Guardian Veterinary Specialists

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

No.:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Atiana Munroe-Joseph, by and through her attorneys at Lewis Law Group LLC, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Atiana Munroe-Joseph (“Ms. Munroe-Joseph” or “Plaintiff”) commenced employment at Guardian Veterinary Specialists (“GVS,” and, with Defendants Impellizeri, Silva, and Vinci, collectively referred to as “Defendants”) in June 2019 as a Veterinary Technician, essentially a nurse for the animal-patients. Plaintiff was a full-time, permanent employee for GVS.

Plaintiff was a hard-working, dedicated employee of GVS, who was initially motivated by career aspirations to one day serve the community as a veterinarian for GVS. Despite her consummate professionalism and team-first attitude, she was knowingly sacrificed to a monstrous boss in a hostile work environment at GVS.

The nightmare began a few months into her employment, in late 2019, when Ms.

Munroe-Joseph agreed to fill an opening in the Oncology Department (“Oncology”). She agreed under the false pretense that it would be ‘a good career move’ for her.

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, Oncology was anything but a good career move. The department was a toxic cesspool of sexual harassment and bullying, which led multiple female employees to quit before Ms. Munroe-Joseph volunteered to appease her bosses. Plaintiff, like her predecessors in Oncology, was consistently bombarded with sexually inappropriate comments, probing questions and bad jokes from Plaintiff’s supervising veterinary oncologist, Dr. Impellizeri.

The sexual harassment was administered to Plaintiff daily, along with frequent racist barbs and mean-spirited body shaming. Worse still, Ms. Munroe-Joseph was violated physically, whenever she suffered the indignity of having her buttocks smacked by Dr. Impellizeri.

During her period of employment, from June 2019 to December 2020, Plaintiff learned she was but one of many female employees at GVS who were wrongfully exposed to the sexual deviance, and outdated misogyny, of Defendant Dr. Joseph Impellizeri.

Like many other victim-employees, Plaintiff complained of the sexual harassment, described herein, multiple times to GVS executives, Defendants Marianne Silva and Bernadette Vinci, who were in a position to address and punish the sexual misconduct by Dr. Impellizeri as his superiors. Plaintiff was far from the first employee who complained of Impellizeri’s inappropriate antics, as multiple female employees fell victim to the misogynist.

After several months of persistent, daily disrespect at GVS, Ms. Munroe-Joseph broke down and tearfully made a formal complaint to Silva and Vinci. The female executive co- defendants feigned concern, and resolved to hold Impellizeri accountable, however no meaningful investigation followed while Plaintiff was employed at GVS.

Plaintiff was transferred out of Oncology, to a less desirable position in Surgery, and was then made to feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in her final months working for GVS. The retaliation, spearheaded by Silva, was the final straw for Plaintiff. She was forced to quit her

job, and abandon her dream of becoming a veterinarian, just to maintain the shreds of dignity and self-respect she clung to amid the onslaught of sexual harassment spewed by Impellizeri.

Unfortunately, despite many warnings of the hostile work environment at GVS, with explicit details of Dr. Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct reported by Plaintiff, and others before her, Defendants turned the proverbial blind eye to their female employees’ suffering. Impellizeri’s predatory behavior continued unabated and yielded extensive damage to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, this is a civil action brought on behalf of Plaintiff against Defendants to obtain redress for her injuries caused by the hostile work environment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation experienced by Ms. Munroe-Joseph, while employed at GVS, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff also brings a claim for the battery, committed by Impellizeri, under New York’s Adult Survivors Act.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

• 1332(a)(1) because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest.

Venue for this action properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Guardian Veterinary Services (“GVS”) is located in the Southern District of New York and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district at GVS’ animal hospital in Brewster, New York.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff is a resident and domiciliary of the State of Connecticut. As a Hispanic female, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and was employed by GVS at all times relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant Joseph Impellizeri (“Impellizeri” or “Dr. I”) is a resident of the State of New York. Defendant Impellizeri was employed by GVS, as a board-certified veterinary oncologist who oversaw GVS’ Oncology Department, at all times relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant Bernadette Vinci (“Vinci”) is a resident of the State of New York.

Defendant Vinci was employed by GVS, as Chief Operating Officer, at all times relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant Marianne Silva (“Silva”) is a resident of the State of New York.

Defendant Silva was employed by GVS, as Medical Operations Manager, at all times relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant Guardian Veterinary Services (“GVS”) is domestic limited liability corporation, formed under the laws of the State of New York, where it operates as an animal hospital providing veterinary services. GVS maintained its principal place of business in Brewster, New York, at all times relevant to this Complaint. In addition to the Brewster animal hospital, GVS also operates facilities in Middletown, New York and Bronx, New York, respectively.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” of GVS as that term is defined by all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

At all relevant times, GVS was Plaintiff’s “employer” as that term is defined by all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New

York City Human Rights Law, and all of the below instances occurred at Defendant GVS’ facilities

in New York State.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

AS A DEDICATED, HARD-WORKING EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF HAPPILY CHARTS A LIFELONG CAREER AND EDUCATIONAL PATH IN PURSUIT OF HER DREAM JOB AT GVS

Ms. Munroe-Joseph commenced employment at GVS as a Veterinary Technician Eligible, a full-time employee, in June of 2019. “Eligible” referred to a technician enrolled in an accredited program for licensure. Plaintiff worked for GVS and, simultaneously, took classes to pursue her dream job of veterinarian for GVS.

Plaintiff was initially assigned to the Emergency Department as a technician-in- training. Within a month of commencing her position, Ms. Munroe-Joseph was awarded Employee of the Month.

She received the award due to her team-first attitude, enthusiasm and dedication to the animal hospital. In her first few months of employment, Plaintiff was consistently willing to volunteer for any task Defendants requested of her and was always available to fill in for open shifts when scheduling issues arose. She viewed all work for GVS as an opportunity to prove herself to her new employer.

Thereafter, in November 2019, Ms. Munroe-Joseph accepted a position working for Dr. I in Oncology, in what can best be described as an abusive nightmare work environment.

The ‘opportunity’ was presented by Silva, GVS’ Medical Operations Manager.

Silva knew of Plaintiff’s career aspirations, and eagerness to prove herself a valuable asset to GVS.

Silva was also aware of Dr. I’s depravity, but kept the oncologist supervisor’s issues

to herself, when pitching Plaintiff on taking the ill-fated position.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph first shared her desire to be a veterinarian with Silva during

Plaintiff’s GVS job interview a few months prior.

Silva pitched the opportunity of working as a veterinary assistant, directly under Dr. I, as ‘a good career move’ and stellar ‘one-on-one’ learning experience for Plaintiff, where she could learn from the seasoned veterinary oncologist and an experienced veterinarian technician (“vet tech”), ES,1 Dr. I’s Services Supervisor.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph accepted the veterinary assistant position from Silva.

Shortly after accepting the position in Oncology, warnings trickled into Plaintiff from various colleagues. Plaintiff heard vague comments indicating Impellizeri was ‘difficult’ and ‘a problem’ to deal with.

She later learned, after the fact, that at least five vet techs, i.e., vet nurses, quit Oncology prior to Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s hiring.

TG, a licensed vet tech who was hired to staff Oncology before Plaintiff, quit almost immediately. TG would later tell Ms. Munroe-Joseph, after they both left Oncology, that she had “never been treated so badly by a doctor, vet, or anyone, in her entire career.”

Plaintiff was initially concerned by the warnings she encountered after accepting the Oncology position but felt compelled to stick with her commitment.

Sadly, she also gave Silva the benefit of the doubt and trusted her representations of Oncology as a good learning experience, and a great way to secure a letter of recommendation for veterinarian school.

In retrospect, the fellow employees’ warnings paled in comparison to the vile experience Dr. I concocted for Plaintiff, and others. Nothing, not even Silva’s halfhearted offer 1 Certain GVS employees, known to Defendants, are referred to pseudonymously and/or by initials to protect their privacy rights given the sensitive nature of the allegations herein.

for Munroe-Joseph to “Let me know if you have any issues,” would prepare Plaintiff for the sexual harassment, hostility and abuse she would soon experience.

