Little v. AIL - Case No MID-L-000417-24 - Jan 2024

MID-L-000417-24 01/19/2024 6:05:51 PM Pg 1 of 42 Trans ID: LCV2024173528
DAVID TYKULSKER, Esq. (Attorney Id. # 031111982)

DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
161 Walnut Street
Montclair, New Jersey 07042
(973) 509-9292
(973) 509-1181 (fax)
david@dtesq.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION -MIDDLESEX COUNTY
......................................................................................................X
AMEENAH LITTLE, DEA SHINIQUE RAMSEY,
RACHEL GNADINGER,
DARINA BELOKRYLETS and CAROL
DIORIO, and PRANVERA
KELMENDI, on behalf of themselves,
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
-against- WITH JURY DEMAND
AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

GIGLIONE-ACKERMAN AGENCY, LLC, ERIC GIGLIONE,
DAVID ACKERMAN, MORGAN LOBELLO, and RICHARD
ZUCCATO, individually, jointly and/or severally,
Defendants.
......................................................................................................X
Plaintiffs AMEENAH LITTLE, DEA SHINIQUE RAMSEY, RACHEL GNADINGER,
DARINA BELOKRYLETS and CAROL DIORIO, and PRANVERA KELMENDI, on behalf
of themselves, allege as follows:
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
1. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves against their former employers
American Income Life Insurance Company, the Giglione-Ackerman Agency (the exclusive State
General Agent of Defendant American Income Life Insurance Company), Defendant Eric
Giglione, owner and manager of the Giglione-Ackerman Agency and David Ackerman, also an
1
owner and manager of the Giglione Ackerman Agency, as well as senior managers Morgan
Lobello and Richard Zuccato.
2. Plaintiffs allege Defendants and their agents subjected Plaintiffs to an egregious
hostile work environment based on their gender.
3. Defendants tolerated and perpetuated an atmosphere pervaded by sexual
harassment, which Plaintiffs both experienced themselves and witnessed as to other women.
4. Defendants encouraged a sexualized “party” atmosphere at company events held
in the Edison New Jersey office, where Defendant Giglione took to the stage and encouraged
others to let loose.
5. This primarily consisted of objectifying female employees and granting male
employees and managers license to sexually harass their female reports.
6. Directives for this atmosphere came from the very top, from the state general
agent Eric Giglione, who referred various to Plaintiffs as “my bitch” and on one occasion slapped
the buttocks of a female employee in the presence of a female employee and others attending a
company event in Edison, New Jersey.
7. At these company events Defendant Giglione directed women to “get on stage
and dance! Ladies get on up here and dance.”
8. Women were also subjected to gender-based stereotypes by being directed to
“dress for success,” which meant they were expected to wear makeup and heels if they wished to
succeed and were instructed to dress to accentuate their curves, were instructed to “turn on your
womanly charms” and “show your legs.”
9. Further various Plaintiffs were subject to sexual propositions and sexual
2
touching.
10. On Plaintiff was told “I’d like to put something in your mouth.”
11. By these acts, Defendants perpetuated an atmosphere where Plaintiffs were
subjected to hostile, discriminatory treatment based on their gender.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as Defendants conduct
business in the state of New Jersey.
14. Venue is proper in this County because Defendants have active operations in this
County, Plaintiffs work or worked at Defendants’ offices in this County, most of the events giving
rise to this lawsuit occurred here, and this is the most convenient forum.
Plaintiffs
15. Plaintiff Ameenah Little is an adult resident of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
16. Plaintiff Little was employed by Defendants from in or about 2018 to in or about
March 2022 as an agent up to and including the rank of Managing General Agent.
17. At all times relevant Plaintiff Little was an employee covered by the NJLAD.
18. Plaintiff Little’s claims were tolled from November 30, 2023 to January 19, 2024.
19. Plaintiff Dea Shinique Ramsey is an adult resident of the Bronx, New York.
20. Plaintiff Ramsey was employed by Defendants from on or about October 4, 2021,
to on or about February 2, 2022, as an agent.
21. At all times relevant Plaintiff Ramsey was an employee covered by the NJLAD.
22. Plaintiff Ramsey’s claims were tolled from November 15, 2022 to January 19,
3
2024.
23. Plaintiff Rachel Gnadinger is an adult resident of Metuchen, New Jersey.
24. Plaintiff Gnadinger was employed by Defendants from in or about November
2019 to in or about January 2021 as an agent.
