You are on page 1of 22

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNYSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
Tanya Coles
:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
Civil Action
VS.
:
:
NO.
Overbrook Gulf Club
:
:
and
:
:
Greg Ferreri
:
:
:
Jury Trial Demanded
:
Defendants
:
__________________________________________:
COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff, Tanya Coles is an adult individual who alleges through her attorneys,
Parish McCabe, PC, that her rights to be free from discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and under
the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 P.S. 951 et seq., have
been violated by her former employer, Overbrook Golf Club., as well as in his
individual capacity as permitted under the PHRA by her former manager
Overbrook employee Greg Ferreri.
II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, Tanya Coles, is an African American adult female who resides in
Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 1

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 2 of 22

3. At all times material hereto, Ms. Coles was an employee and a former employee
with Overbrook Golf Club, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Overbrook)
where she worked in the kitchen department.
4. Defendant Overbrook is an entity engaged in an industry or activity affecting
commerce and, on information and belief, has over 300 employees nationwide for
each working day during each of 20 or more calendar work weeks in the current
or preceding year with business address of 799 Godfrey Rd, Villanova,
Montgomery County, PA 19085.
5. Defendant Greg Ferreri, (hereinafter Defendant Ferreri) is a white male who at
the times relevant to this complaint worked for defendant Overbrook as a kitchen
manager and sole decision maker in terms of plaintiffs employment at that
kitchen. The Overbrook web page still lists defendant Ferreri as an employee of
defendant Overbrook.
III. JURISDICTION and VENUE
6. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein.
7. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Honorable Court by 28 U.S.C. 1337 relating
to "any civil action or proceeding arising out of any act of Congress regulating
commerce, 28 U.S.C. 1343(4), and 28 U.S.C. 1331. This action is authorized
and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction
of this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), to hear and decide claims arising
under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 P.S. 951 et seq.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 2

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 3 of 22

8. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies when Plaintiff submitted verified


complaints to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or about January
31, 2013 that then received PHRC Charge Number 2012-03009 and EEOC
Charge Number 17F201360566. (Exhibit A).
9. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff received her Dismissal and Notice of Rights for
her federal claims against Defendants from EEOC. (Exhibit B).
10. On January 31, 2014, it had been one (1) year since the filing of plaintiffs PHRC
complaint, thus plaintiff is entitled to bring her claims pursuant to the PHRA
against Defendant Overbrook and against Greg Ferreri the individual defendant as
an aider and abettor.
11. Plaintiff received her right to sue notice from EEOC on August 7, 2014 (Exhibit
C).
12. Venue is appropriately laid in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania inasmuch as all parties regularly conduct business within
this District and the acts complained of by Plaintiff arose herein.
IV. FACTS
13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein.
14. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Overbrook as a part time cook around September,
2007. Defendant Ferreri promoted plaintiff to full time Pantry Chef with one
dollar pay raise per hour during 2008 and terminated plaintiff for no legitimate
reason on December 30, 2012.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT DISCRIMINATION:

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 3

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 4 of 22

15. Plaintiff is an African American female who is qualified for her position as she
has been in the cooking industry since 1993, specifically in the cooking industry
for country clubs since 2005, holds an associates degree (AA) in accounting, and
who suffered adverse employment action in violation of her rights to be free from
sexual harassment discrimination while employed at and by defendants.
16. Plaintiff avers that the adverse employment actions she suffered as a result of
defendants pervasively hostile sexually harassing and sexually charged work
environment include but are not limited to:
a. Overbrook manager defendant Ferreri assaulted, touched, threatened to
touch, stalked and otherwise treated plaintiff in a manner that was justified
only as an expression of Ferreris severe, pervasive and unwelcome
treatment of plaintiff because of plaintiffs sex.
b. Overbrook manager defendant Ferreri gave plaintiff tasks that were
impossible for plaintiff to complete with the intentional objective of
making plaintiff fail at the task including increasing her work load,
changing her workload, preventing others from helping her carry out this
workload and not that of her comparators; all this due to Ferreris
discriminatory treatment of plaintiff because of her sex.
c. Ferreri routinely changed expectations and directives for plaintiff that
were ineffectively conveyed to plaintiff and which made it significantly
more difficult for plaintiff, and only plaintiff, unlike her male comparators
who were not treated thus, to discharge the duties of her job or to grow
and develop in that position.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 4