THE     DREAM           ENDS  ABRUPTLY     IN        IMPELLIZERI’S          ONCOLOGY

DEPARTMENT: THE PARADIGM HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Ms. Munroe-Joseph took the aforementioned position working as Impellizeri’s vet- tech-in-training on or about December 1, 2019, and the offenses commenced almost immediately.

Plaintiff received her first inkling that the rumors she heard about Impellizeri were true within her first few days in the new department.

Oncology staff members were hanging Christmas decorations around Oncology.

Dr. I and ES, Oncology’s Services Supervisor, each had personalized stockings with their names embroidered on them.

Impellizeri, struggling to hold back laughter, handed Plaintiff ‘her’ stocking which had ‘New Girls’ embroidered on the fabric in lieu of Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s name.

Dr. I could no longer contain himself. He chuckled heartily and boasted, “Nurses don’t last long enough to get their name on the Christmas stocking, let’s see about you.” Ms. Munroe-Joseph was not laughing during this strange display by the head of Oncology.

Plaintiff was confused by her new boss’ bravado regarding the transient nature of his department, and, more so, his apparent joy when referencing the traumatized women who worked for him ever so briefly.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph would soon learn that Dr. I took great pride in being politically incorrect, racially insensitive, and sexually deviant.

Impellizeri’s inappropriate conduct was a poorly kept secret at GVS, where Defendants willfully ignored, and thus enabled, the behavior of their high-earning vet oncologist.

Oncology was, fortunately for Plaintiff, staffed by one other individual when she joined the toxic department: DW. DW was an experienced veterinarian assistant and, as Plaintiff’s lone ally in Oncology during the relevant time period, a moral compass Plaintiff could trust to confirm her suspicions when their superiors were out-of-line.

DW, like Plaintiff, was regularly disgusted by Dr. I’s behavior; DW was present for most of the despicable Impellizeri conduct described herein.

In addition to the aggressive, abusive sexual harassment inflicted upon Plaintiff and her predecessors, Defendant Impellizeri engaged in a textbook quid pro quo sexual relationship.

ES was Impellizeri’s subordinate, yet they were engaged in a sexual relationship.

ES was also Oncology’s Services Supervisor, akin to the “nursing supervisor” or “chief of nursing” in a hospital context. ES and Dr. I made no attempt to conceal the illicit relationship from their co-workers in Oncology, engaging in constant public displays of affection (“PDA”). The PDAs were made grosser by the blatant preferential treatment received by ES.

Although Dr. I was the head of Oncology, and thus Plaintiff’s boss during the pertinent time described herein, ES also had a supervisory role over both Plaintiff and DW. They were often disgusted by, and uncomfortable with, their supervisors’ overtly sexual relationship.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph was frequently tasked to cut up fruit, and other snacks, for Dr.I and ES to feed each other in between kisses and inappropriate pillow talk. They happily engaged in awkward PDAs, heavy petting, and graphic sexual commentary.

Plaintiff and DW complained about the PDAs, and the fact that ES consistently received better treatment as a result of her intimate relationship with Impellizeri.

The female employees’ complaints were, of course, ignored by Defendants. ES continued to enjoy favorable treatment from Dr. I, in between the kissing and groping. When not canoodling, the lovers quarreled with increasing frequency as 2020 progressed.

Dr.       Impellizeri’s     sexual relationship with ES was, sadly, nowhere near the most offensive conduct observed or experienced by Plaintiff. Dr. I engaged in a wide array of sexual harassment, of Plaintiff and others, in Oncology.

Dr. I routinely questioned Plaintiff, and other subordinates, regarding highly personal subjects including the employees’ intimate relationships, sexual experiences, and any other inappropriate subject he desired, like their respective partners’ infidelity or marital conflicts.

PLAINTIFF’S HARD WORK AND DEDICATION ARE SQUANDERED AS SHE BECOMES THE TARGET OF IMPELLIZERI’S IRE, BULLYING AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Theroughout the time that Plaintiff survived working in Oncology through Summer of 2020, Dr. I grew more offensive by the day.

Impellizeri often advocated for Plaintiff to divorce her husband, to enjoy a promiscuous lifestyle and would flippantly suggest Ms. Munroe-Joseph was in an abusive relationship as a way of mocking her.

He was relentless in his inappropriate, daily questioning of Plaintiff, in particular.

This was likely because of Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s youth, ambition, and dedication to GVS, as well as her stated desire to become a veterinarian.

Impellizeri took advantage of Plaintiff’s eagerness to learn from him and her stated desire of obtaining a letter of recommendation from him for veterinarian school.

In lieu of providing mentorship, and respect, for the hard-working vet tech who persevered through the toxic environment he created in Oncology, Dr. I chose to talk to Plaintiff about her favored sexual encounters or to mock Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s clothing choices, physical features, and her “fat Latin ass,” as described further below.

DW stressed to Plaintiff, on multiple occasions, that she should both report this conduct to the GVS executives and avoid sharing these intimate details with Impellizeri.

DW noted he was using the information “to assess [her] weaknesses and use them to his advantage.”

DW, who had been working for Impellizeri in Oncology for longer than Plaintiff and was present for multiple women quitting, spoke from experience and genuine concern. Plaintiff appreciated same, but still felt pressured to endure Dr. I’s sexual comments, questions, and innuendo, to avoid compromising her future with GVS.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph wanted to keep Impellizeri happy to, again, secure a letter of recommendation for veterinarian school and maintain her reputation at GVS.

She also feared Dr. I because, when he was not ogling or mocking his female subordinates, he was mean and abusive to them.

Plaintiff, much like the women before her, constantly lived in fear of Dr. I.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph developed significant anxiety and depression while working for Dr. I, in anticipation of the pressure to discuss her marital problems as well as the frequent attacks regarding her physical appearance.

The anxiety was so crippling, that Plaintiff told him she got divorced just to stop the ceaseless questions. This anxiety and depression still plague Plaintiff to this day.

Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s plan did not garner her the peace of mind she sought.

After Dr. I heard she was single, he would constantly ask her about her ‘new sex life,’ whether ‘someone special [was] coming over for a booty call’ and eagerly prying for explicit details of sexual encounters, a play-by-play recap or asking if she ‘tried any new [sex] positions.’

Impellizeri often shared sordid details of his sexual preferences and experiences; unprompted, as nobody asked him for them. Plaintiff was consistently mortified by her boss.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph later learned that, around this same time Impellizeri was constantly hounding her, he was also asking similarly inappropriate questions to harass LF, a GVS receptionist.

Dr. I nicknamed receptionist LF, the “Booty Call,” based on a relationship he deemed illegitimate, and ensured the majority of her co-workers’ were aware of the nickname.

As a result of Dr. I’s sexual harassment, bullying and invasion of privacy, LF told Plaintiff she quit and promptly moved west across the country simply to avoid Impellizeri.

LF, and later DW, joined the growing contingent of female employees who felt compelled to quit because they could no longer handle the disrespect and unrelenting offensive conduct by Impellizeri.

Dr. I’s harassment was enabled by Defendants through the entirety of Plaintiff’s tenure working for them.

Defendants Silva and Vinci knew about Impellizeri’s mistreatment of GVS’ female employees, including vet techs, assistants, and receptionists to name just a few of the subordinate positions Dr. I preyed on.

Many of the employees’ including LF and DW, voiced their concerns and complained of the aforementioned conduct before Defendants convinced Plaintiff to work for Oncology.

Silva knowingly sacrificed Ms. Munroe-Joseph to the proverbial Impellizeri lion’s

den.

When he was not forcing Plaintiff to discuss intimate details of her sexual experiences or marital issues, Dr. I took great pleasure mocking her with biting insults about her body, her style of dress and a wide array of racist tropes about Hispanic women.

For the bulk of 2020, Plaintiff had to suffer the indignity of having her boss, Impellizeri, utter countless derogatory comments disrespecting her heritage, mocking her “fat Latin ass,” her Latina “booty,” “hair,” and/or her “hoochie style” shoes.