25. At all times relevant Plaintiff Gnadinger was an employee covered by the NJLAD.
26. Plaintiff Gnadinger’s claims were tolled from November 15, 2022 to January 19,
2024.
27. Plaintiff Darina Belokrylets is an adult resident of Sussex, New Jersey.
28. Plaintiff Belokrylets was employed by Defendants from in or about October 2019
to on or about late 2020 as an agent.
29. At all times relevant Plaintiff Belokrylets was an employee covered by the NJLAD.
30. Plaintiff Belokrylets’s claims were tolled from November 15, 2022 to January 19,
2024.
31. Plaintiff Carol Diorio is an adult resident of Toms River, New Jersey.
32. Plaintiff Diorio was employed by Defendants from in or about January 2019 to in
or about September 2021 as an agent.
33. At all times relevant Plaintiff Diorio was an employee covered by the NJLAD.
34. Plaintiff Diorio’s claims were tolled from November 15, 2022 to January 19, 2024.
35. Plaintiff Pranvera Kelmendi is an adult resident of Highland Park, New Jersey.
36. Plaintiff Kelmendi was employed by Defendants from in or about May 2019 to
in or about September 2021 as an agent and a supervising agent.
37. At all times relevant Plaintiff Kelmendi was an employee covered by the NJLAD.
38. Plaintiff Kelmendi’s claims were tolled from November 15, 2022 to January 19,
4
2024.
Defendants
39. Defendant American Income Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “AIL”) is an
Indiana corporation with its headquarters located at 1200 Wooded Acres Drive, Waco, Texas,
76710.
40. AIL sells a variety of insurance products, including life, accident, and
supplemental health insurance, including in the state of New Jersey.
41. Defendant AIL was Plaintiffs’ direct employer and at all times had control over
the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment.
42. Plaintiffs signed an Agent contract with AIL.
43. Plaintiffs were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“hereinafter
“CBA”) with Office and Professional Employees International Union (hereinafter “OPEIU”)
Local 277 governing all AIL employees.
44. Plaintiffs were paid by AIL checks.
45. Plaintiffs received training through AIL.
46. Plaintiffs are governed by AIL policies and procedures including the anti-
harassment policy which sets forth that complaints must be made to Plaintiffs' supervisors or to
the union.
47. AIL CEO David Zophin was often in Giglione-Ackerman Agency offices to
provide direct leadership and support to agents, and he leads the weekly State General Agent
(“SGA”) meetings on Zoom.
48. AIL Spotlight magazine ("A monthly publication spotlighting top producers of
American Income Life‚ published monthly for the dissemination of information to its Producers.")
5
highlights the achievements of AIL’s agents, regardless of SGA affiliation.
49. AIL CEO David Zophin at various times directly controlled and supervised
employees’ work.
50. Giglione-Ackerman Agency, LLC (hereinafter “Giglione-Ackerman”) is a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company and the exclusive broker of AIL products in New Jersey as the
State General Agent of AIL.
51. Giglione-Ackerman is headquartered at 450 Raritan Center Parkway, Ste. A,
Edison, New Jersey 08837, and maintained satellite offices in Cherry Hill (closed in 2022), East
Orange and Tom’s River, New Jersey. Giglione-Ackerman is also licensed to sell AIL products in
Pennsylvania.
52. Giglione-Ackerman is the actual New Jersey office of American Income Life
and, as a joint employer with AIL, directly supervised Plaintiffs, and set forth office-wide policies
and procedures all with the approval of AIL.
53. Eric Giglione (hereinafter “Defendant Giglione”) is a co-owner and manager of
Giglione-Ackerman and the New Jersey State Director of AIL.
54. David Ackerman (hereinafter “Defendant Ackerman”) is a co-owner and
manager of Giglione-Ackerman and a New Jersey State Director of AIL.
55. Upon information and belief Defendant Giglione is a resident and citizen of
Rumson, New Jersey.
56. Upon information and belief Defendant Ackerman is a resident and citizen of
New Jersey.
57. At all times relevant Defendant Giglione directly managed Plaintiffs, and
6
participated in the harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
58. Further, at all times relevant Defendant Ackerman directly managed Plaintiffs,
knew of the harassment and discrimination and failed to prevent the harassment and discrimination
when he could have done so.
