John J. Keller

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X INNA GRINBERG, Plaintiff, -against- MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER, NATALIA YELIN, and UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff INNA GRINBERG (“Plaintiff” or “Grinberg”), by and through her attorneys, JOSEPH & NORINBERG, L.L.C., alleges upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own actions, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: NATURE OF CASE 1. This civil action alleges that the Defendants did intentionally violate Plaintiff’s guaranteed employment rights, including wrongfully and illegally terminating plaintiff’s employment, in violation of: (i) the anti-discrimination provisions and the prohibitions against disability discrimination contained in Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, also known as the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”); and (ii) the anti-discrimination provisions and the prohibitions against disability discrimination contained in § 296(1)(a) of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”); and that, the Defendant did commit any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. 2. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief and monetary damages as redress for Defendant’s blatant violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the above referenced state and municipal laws protecting the rights of employees in the workplace. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR § 301 and 302 because the Defendants reside in or have their principal offices and operations center in the State and City of New York. 4. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR § 503(c) because Defendants reside in and/or have principal offices in the City and County of New York, and the cause of action or an essential part of it also arose and transpired in New York City, Borough of Brooklyn, and New York County. JURY DEMAND 5. Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on each count of this Complaint. PARTIES 6. At all relevant times, Grinberg was and is a “person” and an “employee” entitled to protection under both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, who was a resident of Brooklyn, New York who now resides at 2549 E 1 Street, Brooklyn, New York 11223. 7. At all relevant times, Maimonides Medical Center (“Maimonides”) was and is a hospital and medical center with its principal office and place of business located at 4802 10th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11219. 8. At all relevant times, Defendant Natalia Yelin (“Yelin”) was and is a natural person residing within the County, City and State of New York. 9. At all relevant times, Maimonides operated a WIC nutritional program office, which was and is located at 5613 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11219, and which was the location of plaintiff’s employment. 10. At all relevant times, Defendants Maimonides and Yelin were “employers” and “persons’ within the meaning of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, and employed four (4) or more employees within the meaning of the NYCHRL and NYSHRL. 11. At all relevant times, Maimonides, through its authorized agents and employees, including Defendant Yelin, was responsible for and did set Plaintiff’s rate of pay, work schedule, job duties and all other terms and conditions of employment. 12.At all relevant times, Defendant Yelin, was a supervisory and/or managerial employee of the defendant Maimonides, superior in rank to Plaintiff, with a work address of 5613 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn NY 11219. 13.At all relevant times, the United Healthcare Workers East was a labor organization as defined in the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, with its principal office and place of business located at 310 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT -- BACKGROUND INFORMATION 14.Maimonides hired Grinberg in February, 1993, as a representative for the WIC program, and for the next 24 years she served as a faithful and effective employee, with satisfactory job approval evaluations that either met or exceeded expectations throughout the vast part of her employment, but in recent years Maimonides, through certain supervisors, began to callously harass and discipline her because of her disability, instead of providing her with the reasonable accommodations that she requested. 15.During the period of her employment plaintiff suffered from Guillain Barre Syndrome, polyneuropathy (since 2001), diabetes mellitus type 2, urinary incontinence, hypertension and osteoarthritis, which constituted a disability within the meaning of the aforesaid state and local anti-discrimination laws. 16.During the relevant periods described hereinafter, Plaintiff was fully capable of performing her job duties within the WIC program, but she needed reasonable accommodations for her disability. 17.Maimonides not only failed repeatedly to provide her with those reasonable accommodations, but the hospital failed to engage her in an interactive process to determine an appropriate resolution to her medical needs and the performance of her job duties in the context of those medical issues. 18.Defendant Yelin, acting as a Supervisor and managerial employee of the Defendant Maimonides, is sued in her individual capacity on allegations that she was instrumental in obtaining, aiding and abetting Maimonides in discriminating against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment and in deciding to terminate Plaintiff. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19.Plaintiff was hired by the Maimonides Medical Center on Feb. 25, 1993 as a part-time WIC representative. 20.The WIC program assisted low-income families or individuals to receive proper nutritional needs. 21.In May of 1993, Maimonides promoted her to a full-time position as a representative in the WIC department. 22.Plaintiff’s normal hours involved arriving at work at 8:45 a.m., starting to see clients at 9:00 a.m. and taking lunch from 12 to 1:00 p.m., with a break from 3:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., and leaving work at 3:45 p.m. 23.The job of WIC representative entailed screening clients for their eligibility for the WIC program; this included initial client intakes with interview and review of paperwork; the representative would also engage existing WIC beneficiaries in a re-certification process. Plaintiff also answered phones and set appointments, along with filing of documents. 24.On July 28, 2001, Plaintiff suffered a health event called Guillain-Barre Syndrome; this caused her to be completely paralyzed from the neck down. 25.She was hospitalized for 10 months and did not return to work until May 2002; at that time, despite great adversity, she voluntarily returned to work on a part-time schedule with limited mobility, and she had to use crutches, a walker and a cane. 26.She successfully and courageously transitioned from her limited duties and returned to full-time work for Maimonides in June 2002. 27.In September of 2009 she was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type 2, which required a regimen of medication and strict dieting habits per her physician’s orders. 28.Regulation of meals and nutritional intake is vital for the survival of diabetes patients, and it is generally necessary for the patient to eat several smaller snacks during the day. 29.It is also critical for a diabetes patient to take her prescribed medication, meals and snacks at the designated times; disruption of nourishment intake or medicine ingestion, as per physician’s instructions, placed the patient in danger of having a diabetic attack. 30.In October of 2009, one month after plaintiff contracted diabetes, Natalia Yelin, an administrator of the Nutrition department, complained about Grinberg’s productivity to Judith Epstein, the Supervisor of the WIC program. 31. The complaint was that plaintiff would leave the work area without authority, and Epstein gave her a verbal warning about that activity. 32.However, Plaintiff explained to Epstein that she had various medical needs due to the diabetes and hypertension, and that she had to leave the work area for brief periods to administer the medicine and/or to have her necessary snacks. 33.Thereafter, Epstein and Maimonides were fully aware of Plaintiff’s disability, and Epstein cooperated accordingly, giving Grinberg the requested accommodations so that she could both manage her disability and work effectively. 34.After Epstein provided the necessary accommodations, plaintiff’s work patterns became stable and secure. 35.Defendant Yelin, who first complained about Plaintiff leaving her work desk, did not harass or bother Plaintiff about her work habits and schedule during the period that Epstein remained as Supervisor. 36.In September 2010, almost one year after Yelin complained, Epstein provided an evaluation of plaintiff that concluded that her productivity had increased; the increase took place while Plaintiff was able to perform her duties and duly implement the provided accommodations. 37.From the date of the verbal warning in October 2009 through November 18, 2014, Ms. Yelin did not harass plaintiff, and Plaintiff was not aware of Yelin making any complaints about Plaintiff’s job productivity or the accommodations that had been extended to her. 38.During the time mentioned in the preceding paragraph, plaintiff was allowed to take her meals and snacks at her desk and she self-administered her medication appropriately. 39.Diabetes patients must also monitor their blood sugar levels, which plaintiff also needed to do at work. 40.The accommodations were simple to follow, and plaintiff’s work productivity increased and/or remained satisfactory during the years that Epstein enforced the accommodations on behalf of Grinberg. 41.On November 18, 2014, Maimonides terminated Ms. Epstein as the Supervisor of the WIC program, and promoted Natalia Yelin to the position. 42.Yellin’s background in nutrition was apparently insufficient to give her an appreciation of the accommodations needed by many diabetic workers; after being appointed supervisor, Yelin resumed a pattern of harassing Plaintiff by saying vindictive things similar to, “No one will do your job for you now,” and “No one will help you with your job now.” 43.Beginning in February of 2015, Yelin, who was fully aware of Plaintiff’s medical disability and the accommodations that she had been given in the past, told Plaintiff that she could no longer take her meals, snacks and medicine at her desk. 44.Yelin told Plaintiff to do all eating and drinking in the kitchen, but when Plaintiff took her meals, snacks and/or medicine to the kitchen, Yelin, despite knowing about Plaintiff’s disability, engaged in a pervasive pattern of verbal harassment, and with discriminatory animus, she repeatedly told Plaintiff that she was away from her desk without authority, falsely stating that she was unproductive, or her production was down, in an attempt to pressure plaintiff to stop having snacks and drinks to regulate her nutritional intake and ultimately, her insulin levels. 