In one instance, Dr. I, ES and Plaintiff were returning inside from a ‘curbside consult.’ Dr. I grew impatient with the pace his subordinates were keeping with the consult and returning to the building. He screamed, “Get your fat Latin asses in here!”

Dr. I consistently berated Plaintiff. The insults would typically be rooted in physical traits he attributed to Ms. Munroe-Joseph and were often combined with racial or sexual discrimination.

The attack referencing Plaintiff and ES’ “fat Latin ass[es],” was an Impellizeri favorite, and he used it multiple times a week, if not daily, during Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s tenure working for him in Oncology throughout 2020.

He also mocked Plaintiff’s (and to a lesser extent, ES’) “ethnic,” “Hispanic,” or “Latina” hair. He attacked everything about their hair, from texture, mass, oil levels and/or maintenance.

He clearly intended each comment to be embarrassing and hurtful to Plaintiff.

Once Dr. I recognized this, and other physical, racial, and sexually themed, insults were hurtful to Ms. Munroe-Joseph, Impellizeri utilized them to bully her incessantly.

One particularly hurtful exchange occurred in early summer of 2020 when Dr. I was discussing an upcoming company pool party. He stated, to Ms. Munroe-Joseph and the co- workers present, “between [ES] and [Plaintiff]’s greasy Latin hair we’ll have to drain the pool completely for anyone to swim.”

This insult, along with the countless other barbs he uttered before, regarding her Latina hair, ‘ass’ and unfounded accusations of promiscuity, caused Plaintiff to grow highly emotional, anxious, and sad. She ran out of the treatment room to cry in private.

After crying extensively, Plaintiff gathered herself and readied for more abuse. She returned to Oncology determined to focus on her work, instead of how badly she felt about herself.

Plaintiff often had to swallow this pain, and became accustomed to crying at work due to Dr. I, shortly after joining Oncology at Silva’s suggestion.

Impellizeri relished casual racism, including when he cracked bad jokes and/or bullied his young, female subordinates, both of which he did frequently. His unfunny jokes were consistently laced with tired, outdated stereotypes.

Plaintiff was present numerous times in which Dr. I joked about other races; for example, he always felt the need to comment how interracial couples had “jungle fever.” Plaintiff often felt sorry for the couples who were typically present to have their cancer-ridden pets treated.

The pervasive hate of Dr. I was yet another difficulty Plaintiff was forced to endure.

Impellizeri’s consistent attacks on her proud Latina heritage, her physical appearance and personal style, along with his forced conversations about sex, broke Ms. Munroe- Joseph down over her first year.

She tried to persevere in pursuit of her dream job, as previously discussed with Defendant Silva, but the toxicity of Oncology was too much to bear.

Plaintiff was always embarrassed when Dr. I would call her out on fashion; as a student, she was on a limited income. The evident embarrassment merely encouraged the head of Oncology to dole out more abuse.

One of many incidents, Plaintiff recalls, occurred in the middle of a chemotherapy procedure, with multiple staff members present, Dr. I turned his attention away from the cancer- ridden animal they were treating to mock Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s shoes.

Unprompted, he turned to Plaintiff and asked her, “Can I speak to your mother? I need to talk to your mother about your shoes. Your mother needs to buy you new shoes. How does she let you leave the house like that? You look like a hoochie.”

Dr. I never missed an opportunity to disrespect Plaintiff. In June 2020, when Plaintiff was interviewing a young lady for an assistant position at GVS, Dr. I interrupted the interview.

With a smirk on his face that always portended trouble for Ms. Munroe-Joseph, he abruptly directed Plaintiff to clean his flatbed truck, because his own dogs defecated all over the bed of his pickup truck.

Plaintiff, attempting to diffuse the situation so she could continue the interview, told her boss she would do so despite the task being nowhere near her job description. Dr. I left, then returned abruptly and stated, while laughing uncontrollably, “Oh and one more thing, think you can bathe each of them and clean out their kennel too? They made quite a mess.”

Sensing the uncomfortable dynamic, the interviewee mouthed ‘I’m sorry,’ to Plaintiff as she was visibly distraught, and attempted to ignore her tormentor’s maniacal laugh to focus on the task at hand.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph, by this point, had been completely beaten down by Impellizeri. She came to GVS to work hard, achieve her life/career goals and better her family’s station in life. The dedication and hard work were necessary to merely accomplish the day’s tasks around the uncomfortable road blocks her boss regularly created for her.

Plaintiff was mortified, but she sat silently in the interview, numbed by prior beatings, and waited for the abusive bully to leave.

Dr. I turned to the interviewee and stated, in a sexually suggestive tone his employees knew all too well, “Don’t worry, she knows I take gooooood care of her.”

Ms. Munroe-Joseph and the interviewee exchanged awkward apologies and slogged through the rest of the interview.

After the interview, Plaintiff returned to one of her familiar hiding spots at GVS and cried uncontrollably.

Throughout the summer of 2020, from June to August, Plaintiff unfortunately grew familiar with such hiding spots, and uncontrollable crying.

She suffered through a tortuous work environment, starting every day fighting anxiety, depression and related physical manifestations like stomach issues, headaches, and fatigue.

Every day brought more pain, embarrassment, and indignity for the once proud, ambitious, and excited employee.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph quickly grew to dread every second at GVS, as her mental and physical deterioration were on full display for all to see if anyone at GVS cared to.

Of course, given Defendants’ continued employment of Impellizeri, despite the multitude of complaints and steady stream of female employees’ quitting Oncology, it was evident that Defendants were unconcerned with the safety and well-being of their female employees.

Plaintiff lasted longer than most girls did in Oncology, but in mid-to-late August 2020, the abuse became unbearable, even for the strong-willed Plaintiff.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph finally snapped amid the constant stream of attacks, the inappropriate insults regarding her appearance, body, dress, and Hispanic heritage, as well as the coerced, intrusive questions about sex, and her relationships, from Dr. I.

One of the final indignities by Impellizeri, occurred on or about August 19, 2020.

Plaintiff was busy at work, doing clerical work and organizing treatment records, when Impellizeri sauntered in. ES was working on a computer near the door facing away from Ms. Munroe-Joseph.

Dr. I started in on Plaintiff, bullying her with his typical abuse and toxic negativity.

In sum and substance, he told Plaintiff she did not deserve to be called a nurse, and she would not be considered “a real vet tech” because she was “not good enough and didn’t do enough work.” She continued to ignore her boss to at least attempt to finish her work.

Sadly, with all of the vile comments regarding Plaintiff’s physical features, proud heritage and purported promiscuity, this day’s inappropriate comments telling Plaintiff she was ‘not good enough,’ barely rated.

Impellizeri did not get the tearful reaction he often sought, so he walked up behind his twenty-something female employee doing clerical work, and smacked Ms. Munroe-Joseph on her buttocks with a stack of paperwork, laughing maniacally.

Plaintiff froze and laughed uncomfortably, for she did not know how to react.

While this was not the first time Impellizeri made physical contact with her, or her buttocks, the

cumulative effect of Dr. I’s abuse finally broke her this day in late August 2020.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph was unable to concentrate on her work further, so she took a break (for the first time while working in Oncology) and rushed out of the room to cry.

AFTER MONTHS UPON MONTHS OF ABUSE, AN EXASPERATED PLAINTIFF BREAKS DOWN AND REPORTS IMPELLIZERI’S SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND BATTERY

After taking yet another break to cry privately, and then compose herself, Ms.

Munroe-Joseph bravely approached the executives responsible for managing GVS.