59. Further, at all times relevant Defendant Giglione directly managed many of
Plaintiffs’ co-employee harassers, unlawfully retained them and aided and abetted their actions by
failing to take corrective action and condoning their open and notorious harassment.
60. Further, at all times relevant Defendant Ackerman directly managed many of
Plaintiffs’ harassers, unlawfully retained them and aided and abetted their actions by failing to
take corrective action and condoning their open and notorious harassment.
61. Morgan Lobello (hereinafter “Defendant Lobello”) is a Regional General Agent
(“RGA”) for AIL based out of the Giglione-Ackerman Agency.
62. Upon information and belief Defendant Lobello is a resident and citizen of New
Jersey.
63. At all times relevant Defendant Lobello directly managed various Plaintiffs, and
participated in the harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
64. Richard Zuccato (hereinafter “Defendant Zuccato”) is a Managing General
Agent (“MGA”) for AIL based out of the Giglione-Ackerman Agency.
65. Upon information and belief Defendant Zuccato is a resident and citizen of New
Jersey.
66. At all times relevant Defendant Zuccato directly managed various Plaintiffs,
and participated in the harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
7
FACTS
67. Defendant AIL is an international company based in Texas that provides life,
accident, and supplemental health insurance policies.
68. Defendant Giglione-Ackerman is the exclusive agent for AIL products in New
Jersey, with more than 150 agents operating out of four offices, including Giglione-Ackerman’s
Edison, New Jersey headquarters.
69. In order to sell life insurance policies and other financial products offered by
Defendants, Plaintiffs had to enter into an agreement with Defendants (hereinafter the "Agent
Agreement") and become licensed to sell insurance in New Jersey.
70. Plaintiffs are all licensed to sell insurance in New Jersey.
71. Agent Agreements are signed for the employer by representatives of Defendant
AIL and the State General Agent Defendant Giglione-Ackerman.
72. At all times relevant, all Defendants were joint employers within the meaning of
the NJLAD.
73. At all times relevant Defendants had complete interrelation of operations in terms
of hiring, training, compensation, firing, policies, disciplines and enforcement of performance
standards.
74. At all times relevant AIL set the relevant standards and policies and formally
issued all hiring, firing and discipline, and established the training. They did control and had the
right to control Giglione-Ackerman employees including but not limited to by providing training
institutes, national conventions, site visits to Giglione-Ackerman offices and being the ultimate
decisionmaker regarding all personnel decisions.
8
75. Giglione-Ackerman selected the candidates for hire, made decisions regarding
hiring, made decision regarding issuance of discipline up to and including termination in concert
with AIL, provided the workplace for Plaintiffs and were involved in all day to day personnel
decisions.
76. At all times relevant Defendants Giglione and Ackerman were Plaintiff’s day to
day supervisors and initiated all personnel decisions and implemented all training and personnel
policies.
77. At all times relevant Defendants Lobello and Zuccato were day to day
supervisors and initiated personnel decisions and implemented training and personnel policies,
including in connection with various Plaintiffs.
DEFENDANTS MISCLASSIFY AND CONTROL AGENTS AS COMMON

EMPLOYEES
78. All Plaintiffs have been subject to misclassification as independent contractors.
79. Defendants exercise extensive control over the means by which Plaintiffs
perform their jobs.
80. Defendants have the power to exercise, and do exercise, substantial control over
the performance of Agents’ work and the manner in which they must complete their work.
81. This is done by rules and regulations, written and unwritten, including but not
limited to the following:
a. Agents are compensated by Defendants pursuant to compensation schedules
promulgated by Defendants. Defendants retain absolute discretion to unilaterally alter, reduce, or
rescind these compensation schedules.
b. Defendants operate a “captive agency” whereby Agents may not sell the
9
insurance products of any entity other than AIL.
c. Defendants required Plaintiffs to sever any existing relationships with insurance
brokers or agencies in order to be hired by and maintain employment with Defendants.
d. Agents are deemed by Defendants to be full-time insurance salespersons and are
expected to concentrate their efforts on behalf of Defendants.
e. Agents may not conduct any non-AIL business activity, regardless of the nature
of that activity and regardless of whether that activity was related to the insurance industry.
f. Defendants reserve the right to supervise Agents. At its sole discretion,
Defendants can, and do, establish policies and procedures governing the means by which Agents
undertake the sale of insurance policies.
g. Defendants restrict the geographic area in which Agents may solicit applications
for the sale of Defendants’ products. Specifically, Defendants assign Agents a home office, and a
geographic area within the purview of that home office.
h. Defendants assign Agents a supervising agent and Agents are not permitted to
transfer to another supervising agent without permission of Defendant Ackerman.
i. Defendants require Agents to report to a supervising representative at a field
office specified by Defendants.
j. Defendants required Agents to attend mandatory weekly meetings with their
supervising agents, as well as mandatory weekly meeting with their supervisors at their local field
office.
k. Defendants required Agents to attend mandatory weekly meetings of all
Giglione-Ackerman Agents at the Edison headquarters.