45.After March 2015, because Yelin made it clear in her aforementioned orders that the accommodations provided by Epstein had been arbitrarily withdrawn, Plaintiff was unnecessarily pressured and emotionally distraught, and she felt compelled to go to the bathroom to have her snacks to avoid the humiliation of being publicly and repeatedly chastised by Yelin. 46.The necessity to go to the bathroom to take her snacks to regulate her insulin levels caused plaintiff great stress, worry, fear of reprisals, depression, emotional anxiety and general ill feelings, all due to the uncompromising and illegal policy of the WIC Supervisor and nutritional specialist at Maimonides, Natalie Yelin. 47.During the period after February of 2015, Grinberg’s diabetes symptoms were aggravated and her blood pressure became more elevated due to the disruptions in her nutritional regime and the emotional stress caused by Yelin’s harassment of her. 48.Yelin acted at all relevant times as the authorized agent and employee of Maimonides, and she did so within the normal scope of her authority and duties. 49.At all relevant times, Yelin was fully aware of Plaintiff’s disability and of her needs for specific accommodations, but she acted intentionally, with discriminatory animus, to withdraw the accommodations and then to track Plaintiff’s attempts to take her nutritional needs and medicine, and to verbally harass Plaintiff whenever she caught Plaintiff away from her desk. 50.In April of 2015, Maimonides hired a new Supervisor for the WIC program, Evan Lee. 51.Natalia Yelin resumed her prior duties, presumably in the Nutrition department; Yelin, however, continued to act in a supervisory and/or managerial capacity, and in that capacity, she continued to follow the Plaintiff, to verbally harass her and pressure her to stop leaving her desk to take her snacks, monitor her insulin levels, and/or take her medicine. 52.On one day in September, 2015, Yelin interrupted plaintiff during her work duties several times and distracted and worried plaintiff to the extent that plaintiff forgot to take her diabetes medicine at 11:30 a.m., her usual dosing time. 53.She became dizzy and went outside to get fresh air; she sat in her car for a few hours feeling sick with a diabetic reaction. Some co-workers and Supervisor Lee came to the car and she explained that she had only recently remembered to take her medicine and was not feeling well. 54.Lee told her to go home if she was not feeling well. 55.When she came to work the next day, Evan Lee asked her what happened; she explained that she forgot to take her medication for the diabetes and for high blood pressure, and she had a reaction. 56.She explained that she needed accommodations and had always received them from Epstein. 57.Evan Lee told plaintiff to go to the kitchen in the future when she needed to take her medicine and meals; he did not ask if she needed any other accommodations and did not engage in an interactive process with her or direct her to anyone else who would participate in that process with the plaintiff, nor did he offer such interactive process or mention it to her. 58.When she started going back to the kitchen for her meal breaks, snacks and/or medicine ingestion, Defendant Yelin would come into the kitchen and regularly harass Plaintiff just as she did in the past, by complaining about her leaving her post, her allegedly lowered productivity, and other disparaging remarks about Grinberg’s job performance and work habits. 59.Acting within her supervisory and/or managerial capacity on behalf of Maimonides, Yelin at no time would accept or acknowledge that Plaintiff had a disability or that the request for accommodations was a legitimate need of the Plaintiff to regulate her nutritional intake and follow her doctor’s orders. 60.Yelin, while acting in the scope of her job duties as a superior to the Plaintiff, always acted in a callous, vindictive and verbally harassing manner toward Plaintiff, and intentionally and recklessly discriminated against Plaintiff due to her disability. 61.In September of 2015, Evan Lee performed a complete staff evaluation and gave Plaintiff a satisfactory job approval rating. 62.Yelin continued, however, to harass plaintiff and in April of 2016, Yelin lodged a complaint with the union representative and with Evan Lee, alleging that plaintiff did not listen to Yelin’s rules and regulations and did not respect Yelin’s role as Supervisor. 63.Yelin viewed herself as Supervisor during all occasions when Evan Lee was absent, and she acted at all times toward Plaintiff as her superior. 64.Due to incessant harassment from Yelin nearly each time that Plaintiff tried to take her snacks, meals or medicine in the kitchen, Plaintiff again resorted to eating her snacks in the bathroom, a situation that caused her great emotional stress, suffering, anxiety, depression and feelings of humiliation. 65.On information and belief, Yelin convinced Evan Lee to start monitoring the duration of plaintiff’s trips to the bathroom. 66.In October of 2016, Evan Lee was ill and absent from his duties for one month. 