Plaintiff initially approached Ms. Joanie Argento, Client Services Director, to report the aforementioned abuse she had suffered at the hands of Impellizeri while at GVS, including the frequent, improper insults regarding Plaintiff’s buttocks, or “fat Latin ass” and “Latina booty” per Impellizeri), Plaintiff’s alleged “hoochie” style of dress,” Plaintiff’s alleged promiscuity, Impellizeri’s inappropriate comments about other female employee’s promiscuity, alleged frequent “booty calls,” Dr. I’s forcing Plaintiff and her female co-workers to discuss their sexual experiences and/or sexual preferences with him, Dr. I sharing his sexual experiences and/or sexual preferences with Plaintiff and other employees, Impellizeri’ frequent inappropriate comments insulting Plaintiff’s body, style of dress (i.e. ‘hoochie clothing or shoes’) and Plaintiff’s hair (“greasy,” “oily” and/or “Latina hair”), Dr. I’s negative comments regarding Plaintiff’s Latina heritage, body or style of dress, as well as other Latin, female employees’ heritage, body or style of dress, Dr. I’s forcing Plaintiff to cut up food for him, though it was not a duty covered by Plaintiff’s job description and role at GVS, Impellizeri forcing Plaintiff and others to observe Dr. I and ES’ public displays of affection and intimacy, Dr. I forcing Plaintiff to clean up after his own

dog’s diarrhea even though it was not a duty covered by Plaintiff’s job description and role at GVS, Impellizeri frequently making racially inappropriate comments regarding mixed-race couples’ “jungle fever,” and Dr. I’s comments pertaining to Plaintiff’s intimate relationships of Plaintiff and other female employees of GVS, Impellizeri’s telling Plaintiff she was not good enough in her job, specifically to hurt her not in a professional or constructive manner, Dr. I’s daily inappropriate sexual, and/or racially inappropriate, comments, insults and bad jokes, as well as Impellizeri’s improper smacking of Plaintiff’s buttocks, as well as all of the aforementioned conduct described above.

Argento was taken aback by the seriousness of the allegations.

Whether it was because she did not know how to deal with these allegations, or because she was one of the many executives who ‘looked the other way,’ while Dr. I abused young female employee after female employee, the Client Services Director blew Plaintiff off, and told her to come back later that day.

Plaintiff obliged and returned to speak to Argento later that day as instructed. This time, Argento appeared angry and responded, “Who does this guy [Impellizeri] think he is?”

Ms. Munroe-Joseph told her Dr. I, “just does whatever he wants.” Argento answered, “This isn’t even the first time this kind of thing has happened with Impellizeri.”

The matter was then ‘escalated’ to supervisor Defendant Silva, GVS’ Medical Operations Manager, who listened to all of the aforementioned details of Dr. I’s sexual misconduct, as enumerated in Paragraph 123 and herein.

Silva feigned both concern and outrage, though Defendants never responded appropriately to Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s report. Upon information and belief, the insignificant

response by the female executives can be attributed to GVS’ lack of an appropriate sexual

misconduct policy at GVS.

Plaintiff broke down not only all of the above-mentioned details of all of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Impellizeri, but also the PDAs and open, sexual relationship between Dr. I and ES, the two Oncology supervisors, as well as the sexual harassment of other female GVS employees by Impellizeri.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph reported all of the details of the sexual misconduct, as enumerated in Paragraph 123 and herein, to Silva, Argento, and Defendant Vinci, GVS’ Chief Operating Officer, who joined on speakerphone.

Plaintiff informed the female executives, who were both her supervisors and Dr. I’s supervisors, that they could contact DW to corroborate everything she just detailed, in the event they did not believe her, or ES denied Plaintiff’s claims to protect her boss/lover.

Defendants Silva and Vinci failed to assuage Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s concerns, although Argento stated, “No we believe you, many have wanted [Impellizeri] gone for a while.”

Silva told Plaintiff not to worry about Impellizeri or ES. Silva assured Plaintiff, she would “deal with them,” further acknowledging she was in a supervisory, executive position capable of receiving complaints like the report just given by Plaintiff and of punishing, warning, suspending, or terminating, Dr. I.

Vinci then apologized to Plaintiff, told her to go home and use PTO for the rest of the scheduled week (one remaining shift for Plaintiff).

Vinci also told Ms. Munroe-Joseph to write about the day’s butt-striking incident and send it to them via e-mail.

The COO did not ask Plaintiff to detail all of the hostilities she faced over the last year, which Plaintiff just detailed for Defendants. Nonetheless, she drafted the email as requested.

The female executives ended the meeting, assured Plaintiff they would investigate this matter and insisted there would be repercussions for Impellizeri for his sexual misconduct.

After the meeting, Silva and Argento walked a distressed Plaintiff out of the hospital to her car, walking past many clients.

Plaintiff soon learned that she was not rushed out of the hospital for her sake, but because Defendants did not want her to commiserate with other employees, particularly those who had previous experience with Impellizeri.

IN LIEU OF ‘DEALING WITH’ DR. I’S REPORTED MISCONDUCT AS PROMISED, GVS TARGETS PLAINTIFF FOR RETALIATION WITH MEDICAL OPERATIONS MANAGER SILVA LEADING THE CHARGE

Sadly, Defendants never conducted any meaningful investigation while Ms.

Munroe-Joseph was employed, so there were no repercussions for Impellizeri, who was free to prey on the next female employee Silva convinced to work in Oncology.

Silva ignored her pledge to “deal with” Impellizeri and, instead, engaged in retaliatory conduct aimed at persuading Plaintiff to ‘just move on.’

On August 21, 2020, two days after the incident, Plaintiff attended a birthday party for a colleague from GVS.

At the party, she spoke with a few of her female colleagues, who asked Ms.

Munroe-Joseph why she was not working the last shift of the week, as she never missed work.

Plaintiff shared the above details of her experience working for Dr. I, specifically so her co-workers would not be duped into staffing Oncology to suffer a similar fate to hers.

Plaintiff then had to leave the party abruptly as her husband was in a car accident.

She spent the one-day PTO Vinci granted her after the sexual assault caring for her husband.

Over that weekend, Plaintiff received an email from Silva.

The message was not sent to check up on Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s mental health, or as a formal request for information as part of an investigation into Dr. I, as Plaintiff never received either from Defendants after the initial meeting with the female executives.

Silva, who knew about both Plaintiff’s experience in Oncology and her husband’s

car accident, confronted Plaintiff about her warning to her colleagues at the social gathering.

Silva improperly instructed Plaintiff not to not speak to co-workers about

Impellizeri’s bullying, abuse and/or the sexual harassment she suffered at the hands of Impellizeri.

GVS’ Medical Operations Manager, the woman who initially tricked this eager young woman to work for Dr. I despite knowledge of his sexual deviance, concluded her weekend directive, “It’s better for everyone if this stuff is not discussed with any other employees.”

Despite the complete lack of support from GVS executives, and the hostility she faced for several months, Plaintiff returned to work on August 26, 2020, and reported to the Surgery Department (“Surgery”).

While Surgery was an improvement in that Plaintiff’s supervisor did not sexually harass her multiple times a day, the transfer was to a lesser position in the GVS hierarchy.

Plaintiff agreed to go to Surgery upon Silva’s suggestion to get away from Dr. I

but, even when she accepted, she was weary of her new department.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph, and her colleagues, knew Surgery as a place GVS employees were sent as punishment and/or for poor performance.

The shifts and hours were less desirable than her previous position in Oncology and she was not able to nurse, or handle, the animals.

The position in Surgery was less impressive, from a work experience standpoint, so there were less opportunities for upward mobility, whether at GVS or otherwise for Plaintiff.

The transfer to Surgery was not helpful to Plaintiff’s academic goals, or her career goals of becoming a veterinarian, in general. The experience was not helpful for seeking admission to a top program to obtain her veterinarian degree.

Plaintiff’s issue after her transfer to Surgery, however, was the way she was treated by Defendants, especially Silva, after making the report to the female executives in late August.

From the first day she joined her new department, she was treated, first, as an unwelcome afterthought and, later, as a nuisance that everyone from GVS wanted gone.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph did not have a meaningful communication with a Surgery supervisor for weeks after her reassignment.

Silva simply told her to “just go train with an Assistant in Surgery” after she

returned to GVS on August 26, 2020.

After weeks of showing up with limited to no direction, and minimal training as to the Surgery Department’s practices, Plaintiff realized the executives who took her report against Impellizeri, namely Defendants Silva and Vinci, were not genuine in their sympathy for her, their outrage at Dr. I or their promise to “deal with [him]” and investigate the matter.