10
l. Defendants require Agents to participate in additional mandatory training
sessions.
m. Defendants require Agents to participate in mandatory two-week training.
n. Defendants require Agents to participate in mandatory job shadowing of their
supervising agent.
o. Defendants require Agents to work set schedules in the office on solicitation calls
and set hours in the field on home visits.
p. During the COVID Remote work period, Defendants required Agents to work
set schedules on solicitation calls and set hours on virtual home visits, all of which was subject to
monitoring and remote surveillance by the Company.
q. Defendants require Agents to follow sales scripts which they solely have devised
during home visits.
r. Agents’ call dialing was monitored by Defendants through a software called
Impact Center.
s. Agents access to particular lead types and the volume of leads is determined
based on the Defendants’ assessment of their performance and sales.
t. Defendants require Agents to have their pitch approved by Defendant Ackerman
before being “released” into the field
u. Defendants require Agents to meet "minimum earnings requirements" by
soliciting and selling AIL life insurance policies and other financial products in an amount set by
Defendants.
v. Defendants personally required Plaintiffs to meet weekly team "targets" or
11
"commitments," determined solely in the discretion of Defendants.
w. Defendants personally required Supervising Agents and General Agents to meet
quotas determined solely in the discretion of Defendants.
x. Defendants required Agents to spend a set amount of time on lead calls, or to
perform a set number of lead calls weekly.
y. Defendants required Agents to spend a set amount of time on client visits, or to
perform a set number of client visits weekly.
z. Defendants have the right to and do in fact discipline Agents for failing to make
the requisite number of calls or to follow the set schedule, or for failing to otherwise follow the
script or meet performance standards or quotas.
aa. Agents were sent warning letters from Defendants where they did not satisfy
quarterly sales quotas.
bb. Defendants prohibit Agents from providing any remuneration, including a
finder's fee, to any individual who does not have an Agreement with Defendants.
cc. Defendants prohibited Agents from conducting joint work with any individual
who had not been previously approved by Defendants.
dd. Defendants restricted Agents’ ability to move between Managing
Agents/General Agencies within the Companies.
ee. Defendants provide each Agent with an approved email address and require each
Representative to use Defendants' email system for all business-related emails.
ff. Defendants control the content of Agents’ business voicemail messages and
require Agents to identify themselves to all callers as Agents of AIL.
12
gg. Defendants own Agents’ client files, have the power to review same at any time
and require the surrender of client files upon termination.
hh. Defendants require Agents to own a computer and to install certain software on
his or her computer.
ii. Defendants demand that Agents’ computers be “wiped” upon termination and
all data and software, both business and personal, be deleted.
jj. Defendants require that all leads, whether generated by Agents or provided by
Defendants, become the intellectual property of Defendants.
kk. When in the field, Plaintiffs were monitored by Defendants through GPS.
ll. Plaintiffs were required to register with Defendants their time and location at
client’s doors.
COMMON HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS
82. Plaintiffs experienced a sexually hostile work environment at the New Jersey
offices of G&A as well as various nationwide gatherings held by AIL which displayed a culture of
sexual hostility, and recordings of which were broadcast to all Plaintiffs at the New Jersey offices.
The AIL Conventions Held Twice A Year Were Marked By A Culture Of Harassment
83. AIL held conferences twice a year for agents who were high producers within the
company. These conferences were marked by an out of control culture of drinking, drugs, and a
"hookup" atmosphere, with this all occurring openly in the presence of the AIL CEO Zophin and
AIL President Greer.
84. AIL CEO Zophin advertised the Conferences and was on a social media post for
the conferences. Part of an Instagram video for the National Conference was an image of a man
13
drinking champagne from the bottle against a club background with the hashtag
"#opportunityunlimited." All social media posts about AIL must be approved by AIL according to
its own policies, and accordingly this image was approved by AIL as consistent with the corporate
culture it wishes to promote. David Zophin was depicted inviting agents to Cancun as part of the
same post.