67.During October of 2016, Yelin reported to union representatives that plaintiff was eating at her desk; at that time, several employees in the WIC program were eating at their desks with supervisory permission, including clerical workers and the head nutritionist, and Plaintiff began eating at her desk. 68.Yelin did not chastise those others for eating at their desks and did not complain about them to the union representative; Yelin did continue, however, to harass plaintiff personally, and to report her to the union. 69.Despite Yelin’s discriminatory treatment of plaintiff regarding eating at her desk, the fact is that Maimonides and its WIC program had no written policy prohibiting workers from eating at their desks. 70.At the end of October, 2016, prior to Evan Lee returning to work, Yelin set up a meeting with union representatives. 71.During that meeting, Yelin falsely complained that plaintiff was eating throughout the day, and that plaintiff was down in productivity. 72.That meeting came to no resolution of the complaint and it was adjourned until after Evan Lee would return to work and preside over it. 73.However, a favoritism complaint filed against Yelin by workers in the WIC department had the effect of putting off the meeting regarding Yelin’s complaints against Grinberg. 74.The favoritism conflict resulted in Yelin keeping a low profile temporarily with respect to her complaints against Grinberg, or at least, it appeared to Grinberg that Yelin was not outwardly bothering her or acting against her. 75.This turned out to be an incorrect perception because on April 13, 2017, Evan Lee issued, in gross derogation of Grinberg’s rights under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, a written warning against Grinberg, based on unsupportable allegations of inappropriate attire (HR-34) and unauthorized absence from the work area (HR 28); this included false and unsupported charges of “failure to provide customer driven responsiveness” and “failure to perform assigned duties properly and promptly.” 76.Evan Lee took the discriminatory disciplinary action against the Plaintiff knowing full well that she suffered from a disability and had requested accommodations, as aforesaid, and without having engaged Plaintiff in an interactive process to resolve her needs in connection with her disability. 77.The charges mentioned in the preceding paragraph were false and unsupported by credible facts; they were legally invalid in light of Grinberg’s long-established disability and well-known need for accommodations, which had in the past been granted to Grinberg and then callously, wantonly and recklessly taken away from her by Maimonides through its authorized agents and employees, including through the aggressive and malicious interference of Yelin. 78.On April 13 or April 14, 2017, Lee also notified Plaintiff that it was her last warning and that another violation would end her 24-year term of service for Maimonides, and she would also lose all benefits, including the Maimonides retirement program for employees in the WIC program. 79.When she received the aforesaid warning, Grinberg told Supervisor Lee again that her dress attire was to protect against a spike in heat due to her diabetes, which can impact negatively on insulin levels and which can cause an attack of dizziness, feinting and possibly going into a coma. 80.When she received the aforesaid warning, Grinberg told Supervisor Lee again that she needed to take the extra snacks to regulate her insulin and blood sugar levels as per her doctor’s orders, and that Yelin had harassed her and humiliated her into taking them in the bathroom. 81.The information related by Grinberg to Lee mentioned in the preceding paragraph was one of many times that Grinberg told Yelin, Lee, union representatives, and other Supervisors at Maimonides of the critical needs she had for the providing of reasonable accommodations by Maimonides. 82.Inexplicably, Lee ignored and illegally rejected the previously long-established practice, provided by Supervisor Epstein, of providing accommodations to Grinberg for her recognized and known disability. 83.Maimonides violated the state and city anti-discrimination laws by taking disciplinary action against Grinberg despite Maimonides’ full knowledge of Grinberg’s disability, and despite having given accommodations to Grinberg in the past. 84.Lee rejected plaintiff’s plea for a de minimus departure from the dress code and ignored her explanation that she needed the accommodation because of her disability. 85.Lee ignored and reversed his earlier assertion to the plaintiff to use the kitchen for her meals and medications, despite knowing that Plaintiff suffered from diabetes, which considering that this was a WIC nutritional program, should have raised red flags for Lee to pay attention to a diabetic’s nutritional accommodations. 86.Based on Plaintiff’s explanations to Lee, he was fully aware that Yelin had taken away Grinberg’s right to use the kitchen by harassing and publicly chastising her in derogation of her rights under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, and in effect causing her to desperately retreat to the bathroom where she would take her snacks and her medicine. 