Plaintiff waited patiently to hear about an actual investigation, or anything resembling consequences for Impellizeri. Unfortunately, the wait would last months.

Neither Silva nor Vinci (nor anyone else from GVS) would ever question Plaintiff about her experience again.

Instead of a meaningful investigation by Defendants, or punishment for her former boss-tormentor, Ms. Munroe-Joseph received more disrespect and a growing, yet unmistakable, understanding that she was no longer welcome at GVS.

In addition to the demotion to Surgery, Plaintiff began having recurring issues with her paycheck where she was not being paid for all of the hours she worked.

The insufficient paycheck was never an issue before she reported her issues with Impellizeri to Defendants.

After her meeting with Silva and Vinci in late August of 2020, however, Ms.

Munroe-Joseph had multiple instances in which she received paychecks that did not cover all of her hours or paid time off submitted by Plaintiff from late August to October of 2020.

Plaintiff complained to the billing department each time, but she was never fully reimbursed for all of the time she worked or was owed by GVS.

From Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s perspective, the paycheck issues occurred too often,

after her Impellizeri complaint, to be mere coincidence.

This perspective was supported by the increasing awkwardness between Plaintiff and Defendant Silva.

After hearing nothing regarding the alleged Dr. I investigation for several weeks, Plaintiff asked for yet another update from Silva in October 2020.

In addition to this inquiry, Ms. Munroe-Joseph voiced her mounting frustration with GVS’ lack of meaningful action to the Medical Operations Manager.

Silva provided no meaningful response, other than to state she was “looking into it.” She also noted Plaintiff ‘did not seem as happy’ working at GVS and suggested she may be happier doing something else.

This two-part response by Silva would become a common refrain to Plaintiff whenever she would ask about an investigation into, or any consequence for, Dr. I.

Silva questioned Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s happiness at GVS, with increasing frequency and, if these questions were not suggestive enough to her, the high-ranking female executive eventually took to suggesting alternative employment plans for Plaintiff.

Throughout October and early November 2020, Silva repeatedly asked Plaintiff if she would prefer to be made a part-time employee for her own benefit. Silva never explained how a reduction in hours, and pay, would be of benefit to Plaintiff beyond “to keep [her] options open in case [she] want[ed] to leave.”

After this conversation, Plaintiff asked Silva about the investigation more often.

Silva lied to her face each time, brushing it off and stating, “We’re on it,” and/or “It’s ongoing.”

Silva grew colder, and more paranoid, with each passing question about an investigation into Impellizeri.

Defendants clearly determined Plaintiff was a threat to GVS. Silva, and those under her purview, acted accordingly.

In fact, after asking Plaintiff if she thought she would be happier working elsewhere, and receiving a response of “No, why do you keep asking me that?” Silva informed Ms. Munroe-Joseph that she asked this question because she “ma[d]e everyone nervous.”

Silva’s paranoia reached a fever pitch in early November 2020, after yet another uncomfortable conversation in which Plaintiff could not hide her disappointment at Defendants’ failure to investigate her claims.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph revealed significant frustration for the complete dearth of repercussions for Impellizeri for his sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of Plaintiff, and numerous other girls.

Plaintiff left the room dissatisfied with another of Silva’s non-updates, but returned quickly because she forgot her keys in the room.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph quickly returned, picked up her keys, placed them in her pocket and turned to leave the room again.

Before she could leave, Silva accused her of trying to record the aforementioned conversation and suggested Plaintiff was “out the door” at GVS.

This was the moment when Plaintiff realized, without a doubt, she had to move on.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph was no longer welcome at GVS and would not be part of their

future.

The animal hospital repeatedly enabled and favored a serial sexual predator over the young female dedicated to growing with GVS and deemed said victim to be the adversarial party who “made everyone nervous.”

After this painful realization, and point of no return, Plaintiff became more pointed in questioning Defendants why they did nothing to Impellizeri. Silva was franker in her responses at this point as well.

Thereafter, in the first week of November 2020, when it was clear Ms. Munroe- Joseph was leaving, Defendants started to openly fear a lawsuit.

Silva and Vinci again voiced their fake outrage, concern, and interest in investigating the matter.

Defendants reiterated the same talking points from August 2020, despite their complete inaction since the initial false promise, and the frequent shade directed at Plaintiff during these three months.

Silva and Vinci pretended they were launching an investigation into Impellizeri, yet again. The purported investigation was sent via email this time; although it was sent days after Silva admittedly knew Plaintiff was leaving.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph was not interested in participating in a sham investigation, receiving further dissension from Silva, working in an uninspiring department, or being employed by the same place that protected and enabled Impellizeri’s sexual harassment for years.

After experiencing the aforementioned harassment, as well as GVS inaction and retaliation in response to her complaint, Plaintiff finally quit GVS in November 2020.

She was forced into abandoning her once-enthralling career and dream job.

Further, Ms. Munroe-Joseph was unable to return to classes in pursuit of veterinary school.

Clearly, GVS did not install any safety measures, or a human resource sexual harassment policy, to protect Plaintiff from further contact from Impellizeri in the animal hospital, and never disciplined the sexual deviant.

At the time Plaintiff quit in November 2020, Impellizeri was still head of Oncology Department, making significant money for GVS, and himself, while still sexually harassing the young female employees assigned to him and his department.

1. MUNROE-JOSEPH EXPERIENCES SIGNIFICANT PAIN, SUFFERING

AND MENTAL ANGUISH AS A RESULT OF DEFENDANTS’ MISCONDUCT

The sexual harassment, abuse, battery, retaliation, and hostile work environment Plaintiff experienced at GVS left her with extensive trauma-related mental health struggles, and related physical manifestations of same.

As a result of her experience at GVS, Plaintiff suffered from anxiety, depression, severe emotional disturbance, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), loss of ambition, enjoyment and enthusiasm, for her career and life, in general, as well as feelings of hopelessness, difficulty with intimacy and intimate, and/or close personal friendships, family relationships and marital issues with her spouse, requiring mental health treatment and counseling for same. She continues to experience these issues, all of which are permanent in nature.

Ms. Munroe-Joseph has had difficulty finding a career path that excites her the way the GVS path, and becoming a veterinarian, once excited her prior to suffering the above abuse, so she struggles with lack of ambition, enjoyment of life and/or her career, loss of past and future income, lost educational opportunity and lost career opportunities, plus diminution to her reputation and good name.

To date, Ms. Munroe-Joseph continues to live in fear of reprisal from Impellizeri, especially considering the limited consequences he faced for his actions and the protections received from Defendants while she worked at GVS as well as the retaliation and constructive termination she experienced in response to her reporting the aforementioned sexual misconduct of Impellizeri.

In addition to the aforementioned mental health issues, Plaintiff continues to struggle with diminished self-worth, trust, and intimacy issues, including difficulties with her spouse, close friends, and other family relationships.

Plaintiff continues to treat with a therapist to address the permanent mental health struggles, related effects of Impellizeri’s behavior, coupled with the GVS’ willfully ignoring Dr. I’s misconduct actions enabling the head of Oncology, retaliation, and wrongful (constructive) termination, have wrought on her life.

CAUSES OF ACTION

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Gender Discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law

(As to All Defendants)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female and is therefore a member of a protected class.

Plaintiff was qualified to work as an employee for GVS and she satisfactorily performed the duties required by the positions she held with GVS.

As set forth in detail above and herein, GVS, by and through their agents, supervisors, managers, and employees, including Defendants Impellizeri, Silva and Vinci, subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and disparate treatment vis-à-vis her similarly situated male colleagues on the basis of her gender. GVS’ male employees did not experience the discrimination, sexual harassment, or hostile work environment that Plaintiff, and other female employees of GVS, experienced. By way of example, GVS’ male employees did not experience the sexual misconduct outlined in the following Paragraph 211.