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 5 of 22

d. Overbrook manager defendant Ferreri simply refused to promote, train


and/or assign plaintiff to positions, locations and tasks that would improve
her career at Overbrook unless plaintiff acquiesced to Ferreris sexual
advances.
e. Plaintiffs supervisor at Overbrook, exclusively defendant Ferreri, refused
to stop his unwelcome sexual advances throughout the term of plaintiffs
employment and when faced with her strenuous refusal to allow him to
touch her, Ferreri then refused to meet, instruct, counsel or otherwise
interact with plaintiff and only plaintiff and fired her.
f. As a result of Ferreris pre-termination detrimental actions against plaintiff,
Ferreri denied plaintiff the possibility of obtaining promotions, pay raises,
career-growing assignments, and generally to thrive in her job.
g. Overbrook has stated it terminated plaintiffs employment for glib, selfserving and undocumented pretextual allegations including that Claimant
was terminated from her employment at Overbrook Golf Club for multiple
justifiable reasons relating to ongoing and continuous insubordination and
improper conduct throughout the course of her employment (Exhibit D,
No 20, incorporated as if stated here at length is Overbrooks Answer
for the PHRC complaint) and this tangible employment action is proof of
defendants discrimination against plaintiff because of her sex.
17. Plaintiff avers that these adverse actions are the result of defendants sexually
charged work place and the fact that the stated reason for termination is false

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 5

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 6 of 22

shows the pretext for Overbrook and Ferreris discrimination against plaintiff
because of her sex and thus in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.
18. Simply put, defendants mendacious and self-serving reasons for terminating
plaintiff, that she had ongoing and continuous insubordination and improper
conduct throughout the course of her employment (id) are not true and plaintiff
demands strict proof of these pretextual allegations at trial.
19. Plaintiff avers that during her entire employment at Overbrook she was never
once disciplined, counseled or otherwise noticed as she would have been were the
pretextual allegations for her termination in fact true which they are not.
20. Paradoxically, defendants reasons for terminating plaintiff, which are false and
denied, are in themselves riddled with admissions of the sexual hostility that
Overbrook and defendant Ferreri foisted on plaintiff and, of course, evidence of
pretext for their discrimination of plaintiff because of her sex.
21. Defendants have stated that [Ferreri] touched the Plaintiff on her right elbow and
asked her how she was doing at which time the Plaintiff swung her arm toward
[Mr. Ferreri] causing him to step out of the way. (Exhibit D No. 18).
22. Plaintiff alleges that Ferreri, on this last occasion, touched her by coming up to
her from behind, placing the front of his hips and pubic region into the middle of
plaintiffs buttocks, placing his hands around plaintiffs waist and stating I knew
you would come around, baby at which point plaintiff stated get off me and
shook her body to dislodge Ferreri.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 6

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 7 of 22

23. It is noteworthy that plaintiffs height is 53 who at that time of the harassment
described in this complaint weighed approximately 140 pounds and that defendant
Ferreri is a large and tall man who plaintiff describes as an intimidating giant.
24. Thus, what defendants have produced to date at the administrative stage of this
proceeding to justify its termination of plaintiff is shockingly false self serving
and completely shameful lies to mask profoundly pervasive sexual discrimination
that Ferreri aided and abetted to create at defendant Overbrooks workplace for
women including plaintiff and the significant size difference between plaintiff and
Ferreri belies Ferreris claim that plaintiff could or would swing at him.
25. Furthermore, defendants reason for terminating plaintiff, that she had ongoing
and continuous insubordination and improper conduct throughout the course of
her employment must be seen in the context of the fact that this ongoing pattern
of alleged insubordination and impropriety which is denied, was never acted upon,
documented, or otherwise noted in clear inference of its pretextual nature and in
actual violation of the Overbrook employment policies and handbook if any.
26. Plaintiffs sex was a determinative factor in the adverse actions she suffered while
under Ferreris supervision. Ferreri treated plaintiff and her peersAfricanAmerican, Latina and White female Overbrook employeeswith distinct sexist
animus which subjected them to a pervasively hostile sexually harassing
workplace.
27. Most of plaintiffs career at Overbrook was under the supervision of defendant
Ferreri. Plaintiff always experienced sex based harassment, hostility,
discrimination or retaliation from this manager.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 7