85. In May 2021 Plaintiff. Kelmendi was present at the AIL conference in Cancun. At
that conference agents and managers as well as the AIL C-Suite met poolside for much of the
conference. Attendees were all dressed in bathing suits including women in thong bikinis. On one
occasion during the conference, AIL CEO David Zophin and AIL President Steven Greer were
both in the VIP section watching female agents twerking in their thongs. All the attendees were
drinking and cheered while watching the women twerk. At all times the CEO and President were
aware of this atmosphere and condoned it.
86. Throughout this AIL conference in Cancun AIL C-Suite members were present
and were aware of the sexualized atmosphere.
87. Over the 5 day conference held at a resort, there were few formal presentations, and
the conference largely consisted of "pool time" marked by a debauched sexualized atmosphere.
88. In May 2021 Plaintiff Little was present at the AIL conference in Cancun. At
poolside, Plaintiff Little witnessed a sexualized atmosphere with managers ogling female agents,
catcalling, and trying to "pick up" agents.
89. One employee attended the 2017 conference in Cancun, the Orlando conference in
2018 and in the Las Vegas conference in 2019.
90. At the Las Vegas conference in 2019 the same employee observed a group of
Managing General Agents (“MGAs”) and Regional General Agents (“RGAs”) picking up
14
prostitutes, including Regional Managing Agent Johnny Ly. Again this activity was open and
notorious at the AIL conferences.
91. Also at the Las Vegas conference the same employee observed CEO Zophin and
President Greer at the pool area, where in their presence employees and managers were passed out
drunk, while hundreds of people (out of a total of 600-700 assembled) were dancing, with many
agents and managers engaging in sexually suggestive acts such as "twerking", "grinding" and sexual
touching according to this employee.
92. The sexualized atmosphere at conferences, witnessed and condoned by Messrs.
Greer and Zophin directly contributed to and/or caused the same atmosphere in the New Jersey
workplace.
AIL's "Leadership Academy" Was Marked By The Same Sexualized Atmosphere
93. Managers who attained a certain level of leadership as General Agent, Managing
General Agent or Regional General Agent were invited to attend AIL Leadership Conferences held
quarterly. At such conferences various Plaintiffs observed the same sexualized environment as the
other conferences.
94. Plaintiff Little attended a Leadership conference in Texas, June 16-19, 2019. At the
conference the same sexualized environment she experienced at the conventions was present.
Plaintiff Little was so repulsed that she kept to herself in her room. When she ventured out of her
room it was a meat market atmosphere with various SGAs and other managers "playing the field."
95. A lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania against AIL alleges that the sexualized
atmosphere was also present in the company’s Pennsylvania office run by Simon Arias, and thus
was pervasive. Mr. Arias at various times was brought in by corporate Defendants to provide
training to Plaintiffs and others at the New Jersey office.
15
Hostility to Plaintiffs At the New Jersey Office
96. Within the relevant period, until the end of each Plaintiff’s tenure, and at all times
prior, as part of a continuing violation leading up to the relevant period, Plaintiffs were subjected
to a severe and pervasive hostile work environment.
97. For years female employees were subject to gender-based stereotypes, unwanted
sexual comments, unwanted sexual advances, unwanted sexual touching, and a sexualized
workplace at Defendant companies.
98. The acts alleged were open and notorious and made clear to Plaintiffs that
reporting such incidents was futile.
99. Plaintiffs received no sexual harassment training nor did any Agent.
100. Indeed, it was clear that Defendants not only condoned sexual harassment by
others, but also directly participated in such.
101. For example, in May 2019, now Regional General Agent, then supervising Agent
Corey Hallam placed his hand on the thigh of Plaintiff Kelmendi as they were driving to a meeting
together.
102. These kinds of advances were common among male supervisors, who appeared
to think that female employees were their property.
103. When Plaintiff Kelmendi switched to Morgan Lobello’s team, he exclaimed in
front of other employees, “Come here baby, you’re under my team now!”
104. In the relevant period, General Agent Defendant Giglione repeatedly referred to
his top saleswoman as “my bitch” in the presence of her assembled colleagues in large group
meetings.
16
105. Further, in 2020, at a work event held at Edison New Jersey, the State General
Agent Defendant Giglione slapped the buttocks of a female employee in the presence of another
female employee and various others.
