 02420. Her current employer’s name is The Granite Group, where she is the Senior Vice President, Marketing, and its address is 6 Storrs Street, Concord, NH 03301. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all individuals by name and residential address who have information relating to the allegations in the Complaint and provide a detailed description of the facts possessed by each such individual. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly to the extent that it seeks discovery concerning matters that are not in material dispute. Criniti further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, spousal privilege, psychotherapist-patient privilege, patient-doctor privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or legal doctrine protecting such information from disclosure (“Privileged Information”). Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that the following individuals are likely to have discoverable knowledge of relevant material facts in dispute upon which Criniti may rely in support of the allegations in the Complaint: 1. Alicia Criniti: Criniti has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, Defendants’ retaliation against her, Defendants’ terminating Criniti, and Criniti’s damages. Criniti may be contacted through undersigned counsel. 2. Robert Mucciarone (“Mucciarone”): Mucciarone has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” 2 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, Defendants’ retaliation against her, and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Mucciarone is a current employee of the Company. 3. Brendan Monaghan (“Monaghan”): Monaghan has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, Defendants’ retaliation against her, and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Monaghan is a current employee of the Company. 4. Jeff Pope (“Pope”): Pope has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Pope is a current employee of the Company. 5. Ruth Martin (“Martin”): Martin has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance, Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender, Criniti’s complaining about discrimination, Defendants’ retaliation against her and Defendants’ terminating Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Martin is a current employee of the Company. 6. Jeff Thompson (“Thompson”): Thompson has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company and Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Thompson is a current employee of the Company. 7. Kristin McGann (“McGann”): McGann has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, and Defendants’ false accusations of her job performance. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, McGann is a current employee of the Company. 8. Mike Michaud (“Michaud”): Michaud has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, and the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Michuad is a current employee of the 3 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 Company. 9. Richard Boynton (“Boynton”): Boynton has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company and Defendants’ treatment of her. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Boynton is a current employee of the Company. 10. Lynda Jemson (“Jemson”): Jemson has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company and the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Jemson is a current employee of the Company. 11. Lisa Mooradian (“Mooradian”): Mooradian has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, Criniti’s job performance, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, and Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender. Mooradian is a former employee of the Company. 12. Amy Carzo (“Carzo”): Carzo has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Criniti’s employment at the Company, Criniti’s job performance, the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture, and Defendants’ applying a double standard based on gender. Carzo is a former employee of the Company. 13. Phyllis Laorenza (“Laorenza”): Laorenza has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation the Company’s “boys’ club” and/or sexist culture. Laorenza is a former employee of the Company. 14. Brent Dumont (“Dumont”): Dumont has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation Monaghan’s treatment of Criniti. To the best of Criniti’s knowledge, Dumont is a current employee of the Company. 15. Alfred Criniti (“Mr. Criniti”): Mr. Criniti has knowledge of facts relevant to the claims set forth in the Complaint and the defenses asserted by Defendants, including without limitation the emotional distress suffered by Criniti. Mr. Criniti may be contacted through undersigned counsel. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise, or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. 4 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State the name, residence, business address, occupation, and specialty of each person you expect may be called by you as an expert witness at trial in this action, setting forth: a. the subject matter, in detail, on which each such person may be expected to testify; b. in detail, the substance of all facts about which each such person may be expected to testify; c. in detail, the contents of all opinions to which each such person may be expected to testify; and d. in detail, a summary of the grounds for each such opinion and the substance of all facts on which such opinions are based. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as premature and to the extent it seeks to impose discovery obligations beyond those required under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. No decisions have yet been made with regard to trial; Criniti will supplement this response in accordance with all applicable rules and court orders. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: With the exception of the allegation that Mucciarone’s leadership team is predominantly male, State the Basis for your allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and Identify all practices, policies, acts and omissions, and all sexist, degrading comments about, and treatment of, women in support of your allegations. Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation: As alleged in the Complaint, Mr. Mucciarone has created and fostered a “boys’ club” culture in which he and several of his male reports feel permitted to engage in sexist, degrading comments about, and treatment of, women. The specific events that Criniti can presently recall observing, or being informed by other employees who had observed them, are the following: • In late Summer of 2012, during a telephone call with Criniti discussing Amy Carzo (“Carzo”), then a candidate for the position of General Manager for the Riverbend Home e-Commerce Business, Monaghan said, “Too bad she’s not a guy” and laughed. • In late Summer of 2012, during a meeting regarding the Riverbend Home project which Criniti attended, someone commented on the bright shirt color Curt Burgess (“Burgess”), a member of Riverbend Home e-Commerce Business, was wearing. Burgess replied, “My girlfriend dressed me this morning.” Mike Michaud (“Michaud”) responded, “She’s supposed to undress you.” • In October 2012, while sitting with Mucciarone and Mike Michaud (“Michaud”) at the Orlando airport awaiting a flight back to Boston from a work trip, Criniti realized the zipper on the back of her dress was not fully zipped up. Embarrassed, Criniti asked, 5 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 “Why didn’t you tell me my zipper was down?” Mucciarone looked at Michaud and said: “I wish she’d take it all the way down.” • In August 2013, Carzo shared with Criniti that Carzo heard Monaghan say to an IT personnel, Ed Pirky, “What are you smiling about? Did you have morning sex?” • In September 2013, Curt Burgess (“Burgess”) shared with Criniti that Michaud refers to women in the office as “JAGs,” which stands for “Just Another Girl.” • In the Winter of 2013, Carzo told Criniti that Michaud and Monaghan joked about referring to the Riverbend Home as “River-bendover,” and suggested selling women’s “dirty underwear” on it. Also in the Winter of 2013, Carzo told Criniti that Michaud commented that he categorizes women as “Chicks, Broads, or Bitches.” Carzo also told Criniti that she complained about these comments to Martin. • In August 2016, Phyllis Laorenza (“Laorenza”), then Marketing Copywriter, told Criniti in Criniti’s office the following: in August 2016, when taking a photograph for the Company’s 150th anniversary promotion celebration at Fenway Park, Mucciarone told Laorenza to hike up her skirt a little; in the Winter of 2016, when taking a group photograph outside of the Company’s corporate office, Monaghan shouted “Say Orgasm!” instead of “Say Cheese”; and on another occasion around this time, during a meeting with a representative from an industry trade publication, Mucciarone told her to sit on his lap. • In April 2017, Criniti learned that when Lisa Mooradian (“Mooradian”), executive assistant and event coordinator, raised the concern to Martin that there were many complaints from hotels about Monaghan’s disruptive behaviors at Company events, Monaghan yelled at Mooradian, calling her “just a clerk” or words to that effect, causing Mooradian to resign shortly thereafter. • In January 2018, Laorenza, then Marketing Copywriter, told Criniti and Martin the events described to Criniti in August 2016. • In January 2020, Mucciarone laughed while he told Criniti that Monaghan had told a female subordinate employee, Jennifer Calouro, that “she’ll have to do [Monaghan’s] laundry” or words to that effect. • In early February 2020, Michaud told Criniti that he was having lunch with Monaghan and Thompson at the annual Superbowl luncheon at the corporate office on Friday, January 31, 2020, during which “they said [Criniti] had [her] ‘panties in a twist’” over the truck graphics work. In further answering, Criniti refers to the Affidavit of Amy Carzo, the Affidavit of Lisa Mooradian, the LinkedIn message from Lynda Jemson to Criniti, and text message from Laorenza to Criniti to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and the allegations in the Complaint. 6 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all disparaging, demeaning, or disrespectful comments Mucciarone allegedly made about any female Webb employee(s), including those alleged in Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Complaint. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it misstates the allegations in the Complaint. Criniti further objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 4. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4, and the allegations in the Complaint. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the Basis for your allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint that Monaghan made demeaning comments about women, and treated women in a demeaning and undermining manner, and Identify all such Communications. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 4. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4, and the allegations in the Complaint. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State the Basis for your allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and Identify all specific statements, including without limitation the quoted statements, acts or omissions that you contend constitute mistreatment. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 6. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs 7 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4 and the allegations in the Complaint. In further answering, Criniti refers to communications and writings in her possession to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify the conversation wherein Mr. Monaghan said Ms. Criniti “was not part of the club,” as alleged in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Answer: Criniti refers to Affidavit of Lisa Mooradian to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State the Basis for your allegations in the last sentence of Paragraph 25. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 7. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti refers to the allegations in the Complaint and communications and writings in her possession to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State the Basis for your contention that Exhibits B and C to the Complaint refer to you. Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation: The Vice President of Sales was terminated in January 2020 and was not replaced. Thereafter, Criniti had to work more closely with Monaghan and he began to unfairly undermine her role and criticize her work. Criniti was the Vice President of Marketing and was the only one with such a title and role. As such, when Monaghan falsely changed his title in the signature of his email dated March 9, 2020,12:14 p.m. to more than 100 managers and/or Company leaders as “Sr. Vice President of Operations, Sales and Marketing,” this further undermined Criniti’s role publicly. Criniti objected to this email to Pope. A few hours thereafter on March 9, 2020, at 2:27 p.m., Monaghan sent another email (Exhibit B to the Complaint) correcting the earlier email and 8 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 saying that “the humor was missed by some.” Given that Criniti had just complained to Pope about the first March 9th email and it seemed Pope had intervened, she believed the “humor” reference was directed at her. On March 11, 2020, in the late afternoon, Monaghan entered Criniti’s office angrily saying, “I’ve been spoken to by Bob, Jeff and Ruth.” He did not apologize to Criniti. Instead, Monaghan then said in a harsh tone and loudly that Criniti knew he was “joking” when he changed his job title in the March 9, 2020 email. Monahan was clearly upset and angry with Criniti for going to Pope about the first March 9th email, further leading her to believe that he was referring to her when he made the “humor” reference in his second March 9th email. Unable to move on from the issue, on March 14, 2020 at 2:15 p.m., Monaghan sent another email (Exhibit C to the Complaint) to all managers regarding employees selling toilet paper, while making a note at the bottom making another change to his title in his email signature that was an obvious joke and adding, “For the humorless that are offended, I suggest you go flush yourselves.” Monaghan was not moving on from the issue, further suggesting that his earlier expressed anger toward Criniti for going to Pope about the matter persisted. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify all unprofessional behavior or unprofessional comments perpetrated by Monaghan that you contend Webb left “unchecked” or without correction, setting forth with specificity the alleged unprofessional behavior or unprofessional comments and the date(s) upon which Monaghan allegedly engaged in unprofessional behavior or unprofessional comments. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, and 7. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that she presently recalls the following: Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 4, the allegations in her Complaint, and refers to the writings to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. In further answering: • In the Spring of 2017, Criniti learned that during a corporate event at a Celtics game in a suite at TD Garden, Monaghan, while intoxicated, flipped a table and engaged in other aggressive behavior, which caused TD Garden security to intervene. Criniti also learned that during the same event, Monaghan was inappropriately and physically intimate with Meghan Machutta (“Machutta”), an accountant. Criniti also learned that 9 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 Monaghan commented when Machutta changed her attire: “She changed into a skirt for me,” or words to that effect. • In 2018, Michaud told Criniti that in a “Good to Great” council meeting where Criniti was not present, Monaghan was outwardly critical of Criniti and sarcastically called Criniti “the Queen” and also referred to Scott Nelson, then Manager of the redistribution business, “Lord Nelson.” • In November 2019, there was a planned retirement party after work at a restaurant for Ernie Coutermarsh. At an industrial sales meeting at F.W. Webb’s corporate office earlier the same day of the planned retirement party, Monaghan walked into the meeting and handed Mike Leander, Director of Industrial Sales, a pile of small bags used for vomiting and said out loud, “you might need these at the party tonight,” or words to that effect, publicly expressing his dislike of Mr. Coutermarsh. • In January 2020, at the company’s annual sales meeting at the Marriot in Waltham, Massachusetts, there was a sit down dinner and an awards ceremony. The next morning, Rich Fox, Propane Division Sales Manager, telephoned Criniti upset and told her that after the dinner he was talking to some colleagues and Monaghan came up to him and told him that he was “ten pounds of shit in a Brooks Brothers shirt,” or words to that effect. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all examples of allegedly sexist, inappropriate, and unprofessional behavior by Monaghan and the corporate culture that you described during the March 16, 2020 meeting referred to in Paragraphs 33 through 35 of the Complaint. Answer: During the March 16, 2020 meeting with Mucciarone, Martin and Pope, Criniti stated the following: Criniti first referenced Monaghan’s March 9, 2020 and March 14, 2020 emails and complained that these were demeaning, disrespectful and inappropriate. Criniti expressed that she was upset by these emails. Criniti also said that on March 11, 2020, Monaghan came to her office and angrily confronted her about going to Pope about his first March 9th email. Criniti then said: “This isn’t 1950. This isn’t a frat house. This is 2020.” Criniti stated that every F.W. Webb employee deserves “respect, dignity, and consideration.” Criniti then proceeded to list additional examples, one after another, as follows: “Saying that someone’s ‘panties are in a twist’ is not appropriate; telling someone that they’re ‘10 pounds of shit in a Brooks Brothers shirt’ is not appropriate; bringing barf bags to a meeting before Ernie Coutermarsh’s retirement party is not appropriate…” At this point, Mucciarone angrily interrupted Criniti and she stopped listing examples. 10 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 In further answering, Criniti refers to the writings to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify the person who told you that Monaghan had made a comment about your “panties in a twist” in January 2020. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it misstates the allegations in the Complaint. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 12. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all Communications at Webb where your body language was mentioned. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that she presently recalls the following: • On March 20, 2019, Criniti, McGann, Mucciarone, Monaghan, Thompson and Pope met regarding the Re-Branding project at the Company’s corporate office. This was the first meeting regarding the project. McGann prepared a PowerPoint presentation titled “Retail Private Label Naming” and began presenting it. However, before McGann could finish her presentation, Monaghan and Thompson repeatedly interrupted her in raised voices and questioned how McGann and Criniti arrived at the nine name choices, falsely insinuating that they acted outside of their roles. Criniti was extremely uncomfortable with Monaghan’s and Thompson’s aggressive and dismissive treatment. After this meeting, Mucciarone came to Criniti’s office and said she had “bad body language” during the meeting. • In or around November 2019, after a business meeting dinner at the Capital Grille in Burlington, Massachusetts, when Mucciarone, Thompson, Pope, Monaghan, and Criniti remained, the men brought up and began talking about Criniti’s body language. Pope commented that one can tell Criniti’s mood by the way she walks. Thompson said Criniti’s eyebrows give her away. • During a March 14, 2020 telephone conversation with Mucciarone, Criniti complained about Monaghan’s March 14, 2020 unprofessional email with a note “go flush 11 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 yourselves.” During this conversation, Mucciarone brought up and angrily stated that Criniti’s body language and facial expressions are “bad.” • At a March 16, 2020 meeting with Mucciarone, Martin, and Pope at the Company’s corporate office, after Criniti described some of Monaghan’s inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, Mucciarone again criticized her allegedly “bad” body language. • At a March 17, 2020 meeting with Monaghan and Thompson at the Company’s corporate office, Criniti was again told that her body language was “bad”, and that she allegedly showed her disapproval and objection through her body language. Monaghan said, for example, that Criniti was “always showing [her] disapproval and objection” through her body language and that they “all see it and talk about it.” • At a March 20, 2020 meeting with Monaghan, Mucciarone and Thompson in Monaghan’s office, Monaghan criticized Criniti’s body language and Mucciarone joined to say: “Yeah, you get all contorted.” Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State the Basis for your contention that male Webb employees planned “to gang up on and intimidate” you, as alleged in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and Identify all employees who engaged in such a plan and the factual basis supporting the allegation that such a plan existed. Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation: The March 20, 2020 meeting occurred after Monaghan had raised the months-old Re- Branding project in an effort to further unfairly criticize Criniti’s performance and undermine her job. Monaghan, Mucciarone and Thompson were already present for the meeting together before Criniti arrived. Monaghan ran the meeting and his litany of false and unfair accusations against Criniti occurred without any interjection by Mucciarone, nor did Mucciarone ask Criniti any questions to obtain her view. McGann, who clearly possessed relevant information having co-run the project with Criniti, was not allowed to join the meeting despite Ms. Criniti’s request. In preparation for the meeting, Monaghan had already spoken with McGann beforehand and had asked her for information concerning the project. During the meeting, Monaghan left and came back with Pope, who seemed to be expecting the question then posed by Monaghan. In further answering, Criniti refers to the allegations in the Complaint and the writings to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. 12 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 To Criniti’s best knowledge, Monaghan, Mucciarone, Thompson, and Pope are all current employees of the Company. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State the Basis for your contention that Mucciarone directed or blessed Monaghan’s alleged interference with your job, as alleged in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. Answer: In accordance with Superior Court Rule 30A, Criniti provides the following substantial summary of the factual basis for the allegation: On April 22, 2020, at around 9:00 a.m., Richard Boynton spoke with Criniti on the telephone and informed her that Mucciarone “was really angry,” that he “was pacing around the office” talking to Monaghan earlier that morning on speaker phone, and that he told Monaghan: “You have my permission to go after her as hard as you want to.” Further answering, Criniti directs Defendants to her responses to Interrogatory No. 15, and refers to the allegations in the Complaint and the writings and communications to be produced by her in response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Criniti further answers that discovery is ongoing, and that she reserves the right to supplement, revise or otherwise amend this answer as discovery proceeds. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify every communication you had with Jeff Pope concerning the Re-Branding Project. Objection: Criniti objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly to the extent it employs no time constraint and seeks discovery concerning matters that are not in material dispute. Answer: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Criniti answers that she presently recalls the following: • On March 20, 2019, Criniti attended a meeting at the Company’s corporate office with Pope, Mucciarone, Monaghan, Thompson, Kristin McGann (“McGann”), and Tom Santer (“Santer”), then-Vice President of Sales, in which they discussed the Re-Branding Project. • On April 3, 2019, Criniti attended a meeting at the Company’s corporate office with Pope, Mucciarone, Monaghan, Thompson, McGann, and Santer in which they discussed 13 954022.3 Date Filed 2/27/2024 11:16 PM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2181CV00466 the Re-Branding Project and decided on nine names to submit for a preliminary trademark search. • On April 5, 2019, Criniti had a discussion with Pope at the Company’s corporate office summarizing the trademark search and findings on potential replacement names for the Re-Branding Project. • On May 14, 2019, Criniti attended a meeting at the Company’s corporate office regarding logo options for the name “Olio” with Pope, Mucciarone, Monaghan, McGann, and Santer. Santer attended the meeting via telephone. • On July 1, 2019, Criniti spoke with Pope in his office about the disadvantageous trademark result on “Olio” making the name a challenge going forward. As a potential alternate to “Olio,” Pope responded that he had to “check with [his] family” about “Eleo” because Eleo was a nickname for his aunt. Within hours of this conversation, Pope sent an email to Criniti approving the name Eleo. • In August 2019, Criniti attended a meeting with Po