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 8 of 22

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT


28. As soon as plaintiff came under Ferreris supervision he subjected her to a
sexually hostile work environment which was of an ongoing and continuing
nature and which pervaded ever aspect of plaintiffs employment with Overbrook.
29. Plaintiff avers that defendant Overbrook and its employees defendant Ferreri
routinely treated her, because of her sex, in a manner that was sexual, pervasive,
severe and always unwelcome including:
a. Ferreri would put his hand on either of plaintiffs breasts and cup them
bouncing and otherwise squeezing plaintiffs breast while making
adulatory comment such as Black women have the best breasts. This
happened many times throughout plaintiffs employment and took place in
the middle of plaintiffs workplace.
b. Ferreri would inquire if the color of plaintiffs brassiere, which could at
time be identified through plaintiffs white work smock, matched the color
of the rest of her underwear asking Does your bra match your panties?
This happened many times throughout plaintiffs employment and took
place in the middle of plaintiffs workplace.
c. Ferreri would come up to plaintiff from behind, and place either or both
his hands on plaintiffs buttocks, squeeze them and state your ass is so
soft! This happened many times throughout plaintiffs employment and
took place in the middle of plaintiffs workplace.
d. Ferreri would routinely try to kiss plaintiff on the mouth which he would
try by caging plaintiff between Ferreris body and a wall or kitchen

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 8

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 9 of 22

counter and then move his mouth down towards her as she could not flee.
This happened many times throughout plaintiffs employment and took
place in the middle of plaintiffs workplace.
e. Ferreri visited plaintiffs home and once attempted to rape her by simply
insisting on going up to plaintiffs bedroom and slamming her on the bed
at that time after which he placed his entire body upon hers and told her
shut up and just be quiet and you talk too much and just let it
happen until plaintiff finally screamed get off me and told Ferreri that
plaintiffs daughter was about to come upstairs.
f. Ferreri openly commented on other parts of plaintiffs body including
plaintiffs eyes, plaintiffs face and plaintiffs tattoo in manners that were
clearly sexual, unwelcome and done in the middle of the workplace and at
plaintiffs home.
30. Plaintiff avers that this treatment was due to Overbrook and Ferreris sexist
animus towards plaintiff because she is a woman.
31. Plaintiff avers that at no time did she welcome this conduct which affected the
conditions of her everyday employment at Overbrook.
32. The only reason why defendant Overbrook, aided and abetted by defendant
Ferreri, subjected plaintiff to this conduct was because the defendants dislike and
have a propensity to harass because of plaintiffs sex. When seen in comparison to
the employment experience of Overbrook employees under Ferreris management
who were either men or women who acquiesced to his sexual advances, it

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 9

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 10 of 22

becomes clear that the Overbrook and Ferreri created a sexually charged and
sexually harassing, hostile environment for plaintiff and others.
33. Plaintiff further avers that in the specific case of one Overbrook female employee
who actually acquiesced to Ferreris similar sexually harassing conduct during the
last year of plaintiffs employment the sexual abuse was further compounded by
the commonly held belief by plaintiff and other co-workers that this female
employee (as well as apparently several other Overbrook employees) was an
undocumented alien who had no right to work in the United States and thus was
in an even weaker position than plaintiff to reject Ferreris harassment.
34. In addition any reasonable person would have found that the conduct which
Ferreri aided and abetted to create the sexual hostility that plaintiff experienced as
part of her employment at Overbrook, was abusive or hostile as well as
unwelcome, as Ferreri not only pervasively sexualized plaintiffs employment but
also ruined her career because she did not acquiesce to Ferreris unwelcome
sexual advances and told him so which he ignored as her sole and final supervisor.
35. Plaintiff avers that this hostility came from Overbrooks tolerance of Ferreris
harassing conduct as her own was always professional as evidenced not just
through her years of spotless employment at Overbrook but also through the fact
that Overbrook itself promoted plaintiff to full time cook.
36. As a result of tolerating Ferreris sexually hostile conduct towards plaintiff,
Overbrook failed to prevent and correct the pervasively hostile and sexually
harassing workplace that harmed the plaintiff both in her professional
development and in her emotional well being and eventually terminated plaintiffs

