Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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
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
(e) that this Court grant Plaintiff such other relief as may be just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
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
______________________________
Raul Jauregui, Esq.