The discrimination experienced by Plaintiff included, but was not limited to: the repeated sexual harassment by Impellizeri, the above-mentioned sexually inappropriate and racially insensitive comments like the frequent, improper insults regarding Plaintiff’s buttocks or, according to Impellizeri, Plaintiff’s “fat Latin ass” and “Latina booty”; Impellizeri’s inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s alleged promiscuity, other female employee’s promiscuity and/or frequent references by Dr. I regarding his subordinates’ “booty call[s]”; Dr. I’s forcing Plaintiff and her female co-workers to discuss their sexual experiences and/or sexual preferences with him, and Dr. I’s unprompted sharing of his sexual experiences and sexual preferences with Plaintiff, and other employees; Impellizeri’s frequent inappropriate comments insulting Plaintiff’s body,

race and style of dress (i.e. ‘hoochie clothing,” “hoochie shoes”, or “hoochie style”), as well as Dr. I’s frequent insults regarding Plaintiff’s hair (“greasy,” “oily” and/or “Latina hair”); Dr. I’s negative comments regarding Plaintiff’s Latina heritage, in general, along with combined insults about Plaintiffs heritage and body and/or style of dress, as well as Dr. I’s insulting other female employees’ heritage, body and style of dress; Dr. I’s forcing Plaintiff to cut up food for him, so he can feed the food to ES while flirting, kissing or discussing sexually-explicit topics in front of Plaintiff and other employees, despite the fact cutting up food was not a duty included within Plaintiff’s job description and role at GVS; Impellizeri forcing Plaintiff and others to observe Dr. I and ES’ public displays of affection and intimacy; Dr. I forcing Plaintiff to clean up after his own dog’s diarrhea even though it was not a duty covered by Plaintiff’s job description and role at GVS; Impellizeri frequent, racially inappropriate comments to Plaintiff regarding mixed-race couples’ “jungle fever”; Dr. I’s comments pertaining to Plaintiff’s intimate relationship, including his insulting Plaintiff’s relationship with her husband, or probing about inappropriate topics, while making Plaintiff feel visibly uncomfortable each time; Impellizeri’s telling Plaintiff she was not good enough in her job, specifically to hurt her feelings not in a professional or constructive manner; Dr. I’s daily inappropriate sexual, and/or racially inappropriate, comments, insults and bad jokes aimed at Ms. Munroe-Joseph, as well as Impellizeri’s improper smacking of Plaintiff’s buttocks to degrade her, shortly after insulting her; as well as all of the aforementioned misconduct by Dr. I as described above and herein; additionally, the retaliation experienced by Plaintiff after her formally complaining of, and reporting, Impellizeri’s improper conduct as described in detail above and herein.

The discrimination that Plaintiff suffered severely affected the terms and conditions of her employment, as Ms. Munroe-Joseph was abused daily, leading to significant mental distress,

crying, anxiety and depression. The insults, bullying and sexual misconduct by Impellizeri were omnipresent and became so overwhelming that the environment caused Plaintiff to break-down and report same, despite her fear of doing so, for month after anxiety-ridden month. After having the courage to finally complain of Dr. I’s sexual harassment, bullying, racially insensitive barbs, inappropriate battery, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct, in general, Plaintiff was transferred to an inferior position and department by Silva and Vinci to evade further complaints of mistreatment by Impellizeri, and in retaliation for her complaining of same. The transfer was followed by multiple awkward interactions between Plaintiff and Silva, with consistent pressure from Silva to entice Ms. Munroe-Joseph to leave, in lieu of Silva’s punishing Impellizeri, investigating his behavior, and making GVS a safe place to work. The aforementioned discrimination, gender bias, sexual harassment, and retaliation, caused Plaintiff to quit just to avoid the hostile workplace at GVS. Ms. Munroe-Joseph quit as she felt, she had no other choice but to in order to avoid the pain and discomfort experienced often at GVS. Plaintiff’s quitting was textbook constructive termination.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, including Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has sustained past and future substantial damages, including without limitation, significant pain, suffering and extreme emotional distress, lasting pecuniary and psychological harms, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and additional mental health struggles, as described in Paragraphs 201-206 and herein, as well as loss of enjoyment of life, education and career, plus significant economic loss, injuries and other direct and consequential damages.

In addition to, and as a result of, the aforementioned mental health struggles, Plaintiff has experienced, and continues to experience, economic damages, damages to her once-

promising career, as described in Paragraphs 201-206 and herein, including significantly diminished earning capacity, loss of past and future income, wasted time, energy and money spent at GVS and toward classes toward her goal of becoming a veterinarian, as well diminished ambition, productivity and income.

Accordingly, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender by virtue of disparate treatment, treating her less well than her similarly situated male colleagues outside of her protected class, including the sexual discrimination, harassment and misconduct she experienced at the hands of Impellizeri, as described in Paragraphs 210 to 211 above, and herein, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.

As a result of Defendants’ unlawful gender discrimination, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Hostile Work Environment in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law

(As to All Defendants)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female and is therefore a member of a protected class.

Plaintiff was qualified to work as an employee for GVS and she satisfactorily performed the duties required by the positions she held with GVS.

As set forth in detail above and herein, GVS, by and through its agents, supervisors, managers, and employees, subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and a hostile work environment, including but not limited to the repeated gender discrimination, sexual harassment, battery,

bullying, abuse, unfavorable treatment and sexual misconduct at the hands of Defendant Impellizeri, as described in detail in Paragraph 211 and herein, as well as the retaliation against Plaintiff for her reporting same to GVS’ executives, Silva and Vinci.

Defendants, including Silva and Vinci, were aware of the hostile environment created by Impellizeri, well before Plaintiff worked for Dr. I. Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct was a poorly-kept-secret among the GVS executives. They knew all the details of the hostile environment; multiple female employees quit, and complained of Dr. I’s behavior, before Ms. Munroe-Joseph was assigned to Oncology. The former female employees reported sexual misconduct that was similar to the harassment detailed Paragraph 211, as reported by Plaintiff. Silva, and all other executives at GVS, contributed to the hostile environment when they willfully ignored this sexual misconduct, gave Plaintiff a false sense of security in convincing her to work for Impellizeri, and then retaliated against Ms. Munroe-Joseph in response to her reporting Dr. I’s sexual harassment. Silva, Vinci, and other executives were therefore deliberately indifferent to the plight of Ms. Munroe-Joseph, and every other female employee who worked for, or near, Impellizeri. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the hostile, abusive and unlawful environment created by Impellizeri, upon information and belief, because of the amount of money he generated as a veterinarian oncologist.

The hostility Plaintiff suffered through, as described above, was severe, pervasive and unwelcome by Ms. Munroe-Joesph, and all of her female colleagues before and after her; Impellizeri pelted Plaintiff with sexually inappropriate comments, insults and questions daily, as well as frequent allegations of promiscuity, shocking racially insensitive jokes, forced discussions about sexual experiences and/or abusive mind-games, all of which were utilized by Dr. I to hurt Plaintiff and control her. This wholly inappropriate behavior, and disturbing sexual misconduct,

were willfully ignored by Defendants, including Defendants Silva and Vinci. GVS executives thus enabled Impellizeri to engage in such conduct, which would be offensive to any reasonable person in any workplace.

The hostile work environment that Plaintiff experienced, as described in Paragraph 211 above and many other paragraphs herein, severely affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment in the manner outlined in Paragraph 212, above. The daily, verbal abuse, sexually inappropriate insults and disrespectful battery rendered Oncology unbearable for Ms. Munroe-Joseph. The subsequent retaliation by Defendants, Silva, and Vinci, as well as the lack of consequences for Impellizeri, rendered GVS unbearable as a whole. This hostile nightmare of a work environment forced Plaintiff out the door, in what amounted to a constructive termination.

By reason of Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged, and has suffered significant emotional distress, as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216, above.

Accordingly, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender, including the aforementioned sexual harassment, battery and retaliation, and thus subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.

As a result of the hostile work environment created by Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Sexual Harassment in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law

(As to Defendants Impellizeri and GVS)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female and is therefore a member of a protected class.

Plaintiff was qualified to work as an employee for GVS and she satisfactorily performed the duties required by the positions she held at GVS.