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 10

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 11 of 22

employment. The stated reasons for plaintiffs termination are already on the
record as completely false and thus pretext for this pervasive sexual hostility.
37. While not an exhaustive list, plaintiff avers that she found the sexually charged
conduct of Ferreri completely unwelcome and that she communicated this to both
Ferreri and Overbrook including when plaintiff stated that:
a. She told Ferreri get off me and my daughter is about to come up as
Ferreri attempted to rape plaintiff at her home.
b. She told Ferreri dont bother me and I am wearing lipstick and I am
in a relationship when he tried to kiss her at the workplace.
c. She told Ferreri not of your business on the myriad occasions when
Ferreri inquired about the color of plaintiffs underwear.
d. She told Ferreri let go of me on the myriad occasions when Ferreri
touched plaintiffs breasts and hips/waist/buttocks.
e. She told Ferreri what are you doing! and why are you touching me!
and I am not that type of girl during the earliest instances of Ferreri
touching and otherwise harassing the plaintiff at work.
f. She told Overbrook, as explored in the Retaliation section, that Ferreri was
trying to kiss her and angry at her because she did not welcome this.
38. Plaintiff avers that all this sexually charged behavior that she endured at
Overbrook and which Ferreri both created, and as the sole supervisor failed to
prevent, was severe and pervasive because it came from her sole supervisor, it
changed her ability to remain employed and was never solved.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 11

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 12 of 22

39. In effect Ferreris sexualization of plaintiffs presence at Overbrook and also


outside Overbrook, including at plaintiffs house, defined and completely
dominated plaintiffs employment experience.
40. Ferreris sexual harassment was so severe and so pervasive that plaintiff could not
be alone with him anywhere in the Overbrook facilities without Ferreri touching
her breasts, rubbing his body against hers or otherwise attempting to kiss her or
have other forms of sexual contact.
RETALIATION
41. Plaintiff engaged in conduct that is protected under both Title VII and the PHRA
when she clearly noticed Overbrook and Ferreri that she opposed their sexist and
hostile treatment of her and that this treatment was sexual harassment.
42. Plaintiff engaged in this protected conduct at the earliest stages of her
employment because she told Ferreri from the very beginning of his sexually
unwelcome behavior that he should stop touching her and otherwise harassing her
with the specific language cited in No. 37(e). Ferreri was at the time and
throughout the whole period of employment plaintiffs only supervisor and sole
decision maker and thus had a duty to actually create a hostility-free workplace.
43. Not one to be bound by reasonable expectations from his employees concerning a
sexual hostility free environment Ferreri immediately retaliated against plaintiff
every time that plaintiff complained to him and asked him to stop touching and
kissing her by demoting her, by having her perform duties that were not part of
her regularly established work norms and which were clearly meant to deter her
complaints.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 12

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 13 of 22

44. Ferreri thus trapped plaintiff in a long pattern of retaliation where the defendant
would touch or otherwise harass the plaintiff who would complain to Ferreri to
only be faced with two choices, either accept the harassment and receive a
perquisite such as, for example, free food from the Overbrook pantry or reject the
harassment and receive a demotion, such as, for example, loading produce into
the freezer at Overbrook. In form and seen over time Ferreris retaliatory conduct
is time linked to all the plaintiffs instances of protected conduct and conforms an
abusive emotional relationship with punishment and reward doled out according
to the choices that plaintiff took; namely, to suffer or not the sexual conduct from
Ferreri. This abuse would have deterred the plaintiff from complaining at all.
45. Plaintiff also engaged in protected conduct at the very end of her employment
when she finally came to the attention of the Overbrook Human Resources
personnel as an employee with an employment issue.
46. On or about Monday, December 31, 2012 and certainly before she had learned of
her termination, plaintiff spoke with Overbrook human resources and presented
her complaint that Ferreri continued to touch her and sexually harass her.
47. Defendants terminated plaintiff either later that day, December 31, 2012, or later
during the first week of January, 2013.
48. At the times after plaintiff opposed Overbrooks and the individual defendants
sexual harassment, plaintiff experienced adverse employment action including:
a. Plaintiff complained of sex-based discrimination and hostility in the work
environment to Ferrari as early as her first week of employment at
Overbrook and supervision by Ferreri as stated in No. 37(e).

