Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amato v Hearst

Amato v Hearst

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,215|Likes:
Published by ValleyIndyDotOrg

More info:

Published by: ValleyIndyDotOrg on Dec 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

12/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
RETURN:
OCTOBER
9,2012
ANNE
M.
AMATO:
SUPERIOR
COURT
VS. :
J.
D.
OF NEW
HAVEN
THE
HEARST
CORPORATION
:
SEPTEMBER
4,2012
COMPLAINT
1.
This
is an
action
pursuantto
the Connecticut
Fair EmploymentPractices
Act, Conn.
Gen. Stat.$$
46a-60,
ef
seq.
2,
Theplaintiff
hascomplied with all of
theprocedural
prerequisitesto suitunder
the statutes aforementioned,
having
filed
a
timely complaintof
employment
discrimination
with
the
Connecticut Commission
on
Human
Rights
and
Oppoftunitieson
or
about
December
1,2011,
and
having received
a
Releaseof
Jurisdictiondated
June
26,
2012.
3.
Theplaintiff
is
a
resident
of
Milford,
Connecticut,
and
was
born
on
February
3,
1948.
4.
The
defendant
is
a
Delaware
corporation
havingitsprincipalplace
of
businessat 300
West
57th
Street,
New
York, NY
10019.
lts
agent forservice
in
Connecticut
is
C
TCorporation
System at One
CorporateCenter,
1
1th
Floor,
Hartford,CT
06'103-3220.
It
is
the owner of
TheConnecticut
Post,a dailynewspaper
whose
business
address
is
410StateStreet,
Bridgeport,CT
06604.
5.
Theplaintiffhas
been employed
by
thedefendant
at
The
Connecticut
 
Postcontinuously
for
a
decade,and
has
worked
forthat
newspaper
a
total
of
morethantwentyyears.
6.
Theplaintiff
isa
senior
reporter coveringthe Valley
Area.
She
previously
was the State
Editor.
7.
The
plaintiff's
job
evaluations alwayshavebeen satisfactory or
better.
8.
On October
7,2011,
the
plaintiff
was
informedthat
the
respondent
had
beenplaced
on a Performancelmprovement
Plan
subjecting
her to termination
on
December7,2011.
9.
Thedefendant
hadestablished
a
patternof
terminating
or threateningto
terminate older employees
of
The Connecticut
Post
with
outstanding
performancerecords
byplacingthem on
suchPerformancelmprovement
Plans
without
just
cause.
Between October
7,2011,
and
the
end
of
December 2011,
three other
outstanding
employeesofThe
Connecticut
Post
were
giventhreatsof
termination
similar
to that
givento
the
plaintiff.
Those
employees
were
Dan
Tepfer,
Phyllis Boros
and
Linda
C. Lambeck.All
of
them
also
were
seniorreporterseach
with
twenty
or
moreyearsof service
and
each
with
outstandingrecords
as
highly
respected reporters.
All
were
over
the
ageof
40.
10.
Thedefendant
in
the
manner
describedin
Paragraphs
B
and
9
wasattempting
to rid
itself
of
itsolder reporters regardless
of
theirskill and workrecords.
11.
After the
plaintiff
filed
her aforesaid
complaint
with
the
Commission
 
on
Human Rights and
Oppoftunities,
the
defendant
elected
to
end or
at
least
suspend
its
said actions
against older
workers,
including
the
plaintiff,
and
ultimately
did
not
terminate
them.
However,
the
actions of
the
defendantunreasonablyand
withoutcause
placed
the
plaintiffingreat
fear of
losing heremployment
and caused
her to
suffer
severe
emotional
distress.
12.
The actions
of
the
defendantdescribed
aboveconstituted
an adverseemployment
action
based upon
theplaintiff's
age and
thereby
violated the
Connecticut
Fair
Employment
Practices Act.
WHEREFORE, the
plaintiffclaims
judgment
against
the
defendant.
THE
PLAINTIFF
JOHN
R.
WTLLTAMS
(#67962)
51
ElmStreetNew Haven,CT 06510(203)562-9931FAX:(203)
776-9494
E-Mail
:
jrw@johnrwilliams.com
Her
Attorney
BY

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->