106. Given the example set by State General Agent Defendant Giglione it is no wonder
that sexual harassment, and gender based hostility towards female employees was rampant
throughout the company and the ranks of nearly exclusively male managers.
107. The above acts of hostility form a continuing violation with the acts below in the
relevant time period.
108. These acts of hostility, taken together, form an ongoing and unbroken pervasive
culture of harassment towards female employees who suffered discrimination or witnessed such,
including all Plaintiffs, and constitute a continuing violation.
109. This environment existed despite the fact that the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (“CBA”)covering Plaintiffs has a provision which prohibits sexual harassment and
requires the sexual harassment policy to be posted and workers informed of the policy by email.
None of the requirements of the CBA were met: there was no of posting or email distribution of
the policy to Plaintiffs.
All Plaintiffs Were Subjected to Gender-Based Stereotypes
110. At all times relevant until the end of each Plaintiff’s tenure, they were subjected
to gender-based stereotypes.
111. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were required to conform to gender-based
stereotypes and were expected to look and act “feminine” in order to meet with the approval of
17
Defendants.
112. At all times relevant, female employees, including all Plaintiffs, were required to
wear high heels, makeup, jewelry and perfume and were told to “dress to impress.”
113. At all times relevant female employees, including all Plaintiffs, were told to use
their feminine wiles in order to make sales.
114. Male agents and supervisors would remark to female employees, including
Plaintiffs, “You’re a female. This business should be easier for you.”
115. Female agents were derided and not taken seriously and demeaned because of
their gender. One Plaintiff was referred to by a supervisor as his “ex-wife” and referred to as
“stupid.”
116. One high level manager, a male Regional General Agent (“RGA”) would often
hear Defendant Giglione speak in a “misogynistic” manner and on several occasions heard him
say words to the effect of “This is a man's business, that’s why women don't succeed here.
Women aren't aggressive. Women don’t have what it takes. It is easier for a man to sell".
117. This same RGA also heard stereotyped comments from other members of
management, including one who stated, regarding female employees, “They don’t have a thick
skin. They are going to go home and cry.” This type of remarks about female employees was
made on a daily basis.
Plaintiffs Were Subjected to Gender-Based Discrimination
118. Consistent with this undermining of female employees, Plaintiffs and all female
employees also faced barriers to advancement, at all times relevant until the end of each Plaintiff’s
tenure.
18
119. Among the upper ranks of agents there was only one female SGA and one female
RGA.
120. These barriers were a result of the culture of undermining, humiliating,
sexualizing and belittling female employees, as well as policies that directly discriminated against
female employees.
Plaintiffs Were Subjected to a Sexualized Workplace
121. At all times relevant until the end of each Plaintiff’s tenure, they were subjected
to a sexualized workplace.
122. At all times relevant, male managers routinely engaged in lewd and objectifying
talk about women in the presence of female employees including all Plaintiffs, which included
crudely discussing women’s appearances and their sexual desirability. One male RGA heard other
managers repeatedly objectify female agents on a regular basis referring to a “nice ass” and other
crude and objectifying terms.
123. At company events, female employees including all Plaintiffs were told to all get
on stage and dance.
124. Specifically, Defendant Giglione instructed Plaintiffs, “Ladies get up here and
dance! Dance! Get on the stage and dance.”
125. Morgan Lobello and Defendant General Agent Giglione, would encourage a
culture of male chauvinism, saying, “you’ve got to rock out with your cock out!”
126. In group meetings, male agents discussed their sex lives, and the body parts of
female employees. Defendant Giglione, Defendant Lobello, Defendant Zuccato and others
19
addressed female employees by reference to the size of their breasts, including Plaintiff Little.
Additional Examples of Pervasive Gender Based Hostile Work Environment and

Gender Discrimination Towards Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Little
127. Plaintiff Little was at all times subjected to a sexually hostile work environment as
detailed above. In addition to the general allegations, she experienced harassment including but
not limited to the following:
128. Plaintiff Little observed that even when women agents made great achievements
the company preferred to highlight the achievements of male employees.
129. Male agents were promoted while women agents were overlooked.
130. For example, while Plaintiff Little excelled at her job and was promoted to the
position of Managing General Agent ("MGA") a year before her significant other was promoted
into the same position, in a managerial meeting with her newly promoted significant other in 2022,
Defendant Giglione greeted her in front of all of her colleagues saying "Good morning, Anthony's
girlfriend!"