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 13

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 14 of 22

b. After this complaint, the sex-based discrimination and the hostility that
plaintiff had endured at Overbrook actually increased including adverse
employment actions in the form of demotion in assignments, denial of
staff support, preferential assignment of duties, increased harassment and
eventual termination on the same date of plaintiffs last complaint as
described in No. 44.
c. There is no other reason to explain why this increase in the hostility took
place besides the fact that if plaintiff complained Ferreri immediately
retaliated and if she acquiesced Ferreri immediately rewarded her.
d. This increase in the hostility certainly would deter anyone from
complaining about the sex-based discrimination and hostility in the first
place and the plaintiff would not have complained had she known this.
49. At that time causally related to the plaintiffs engagement in protected conduct,
Overbrook and the individual defendant then retaliated against plaintiff when they
forced on plaintiff the adverse actions, including termination, which had no
legitimate basis other than deterring the plaintiff and others from opposing the
blatant sexist practices that are normal at Overbrook as stated in Nos. 37(e), 44
and No. 46 of this complaint.
50. There is no reason for defendants to have created as well as no reason for Ferreri
to have aided and abetted in the creation of all this adverse action against plaintiff
other than her engagement in protected action dating from her earliest
employment which was a complaint of discrimination based on sex to Ferreri, her
only supervisor, who was also the one doing the harassing.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 14

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 15 of 22

51. Similarly, there is no reason for Ferreri to have fired plaintiff after December 30,
2012 other than her engagement in the final opposition of December 30 and 31,
2012 when Ferreri again assaulted the plaintiff in a sexual manner and the
plaintiff simply said NO to Ferreri and he is touching me to Overbrook
Human Resources.
52. The plaintiffs termination is clearly time-linked, by a matter of hours, to her last
complaints to both Ferreri and Overbrook.
53. Plaintiffs termination from Overbrook, in fact, followed immediately from her
last complaints to Ferreri and Overbrook and is presented with no legitimate
business reason as she Overbrook now tries to manufacture an undocumented and
false history of ongoing and continuous insubordination and improper conduct
throughout the course of her employment (Exhibit D No. 20) which plaintiff
avers is the pretext used to hide Overbrooks sexist animus against her after she
complained to Ferreri to stop touching her sexually.
COUNT I
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
SEX BASED DISCRIMINATION
PLAINTIFF COLES v. DEFENDANT OVERBROOK.
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein.
55. At all material times, Plaintiff has been subjected to adverse employment actions
with Defendant Overbrook, based on her sex including but not limited to a

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 15

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 16 of 22

pervasively hostile environment because of sex, as well as failure to promote,


battery and assault, disenfranchisement and termination.
56. The aforementioned discrimination was based solely on Plaintiffs sex.
57. It is believed and averred that Defendant Overbrook instigated and/or knew or
should have known of the offensive treatment which created a hostile work
environment for Plaintiff.
58. The sexual discrimination which Plaintiff seeks to redress constituted
employment practices which are made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Overbrooks unlawful employment
practices and disregard for Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities, Plaintiff has been
deprived of economic and non-economic benefits including, but not limited to
wage loss, failure to grow professionally, pain and suffering, mental anguish,
humiliation, loss of fringe benefits, painful embarrassment among her friends and
co-workers, disruption of her personal life and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary
pleasures of life.
60. The above-mentioned acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and
done with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs federally protected rights, therefore
justifying the imposition of punitive damages.
COUNT II
PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
SEX BASED DISCRIMINATION

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 16

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 17 of 22

PLAINTIFF COLES v. DEFENDANT OVERBROOK AND AIDER AND


ABBETTOR GREG FERRERI
61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein.
62. At all material times, Plaintiff has been subjected to adverse employment action
with Defendant Overbrook based on her sex including but not limited to assault,
battery, failure to promote, intimidation, disenfranchisement and termination.
63. Defendant Greg Ferreri aided and abetted the corporate defendant Overbrook in
the execution, implementation, enforcement and all other ways related to these
sexually hostile and discriminatory adverse employment actions against plaintiff.
64. The aforementioned discrimination was based solely on Plaintiffs sex.
65. It is believed and averred that Defendant Overbrook instigated and/or knew or
should have known of Ferreris offensive treatment which created a hostile work
environment for Plaintiff.
66. It is believed and averred that Defendant Ferreri aided and abetted Overbrook as
he instigated and/or knew or should have known of the offensive treatment which
created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff precisely because Ferreri was
both plaintiffs sole supervisor and plaintiffs sole harasser.
67. The sexual harassment discrimination which Plaintiff seeks to redress constituted
employment practices which are made unlawful by the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act, 43 P.S. 951 et seq.
68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Overbrooks and Ferreris
unlawful employment practices and disregard for Plaintiffs rights and