87.On June 28, 2017, Supervisor Lee told Plaintiff to come to his office. When she got there, Natalie Yelin was there, and Lee told her that Maimonides had been monitoring her productivity, in particular with respect to the time away from her desk. 88.At the meeting, Lee told plaintiff that she was away from her desk an average of one hour per day of unauthorized time; he told her she was fired and had to leave the building, but he asked her to first sign the termination papers. 89.The termination paperwork, which Plaintiff refused to sign, stated that she was terminated for violations substantially dealing with excessive and/or unexcused absences, with untrue derivative assertions of her not doing her job duties, not being responsive to clients and improper attire. 90.She told Tom McIntyre, the union representative, that she would not sign the paper for termination despite his urging her to sign; he set up an appointment for her to meet with him in his office on June 30, 2017. 91.On June 30, 2017, McIntyre asked her to obtain a doctor’s report stating that she was totally disabled and unable to work; they would then have her removed so she could collect disability benefits, by which he apparently was referring to the hospital’s private disability insurance. 92.The offer communicated from the union representative was presented to her as though it was a solution agreed to by Maimonides, thus showing that Maimonides knew full well that the Plaintiff had a disability and that her requests for accommodations were legitimate. 93.The plaintiff rejected the proposal, once again telling McIntyre that she was able to do her job with a few reasonable accommodations regarding her snacks and attire. 94.She advised the union representative what he already knew and what she had already told Supervisors Epstein, Yelin, Lee and other superiors at Maimonides for years: she simply needed to have the time to eat her snacks that her doctor prescribed for the control of the diabetes, i.e., to regulate her insulin levels. 95.McIntyre refused her explanation and insisted that, if she did not want to use her own doctor, she should see the union doctor to get certified as being totally disabled; McIntyre thus supported the other defendants in their discriminatory assertion that Plaintiff was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the law. 96.On information and belief, the union was well aware that the Maimonides and Yelin were tracking Plaintiff’s every move, and harassing Plaintiff by refusing to give her the requested accommodations, and the union was complicit in perpetrating the “investigation” and in setting up Plaintiff to be terminated. 97.When a congressional aide called the union about Plaintiff’s case, McIntyre at first falsely reported to the aide that Plaintiff had never mentioned anything about a disability or about accommodations; he disingenuously agreed with the congressional aide to meet with her to see what those complaints were about. 98.It is a well-known medical fact that diabetes patients can become dizzy and even critically or fatally comatose if they do not eat frequently enough and stabilize their energy consumption. 99.The same is true of the need of diabetes patients to be able to administer their medication on an established schedule; in this case, the Plaintiff’s set times to take her medicine were disrupted by the harassment, complaints, and unsupportable discipline imposed on her for “leaving the work area” or, at times, for eating at her desk. 100. Despite the deadly consequences of ignoring proper monitoring, nutritional and treatment protocols, Plaintiff was at all relevant times fully able to perform and she did in fact perform the duties of her job, with the aid of the unobtrusive accommodations she requested. 101.Plaintiff refused the union demand because she knew that she could work if simply given the accommodation regarding her snacks. 102. She later offered McIntyre a letter dated July 10, 2017, from her doctor confirming that she needed an accommodation for her diabetes and he would not accept it. 103.The union’s position indicates that it was complicit with Maimonides in procuring a discriminatory result against the Plaintiff by joining aggressively in telling her she could not get an accommodation, but by instead illegally requesting Plaintiff to perpetrate a fraud by procuring a false medical report that would certify her as totally disabled so she could collect private disability benefits. 104.In violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, no supervisors, managers, officers or superiors of Grinberg ever engaged her, or offered to engage her, in an interactive process required to determine a resolution of the conflict and to discuss possible reasonable accommodations. 105.No supervisors, managers, officers or superiors of Grinberg at Maimonides ever advised her of any potential rights that she might have under the FMLA, ADA, NYCHRL, or the NYSHRL, nor did they ever direct her to obtain information regarding her possible rights from any sources at Maimonides or elsewhere, which omissions are in violation of the provisions of the state and city anti-discrimination laws stated herein, including in violation of the NYSHRL (9 NYCRR § 466.11(j)). 106. Despite the plaintiff’s various communications of her need for accommodations made to each of the defendants, no Maimonides supervisors, managers, officers or superiors of Grinberg ever advised her of any set procedures for requesting a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the mandates of the NYSHRL (9 NYCRR § 466.11(j)) and NYCHRL (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(22)). 