As set forth in detail above and herein, GVS, by and through its agents, supervisors, managers, and employees, subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment by Defendant Impellizeri as outlined in Paragraph 211 above, including Dr. I’s despicable bullying, insults and endless parade of sexually inappropriate comments and questions.

The sexual harassment consisted of the details outlined in Paragraph 211 among other problematic behavior by Impellizeri, inappropriate remarks to Plaintiff of a sexual or otherwise romantic nature, Dr. I’s inappropriate questions, comments and body shaming, racially insensitive insults described above, as well as the unwanted touches of Plaintiff’s person and body, like Dr. I’s smacking of Plaintiff’s buttocks, and all the other indignities Plaintiff suffered during her time working for GVS.

The sexual harassment that Plaintiff suffered severely affected the terms and conditions of her employment in the manner described in Paragraph 212 above, and herein.

By reason of GVS’s repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged and has suffered significant emotional distress as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216 above, and herein.

Accordingly, GVS discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender by virtue of subjecting Plaintiff to the aforementioned sexual harassment in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.

As a result of Defendants’ sexual harassment, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Battery

(As to Defendants Impellizeri and GVS)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Defendant Impellizeri committed battery against Plaintiff when he forcibly smacked her buttocks, on multiple occasions, but most recently on August 19, 2020.

Dr. I did so for the purpose of degrading and abusing Ms. Munroe-Joseph.

Defendant Impellizeri intentionally smacked Plaintiff’s buttocks, without her consent, to satisfy his own perverted sexual desires. Dr. I’s physical contact with Ms. Munroe- Joseph was offensive and wrongful each time, and under all circumstances. Impellizeri continued to attack, sexually harass, and bully Plaintiff, despite her clear displeasure, embarrassment, as well as the apparent pain, suffering and mental anguish caused by each contact with her physical person and every derogatory comment by Dr. I.

Impellizeri’s conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s past and

future substantial damages and significant emotional distress, including significant pain, suffering

and mental anguish, as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216, above, as well as the lasting psychological and pecuniary harms, loss of Plaintiff’s dignity and invasion of her privacy.

Dr. I’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to Forcible Touching (§130.52), Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree (§130.55), Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (§130.65) and Sexual Misconduct (§130.20).

GVS, including Defendant Silva, multiple executives, supervisors, and employees, knew of Impellizeri’s rampant sexual misconduct towards his female underlings and employees, well before Plaintiff was transferred into the Oncology Department.

GVS sent Plaintiff to work for Impellizeri in Oncology with knowledge she was going to be bullied, abused, sexually harassed, and assaulted, in a hostile environment, by Impellizeri, but she was sent to Oncology regardless of the well-known risks.

Plaintiff was over 18 years of age during the events described above, so Plaintiff’s

claim for battery is thus timely under the Adult Survivors Act, N.Y. § 214-j.

By virtue of GVS and Impellizeri’s, unlawful actions, including Dr. I’s battery,

Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no case less than

$1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses,

costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation in Violation of the New York State Human Rights Law

(As to Defendants Silva, Vinci and GVS)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

As set forth in detail herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment, discrimination, battery, a hostile environment and an atmosphere of adverse employment actions,

negative consequences and improper decisions by the executives who ran GVS, including Defendants Silva and Vinci. The adverse consequences experienced by Ms. Munroe-Joseph were a direct response to her reporting of Dr. I’s sexual misconduct and battery, as described above.

Plaintiff complained of the sexual harassment, discrimination, hostile environment, and battery that she was subjected to by her direct boss and tormenter, Impellizeri, as outlined above in Paragraph 211. She formally reported this sexual misconduct to Dr. I’s highest-ranking supervisor, and GVS’ top female executives, Defendants Silva and Vinci, on August 19, 2020. Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and battery, as reported by Ms. Munroe-Joseph, were all protected speech.

In response to Plaintiff’s formally reporting protected speech, the complaints about Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct, GVS subjected her to adverse employment consequences including, but not limited to: an unwanted transfer to a less desirable position in a less prestigious department (Surgery), intentionally withholding monies owed to Plaintiff in her paychecks as a means of harassing her, telling Plaintiff she makes people at GVS nervous, repeatedly suggesting she would be happier working elsewhere and pressuring her to quit, in general.

The adverse consequences described in the preceding paragraph occurred almost immediately after Plaintiff made her formal complaint of Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct, harassment and battery to Silva and Vinci in late August 2020, and continued until Plaintiff quit.

Defendants failed to respond, and/or carry out an unbiased and thorough investigation into the merits of Plaintiff’s reports of discrimination and sexual harassment by Dr. I, much like they failed to respond to multiple reports of the same misconduct by female subordinates prior to Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s assignment to Oncology.

Defendants enabled Impellizeri’s behavior, outlined in Paragraph 211 and herein, by failing to address the multitude of sexual misconduct reports by Plaintiff and other female complainants. Dr. I was thus free to terrorize Ms. Munroe-Joseph, and many female employees, long after Defendants first received notice of his despicable behavior and through the entire period Plaintiff was employed by GVS.

As a result of GVS’s failure to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s complaints, Impellizeri subjected Plaintiff to an ever-worsening hostile work environment, nonstop bullying, personal insults, sexual harassment, assault, battery, and an endless stream of attacks by Dr. I.

Defendants, unlawfully and without cause, retaliated against Plaintiff as a direct result of Plaintiff’s reporting, and formal complaint of, Impellizeri’s gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environmental and battery, all of which were made to GVS executives Silva and Vinci.

Silva and Vinci each had the authority to punish, sanction, suspend, terminate, or otherwise reprimand Impellizeri, They, however, failed to punish Dr. I, and never even investigated his misconduct, despite repeated complaints by female employees, and Ms. Munroe- Joseph. In failing to take such action from June 2019 through November 2020, Defendants enabled Impellizeri to commit repeated acts of sexual misconduct, without consequence, for the entire time Plaintiff was employed at GVS.

The retaliation that Plaintiff suffered in response to these complaints, outlined in Paragraph 249 above, severely affected the terms and conditions of her employment, in the manner described in Paragraph 212 above, and herein.

By reason of GVS’s repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged and has suffered significant emotional distress as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216 above, and herein.

Accordingly, GVS first discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender then Impellizeri subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment, battery, and a hostile work environment. Defendants, including Silva and Vinci, then retaliated against her for complaining of same in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.

By virtue of Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiff, Ms. Munroe-Joseph has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Gender Discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law

(As to All Defendants)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female and is therefore a member of a protected class.

Plaintiff was qualified to work as an employee for GVS and she satisfactorily performed the duties required by the positions she held with GVS.

As set forth in detail in Paragraphs 210 and 211 above, and all other paragraphs herein, GVS, by and through their agents, supervisors, managers, and employees, especially Dr. I, subjected Plaintiff to discrimination and disparate treatment vis-à-vis her similarly situated male colleagues on the basis of her gender.  GVS’ male employees did not experience the sexual

misconduct, hostile environment nor battery that Plaintiff, and other female employees of GVS, experienced.

The discrimination that Plaintiff suffered, outlined in Paragraph 211 and herein, severely affected the terms and conditions of her employment in a manner described in Paragraph 212, above.

By reason of Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged in the manner described in Paragraphs 213 and 214 above, and all paragraphs herein.

Accordingly, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender by virtue of disparate treatment, treating her worse than her similarly situated male colleagues outside of her protected class in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. GVS’ male employees did not experience the discrimination, sexual harassment and misconduct, hostile environment nor battery that Plaintiff, and other female employees of GVS, experienced.

As a result of Defendants’ unlawful gender discrimination, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Hostile Work Environment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law

(As to All Defendants)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female and is therefore a member of a protected class.

Plaintiff was qualified to work as an employee for GVS and she satisfactorily performed the duties required by the position she held with GVS.

