Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint

Bazzetta v. Daimler AG - Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 401 |Likes:
Published by The Russia Monitor

More info:

Published by: The Russia Monitor on May 04, 2010
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

06/10/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 1 of 26
RECEIPT NUMBER 
ac 5 I
'16
D
ORIGINLrf Qoc A-
. "
UTED STArES DISTICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA"SOUTHER DIVISIONDAVID J. BAZZETTA,Plaintiff
-v
DAMLERCHRYSLER CORPa Deawa CopoationDefendant
EISENBERG
&
BOGAS, PC.SUE ELLEN EISENBEG (P25530)KATHLEEN L BOGAS (P25164)Attoeys for Plantff 33Bloomeld Hlls Parkway Sute 145Bloomeld Hlls Mchgan 48304Tel: 248-2586080
Fa:
248-2589212
JDGE: Cohn, AvernDECK 
S
Diision Ciil DeckDE : 09/282004 @ 16:843    CE NM: 2:04CV3 B06   C AZZETA 
V
DAICHYL(DA)
COMPLANT AND JURY DEMAND
 NOW COMES Plant Dad
J.
Bazzctta by and through hs attoeys,Esenberg
&
Bogas PC, and statesas follows
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1 T1s Court has jursdton pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1514A (b) (1) (B)(SarbanesOxley) 29 U.S.C.
626(c) (Age scrmnaton n Employment Act); 42SC
§
27(a) (Americans wth Dsabltes Act) 28 U.S.C
§
1331 (federal queston
,
ursdcton); and 28 USC.
1343 (a) (4) ursdcton over cvl rghts clams). Ths
 
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 2 of 26
Court also ha supplemental urisdiction pursuant to
28
U.SC §
1367
over the state lawclaims of realiation in violation ofthe
i
Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA 
372101,
et seq and the Miehigan Handieappej Civil Rights Act MCLA 
371101
and retaliatorydischarge in violation of public policy
2
Plainiff is a eitizen of 
e Unites States and resides in Macomb CountyMichigan
3
Defendant DaimlerChryslcr Corp is a Delaware corporation wih itsprincipal place of business in Aubu Hills Oakland County Michigan
4.
DaimlerChryslcr Corp
I
s a whollyowned subsidiary and business unit of DaimlcrChyslcr AG a German corpo
tion
5.
DaimlerChysler AG
J
s an inteational company that is listed on the
I
 New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE;') and on other stock exchanges throughout theworld DaimlerChrysler AG and Dai
r
lerChryler Corp arc subect to the provisions of 
e SarbanesOley Act enacted in the S in July
20026.
DaimlerChr ysler Corp
is an agent of DaimlerChrysler AG within the
I
meaning o[the SarbanesOxley Act
7
DaimlerChrysler op
l
lso is a contractor of Daimler Chrysler AG withinthe meaning of the SarbanesOxley Ae
8.
The discriminatory e
Iyment pctices alleged
m
this Complaintoccued within the State of Michigan
.
!
9
This is an action for retaliation in violation of the SarbanesOxley Act of 
2002
retaliation in violation of the A 
e Discrimination in Employmen Aet ("ADEAretaliation in violation of the Ameri
J
ans with Disabilities Aet ("ADA) retaliation in
.
-2-
 
Case 2:04-cv-73806-AC-DAS Document 1 Filed 09/28/04 Page 3 of 26
violation of the Elliott-LarsenRights Act (ELCRA") and the MichiganHandicappers' Civil Rights Act
(ECLA").
I O.
Defendant is an employer and Plaintif as its employee ithin the
meaning othe SarbanesOxlcy Act AEA DA, the ELCRA and the HCLA.. On or about January 4
1
2004, Plaintif as terminated from his positionth Defendant.12.On March 22 2004, Plaintif led a timely complaint under Sarbanes-Oxley ith the Occupational afct
J
and Health Administration (OSHA) of theDepartment of Labor
l
3 In accordance ith 8
i
S.C. § 154A(b)()(B), the 80 day period inhich OSHA as to issue a nal dee
i
ion elapsed on September 18 2004 OSHA has
I
not ssued a nal deison and laint
1
· hs the ght to poed n the appopate dstitcourt othe United States.4On March 29 2004, Paintif timely led ith the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (EEOC) a
f
harge o retaliation in violation of the ADEA andDA which as within 300 days of the commission of the unlaful employmentpractices alleged in this claim.15 Plantff eceved his notice of right to sue on June 30 200, and hc hasled this complaint ithin 90 days of
b
eeiVing his noice of rights. Exhibit A
. I
6Defendant has aived
r
n riting any requirement that Plainti ehaustDefendants inteal employee dispute resolution procedure or arbitrate hs claimsEhibit B7.The amount in
eontro\ersy
exceeds $75,000, eclusive o interests and
-3-

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
dbazzetta liked this

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)//-->