107.Maimonides ultimately fired Grinberg because the hospital alleged that she was leaving her desk up to one hour per day without authorization; she was doing that because of the harassment inflicted by Yelin, who acting in her supervisory capacity and within the scope of her duties on behalf of Maimonides, effectively compelled Plaintiff to take her snacks and regulate her diabetic condition in the bathroom. 108.The plaintiff, acting in a crisis condition and under great pressure, was going to the bathroom one or more times per day to administer her medicine and eat her snacks, which she did while in a state of intensive anxiety and humiliation caused by the harassing actions of Yelin, who was acting on behalf of Maimonides within the scope of her authority. 109. On information and belief, Yelin was instrumental in convincing Evan Lee to initiate a malicious tracking investigation against the plaintiff, following her to the bathroom where she took diabetes medicine and ate medically mandated snacks that Yelin would not allow her to ingest at her desk and not even in the kitchen. 110. Yelin was at all times well aware of plaintiff’s requests for accommodations due to a recognized disability but she refused to acknowledge that plaintiff had a right to request accommodations and she did not recognize the legally protected status of an employee with a disability. 111.Each time in prior years when a Maimonides supervisor granted an accommodation to plaintiff, another supervisor or authorized person duly situated, who was usually Ms. Yelin, did at a later time arbitrarily and without justification, retract, abruptly change, modify or ignore the granted accommodation, demonstrating that Maimonides does not have a system or a working protocol for protecting and assuring the rights of disabled employees in gross violation of its legal responsibilities. 112.In violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, no supervisors, managers, officers or superiors of Grinberg at Maimonides ever advised her of a procedure or protocol that existed for requesting an accommodation by a disabled employee, further indicating Maimonides does not have a system or a working protocol for protecting and assuring the rights of disabled employees. 113.The modification of work schedules to accommodate a disability, such as the granting of additional breaks to take medically mandated snacks and medicine, is a reasonable accommodation within the scope of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. 114.Because other supervisors in the past had given her the accommodations and they had worked out well, it is clear that the accommodations were feasible, inexpensive, and it would have been no hardship to the hospital in granting the accommodations to an experienced veteran of 24 years of service to the hospital. 115.As a direct and proximate result of Maimonides’ unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered monetary and/or other economic harm, both past, present and future, including lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and lost benefits, for which she is entitled to an award of damages on each count. 116.As a direct and proximate result of Maimonides’ unlawful discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe and permanent mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering, for which she is entitled to an award of damages. 117.As a direct and proximate result of Maimonides’ unlawful discriminatory actions, in violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered other losses and is entitled to an award of damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. 118.With respect to all claims herein and at all relevant times, the Defendants acted intentionally, wantonly, egregiously, with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights, in violation of the NYCHRL, entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damages on each count. COUNT I -- AGAINST DEFENDANT MAIMONIDES Disability Discrimination, Wrongful Termination and Failure to Accommodate under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL 119. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 120.The NYCHRL and the NYSHRL prohibit discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of an individual’s disability. 121.Plaintiff is an employee and qualified person with a disability as those terms are defined under the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL. 122.Maimonides, through its authorized supervisors and management personnel, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability in violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, as more fully stated above and incorporated at length herein. 123. Maimonides, through its authorized supervisors and management personnel, failed and refused at all relevant times to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine plaintiff’s needs and to evaluate the reasonableness of the requests for accommodation, in violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL; instead, the hospital rejected her requests after having granted the same accommodations to her in the past for the same disability. 124.Maimonides violated the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL by arbitrarily refusing to modify plaintiff’s schedule and work habits to allow her time to either eat at her desk or to do so in an appropriate location, for the purpose of regulating her nutritional intake and to stabilize her blood sugar levels, as more fully stated above and incorporated here by reference. 