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 17

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 18 of 22

sensibilities, Plaintiff has been deprived of economic and non-economic benefits


including, but not limited to wage loss, pain and suffering, mental anguish,
humiliation, loss of fringe benefits, painful embarrassment among her friends and
co-workers, disruption of her personal life and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary
pleasures of life.
COUNT III
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
RETALIATION
PLAINTIFF COLES v. DEFENDANT OVERBROOK.
69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein.
70. The adverse employment actions described for Plaintiff Coles in this complaint
are a direct result of the plaintiffs engagement in the protected activity of
complaining about and opposing Overbrook and Ferreris unlawful employment
practices.
71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful employment practices
and of defendant Overbrooks direct retaliation against plaintiff for engaging in
protected conduct, Plaintiff has been deprived of economic and non-economic
benefits including, but not limited to termination, disciplinary action, wage loss,
pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of fringe benefits, painful
embarrassment among her friends and co-workers, disruption of their personal life
and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life.
COUNT IV

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 18

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 19 of 22

PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT


RETALIATION
PLAINTIFF COLES v. DEFENDANT OVERBROOK AND AIDER AND
ABBETTOR GREG FERRERI
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein
73. Plaintiff incorporates the averments in Count III as if stated here at length as they
constitute violations of the retaliation provision of the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act.
74. In addition plaintiff avers that defendant Ferreri aided and abetted the corporate
defendant Overbrook as he decided, implemented and carried out the retaliatory
action that followed plaintiffs protected conduct under the PHRA.
75. Thus, plaintiff demands compensation pursuant to the act from the corporate and
the individual defendants.
COUNT V
DAMAGES FOR INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO 42
U.S.C. 1981
PLAINTIFF FORD-GREENE v. DEFENDANT OVERBROOK
76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if the same were set
forth more fully at length herein.
77. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, Plaintiff has been denied her right, because of her
sex, to make and enforce contracts. Similarly, plaintiff has been consistently
denied a fair, equitable and professional work environment where her career could

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 19

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 20 of 22

continue to flourish and she has been denied the enjoyment of all benefits,
privileges, terms and conditions of her contractual relationship with Defendant
Overbrook including the humiliation of the sexually charged workplace and of
termination because of sexist, harassing animus.
78. As a result the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental an
emotional pain, suffering and humiliation.
79. The above mentioned acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and
done with reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, therefore
justifying the imposition of punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tanya Coles prays for relief from this Honorable Court as
follows:
(a) that this Court award such equitable relief as is proper for the unlawful failure to
promote, remedy the sexually charged workplace and for eventual termination on account
of Plaintiffs sex, including but not limited to back wages to the date and front wages. 42
U.S.C.2000e-5(g)(1) in excess of $150,000.00;
(b) that this Court award Plaintiff an amount to be determined at trial as compensation for
her emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, and loss of selfesteem in excess of $150,000.00 each from all defendants as allowed under the PHRA;
(c) that this Court award Plaintiffs damages and reasonable attorney's fees and the costs
of this action for the race-based and retaliation claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k)
and the analogous state law claims;
(d) that this Court award punitive damages; and

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 20

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 21 of 22

(e) that this Court grant Plaintiff such other relief as may be just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 7, 2014

/s/ RAUL JAUREGUI


________________________
Raul Jauregui, Esq.
PA Bar ID no. 92366
Attorney for Plaintiff Tanya Coles
Parish McCabe PC
105 Rutgers Avenue
PO Box 121
Swarthmore, PA 19081
215.559.9285
610.543.1501 (fax)
RJ@ParishMcCabe.com

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 21

Case 2:14-cv-06429-MSG Document 1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 22 of 22

PROOF OF SERVICE
Tanya Coles v. Overbrook Golf Club and Greg Ferreri
Civil No. _______________________
COMPLAINT

I certify that I am over 18 years of age and that in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias rules for
service of process, today I served on behalf of the plaintiff via first class US MAIL to the
legal representative address, a true and correct copy of the above referenced documents
addressed to:
James F. Ryan, Esq.
Attorney of Record for Overbrook Golf Club
Schwabenland and Ryan, PC
995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 306
Wayne, PA 19087
(610) 971-9200
The documents were also e-mailed to Mr. Ryan at: jryan@sandrlaw.com

Dated: November 8, 2014

______________________________
Raul Jauregui, Esq.

Coles v. Overbrook et al.


Complaint Page No. 22

You might also like