As set forth in detail above and herein, GVS, by and through its agents, supervisors, managers, and employees, subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment, including but not limited to the repeated gender discrimination, sexual harassment, battery, bullying, abuse, unfavorable treatment and sexual misconduct at the hands of Defendant Impellizeri, as described in detail in Paragraph 211 and herein, as well as the retaliation against Plaintiff for her reporting same to GVS’ executives, Silva and Vinci.

Defendants, including Silva and Vinci, were aware of the hostile environment created by Impellizeri, well before Plaintiff worked for Dr. I. Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct was a poorly-kept-secret among the GVS executives. They knew all the details of the hostile environment; multiple female employees quit, and complained of Dr. I’s behavior, before Ms. Munroe-Joseph was assigned to Oncology. The former female employees reported sexual misconduct that was similar to the harassment detailed Paragraph 211, as reported by Plaintiff. Silva, and all other executives at GVS, contributed to the hostile environment when they willfully ignored this sexual misconduct, gave Plaintiff a false sense of security in convincing her to work for Impellizeri, and then retaliated against Ms. Munroe-Joseph in response to her reporting Dr. I’s sexual harassment. Silva, Vinci, and other executives were therefore deliberately indifferent to the plight of Ms. Munroe-Joseph, and every other female employee who worked for, or near, Impellizeri. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the hostile, abusive and unlawful environment created by Impellizeri, upon information and belief, because of the amount of money he generated as a veterinarian oncologist.

The hostility Plaintiff suffered through, as described above, was severe, pervasive and unwelcome by Ms. Munroe-Joesph, and all of her female colleagues before and after her; Impellizeri pelted Plaintiff with sexually inappropriate comments, insults and questions daily, as well as frequent allegations of promiscuity, shocking racially insensitive jokes, forced discussions about sexual experiences and/or abusive mind-games, all of which were utilized by Dr. I to hurt Plaintiff and control her. This wholly inappropriate behavior, and disturbing sexual misconduct, were willfully ignored by Defendants, including Defendants Silva and Vinci. GVS executives thus enabled Impellizeri to engage in such conduct, which would be offensive to any reasonable person in any workplace.

The hostile work environment that Plaintiff experienced, as described in Paragraph 211 above and many other paragraphs herein, severely affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment in the manner outlined in Paragraph 212, above. The daily, verbal abuse, sexually inappropriate insults and disrespectful battery rendered Oncology unbearable for Ms. Munroe-Joseph. The subsequent retaliation by Defendants, Silva, and Vinci, as well as the lack of consequences for Impellizeri, rendered GVS unbearable as a whole. This hostile nightmare of a work environment forced Plaintiff out the door, in what amounted to a constructive termination.

By reason of Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged, and has suffered significant emotional distress, as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216, above.

Accordingly, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender, including the aforementioned sexual harassment, battery and retaliation, and thus subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

As a result of the hostile work environment created by Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Sexual Harassment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law

(As to Defendants Impellizeri and GVS)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female and is therefore a member of a protected class.

Plaintiff was qualified to work as an employee for GVS and she satisfactorily performed the duties required by the position she held at GVS.

As set forth in detail above and herein, GVS, by and through its agents, supervisors, managers, and employees, subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment by Defendant Impellizeri as outlined in Paragraph 211 above, including Dr. I’s despicable bullying, insults and endless parade of sexually inappropriate comments and questions.

The sexual harassment consisted of the details outlined in Paragraph 211 among other problematic behavior by Impellizeri, inappropriate remarks to Plaintiff of a sexual or otherwise romantic nature, Dr. I’s inappropriate questions, comments and body shaming, racially insensitive insults described above, as well as the unwanted touches of Plaintiff’s person and body, like Dr. I’s smacking of Plaintiff’s buttocks, and all the other indignities Plaintiff suffered during her time working for GVS.

The sexual harassment that Plaintiff suffered severely affected the terms and conditions of her employment in the manner described in Paragraph 212 above, and herein.

By reason of GVS’s repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged and has suffered significant emotional distress as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216 above, and herein.

Accordingly, GVS discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender by virtue of subjecting Plaintiff to the aforementioned sexual harassment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

As a result of Defendants’ sexual harassment, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

AS AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation in Violation of the New York City Human Rights Law

(As to Defendants Silva, Vinci and GVS)

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.

As set forth in detail herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment, discrimination, battery, a hostile environment and an atmosphere of adverse employment actions, negative consequences and improper decisions by the female executives who ran GVS, including Defendants Silva and Vinci. The adverse consequences experienced by Ms. Munroe-Joseph were a direct response to her reporting of Dr. I’s sexual misconduct and battery, as described above.

Plaintiff complained of the sexual harassment, discrimination, hostile environment, and battery that she was subjected to by her direct boss and tormenter, Impellizeri, as detailed

above in Paragraph 211. Plaintiff formally reported this sexual misconduct to Dr. I’s highest- ranking supervisor, and GVS’ top female executives, Defendants Silva, and Vinci, on August 19, 2020. Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and battery, as reported by Ms. Munroe-Joseph, were all protected speech.

In response to Plaintiff’s formally reporting protected speech, the complaints about Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct, GVS subjected her to adverse employment consequences including, but not limited to: an unwanted transfer to a less desirable position in a less prestigious department (Surgery), intentionally withholding monies owed to Plaintiff in her paychecks as a means of harassing her, telling Plaintiff she makes people at GVS nervous, repeatedly suggesting she would be happier working elsewhere and pressuring her to quit, in general.

The adverse consequences described in the preceding paragraph occurred almost immediately after Plaintiff made her formal complaint of Impellizeri’s sexual misconduct, harassment and battery to Silva and Vinci in late August 2020, and continued until Plaintiff quit.

Defendants failed to respond, and/or carry out an unbiased and thorough investigation into the merits of Plaintiff’s reports of discrimination and sexual harassment by Dr. I, much like they failed to respond to multiple reports of the same misconduct by female subordinates prior to Ms. Munroe-Joseph’s assignment to Oncology.

Defendants enabled Impellizeri’s behavior, outlined in Paragraph 211 and all paragraphs herein, by failing to address the multitude of sexual misconduct reports by Plaintiff and other female complainants. Dr. I was thus free to terrorize Ms. Munroe-Joseph, and many female employees, long after Defendants first received notice of his despicable behavior and through the entire period Plaintiff was employed by GVS.

As a result of GVS’s failure to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s complaints, Impellizeri subjected Plaintiff to an ever-worsening hostile work environment, nonstop bullying, personal insults, sexual harassment, assault, battery, and an endless stream of attacks by Dr. I.

Defendants, unlawfully and without cause, retaliated against Plaintiff as a direct result of Plaintiff’s reporting, and formal complaint of, Impellizeri’s gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environmental and battery, all reported to GVS execs, Silva, and Vinci.

Silva and Vinci each had the authority to punish, sanction, suspend, terminate, or otherwise reprimand Impellizeri, They, however, failed to punish Dr. I, and never even investigated his misconduct, despite repeated complaints by female employees, and Ms. Munroe- Joseph. In failing to take such action from June 2019 through November 2020, Defendants enabled Impellizeri to commit repeated acts of sexual misconduct, without consequence, for the entire time Plaintiff was employed at GVS.

The retaliation that Plaintiff suffered in response to these complaints, outlined in Paragraph 290 above, severely affected the terms and conditions of her employment, in the manner described in Paragraph 212 above, and herein.

By reason of GVS’s repeated violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, Plaintiff has been damaged and has suffered significant emotional distress as outlined in Paragraphs 213 through 216 above, and herein.

Accordingly, GVS first discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender then Impellizeri subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment, battery, and a hostile work environment. Defendants, including Silva and Vinci, then retaliated against her for complaining of same in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

By virtue of Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiff, Ms. Munroe-Joseph has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no case less than $1,000,000.00, plus pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, disbursements, and punitive damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

Award Plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

Award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Atiana Munroe-Joseph hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: New York, New York July 26, 2023

By:                   Nicholas E. Lewis

LEWIS LAW GROUP LLC

228 Park Avenue, Suite 9-8207 New York, New York 10003 (646) 479-8948

nlewis@lewlawllc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Atiana Munroe-Joseph