125. Maimonides, through its authorized supervisors and management personnel, violated the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL by creating a hostile work environment solely because of Plaintiff’s disability, allowing and facilitating an environment where Plaintiff was pervasively and egregiously harassed, pressured, and belittled due to Plaintiff’s attempt to exercise her rights under law, to the point that Plaintiff had to go to the bathroom to regulate her nutritional levels just to avoid the harassment inflicted on her. 126.Maimonides also violated the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL by improperly, illegally and wrongly terminating the plaintiff’s employment, as stated above and incorporated herein by reference, which was done in carrying out its illegal policy of disability discrimination. 127.Pursuant to the facts stated above and incorporated here at length, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Maimonides pursuant to the provisions of the NYCHRL. COUNT II -- AGAINST DEFENDANT YELIN Disability Discrimination under NYSHRL and the NYCHRL 128.Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 129.The defendant, Natalia Yelin, at all relevant times was a supervisory employee and agent of Maimonides who acted within the authorized scope of her duties. 130.The NYSHRL prohibits an individual employee from aiding or abetting an unlawful discriminatory practice, whether or not the individual is a supervisor (N.Y. Exec. Law §296(6)). 131.The defendant Yelin aided and abetted an unlawful discriminatory practice as defined by the aforesaid law and as more fully stated above and incorporated in full herein, which makes her liable to plaintiff for all damages that plaintiff suffered. 132.The defendant Yelin is also liable to plaintiff under the NYCHRL because that law prohibits employees from engaging in discrimination or retaliation against a protected person, which Yelin did as above-mentioned and incorporated here at length. 133.Yelin engaged in discrimination against plaintiff, in violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, by creating a hostile work environment in which she pervasively and egregiously harassed, pressured, and belittled Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s attempt to exercise her rights to be free from disability discrimination, to the point that Plaintiff had to go to the bathroom to regulate her nutritional levels just to avoid the harassment implemented by Yelin. 134.Pursuant to the facts stated above and incorporated here at length, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Yelin pursuant to the provisions of the NYCHRL. COUNT III -- AGAINST DEFENDANT UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST Disability Discrimination under NYSHRL and the NYCHRL 135.Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 136.The NYSHRL and the NYCHRL prohibit a labor organization from discriminating, because of disability, in any way against any of its members or against any employer or any individual employed by an employer, pursuant to (Executive Law § 296 [1] [c]) and the New York City Administrative Code § 8-107(c), respectively. 137.The Defendant United Healthcare Workers East discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the provisions aforesaid, as described above and incorporated here at length. 138.The Defendant United Healthcare Workers East aided and abetted the other Defendants to discriminate against the Plaintiff in violation of the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL, as described above and incorporated here at length. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Inna Grinberg, demands judgment, jointly and severally, against Defendants, Maimonides Medical Center, Natalia Yelin and the United Healthcare Workers East, as follows: A.Preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants and their officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with defendants, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages set forth herein; B.A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. C.Permanent removal from Plaintiff’s employee file all disciplinary action unlawfully taken against Plaintiff and any such references and defamatory comments anywhere else existing in the hospital’s records and data bases or in the union’s records and data bases; D.Damages which Plaintiff has sustained as a result of Defendants’ conduct, including lost wages, loss of earning capacity, lost benefits, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, both past, present and future; E.Punitive damages to the extent authorized by law in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s ability and so as to deter future unlawful conduct; F.Awarding Plaintiff costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; G.Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and H.Granting Plaintiff other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. Dated:New York, New York Nov. , 2017 Respectfully submitted, The Law Office of JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, L.L.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 1007 Tel. (212) 791 - 5396 Fax. (516) 248 – 6027 By:__________________________________ BENNITTA L. JOSEPH -