131. This was demeaning and humiliating, and defined Plaintiff Little only in relation to
her male partner while she had been a contributing member of the managerial team for quite some
time. Nonetheless in Defendant Giglione's mind, Plaintiff Little was only "Anthony's Girlfriend"
and her professional accomplishments were irrelevant.
132. On another occasion in the relevant period, Plaintiff Little heard Defendant
Giglione say in a morning meeting to the assembled group in relation to Atiya Bell, "I can say that
because Atiya's my bitch." Plaintiff Little and many other women, were offended by this comment
and found it demeaning to women.
133. Given the example set by Defendant Giglione, gender discrimination was rife
20
throughout senior management. For example, in the relevant period, MGA and then Regional
General Agent ("RGA") Morgan Lobello advised Plaintiff Little and other female agents to flirt
with clients to increase sales.
134. Throughout the four years Plaintiff Little was at G&A, now-MGA Defendant
Zuccato made repeated unwanted sexual advances towards her including in 2021 and 2022. On
these several occasions he asked her "Do you want to fuck [me]?"
135. Higher managers including at least Defendant Lobello as MGA and then as RGA
were aware that Defendant. Zuccato had propositioned Plaintiff Little and other women. Yet instead
of investigating, Defendant Lobello merely stated "Ignore him. He's stupid."
136. On another occasion, Defendant Lobello's sexism caused a female friend to quit.
He criticized her as having "daddy issues."
137. Throughout Plaintiff Little’s time at G&A including up until her departure in 2022
she routinely was demeaned, undermined, disparaged and humiliated because of her gender and
she saw other women treated in the same manner.
138. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff Little, caused her significant emotional distress
which is continuing
139. Due to the objectively intolerable and hostile atmosphere, Plaintiff Little was
constructively discharged.
Plaintiff Ramsey
140. Plaintiff Ramsey was at all times subjected to a sexually hostile work environment
as detailed above. In addition to the general allegations, she experienced harassment including but
141. In the relevant period, upon Plaintiff Ramsey’s first introduction made to
21
Defendant Giglione in the presence of another female employee, Defendant Giglione exclaimed,
“Who is this beautiful woman? Is she with you?”
142. Defendant Giglione appeared to be inviting other male employees to comment
on Plaintiff Ramsey’s body throughout the course of her tenure.
143. Plaintiff Ramsey and her female coworker were disgusted.
144. Defendant Giglione then proceeded to kiss Plaintiff Ramsey’s hand without her
consent.
145. Thereafter Defendant Giglione touched her lower back, ogled her and hovered
around her directing unwanted sexual attention towards her.
146. At all times this sexual touching was unwanted.
147. Plaintiff Ramsey observed that Defendant Giglione routinely interacted with
female employees in this manner engaging in unwelcome sexual touching.
148. Indeed even before she attended her first monthly meeting at AIL, Plaintiff
Ramsey was instructed by managers at AIL to “dress to impress”. Upon her arrival, it was clear
why. The men had free rein to ogle the women agents, looking them up and down. This feeling of
being on display was heightened by Defendant Giglione requesting all women to the stage to dance
for the men to look at.
149. For the entirety of Plaintiff Ramsey’s short tenure every meeting she attended
was marked by hostility to women.
150. Plaintiff Ramsay suffered significant emotional distress from this sexual harassment.
151. Due to the objectively intolerable and hostile atmosphere, Plaintiff Ramsey was
22
Plaintiff Gnadinger
152. Plaintiff Gnadinger was at all times subjected to a sexually hostile work
environment as detailed above. In addition to the general allegations, she experienced harassment
including but not limited to the following:
153. In the relevant period, in or about December 2020 Plaintiff Gnadinger was told
by Richie Zuccato, "I'd like to put something in your mouth."
154. At all times this and all sexual comments directed towards her in the workplace
was unwanted.
155. Plaintiff Gnadinger was made to feel that all Defendants Giglione and Ackerman
thought of her only as a piece of meat who made sales, not a human being. This was due to the
constant conversation about and sexualization of her and other women's bodies in the workplace.
156. Repeatedly during the relevant period, Plaintiff Gnadinger observed that male
managers including Defendants Giglione, Lobello and Zuccato would come up behind the women
and start massaging their shoulders. It was clear to her that these male supervisors believed they
could touch women without permission.
157. On various occasions in the relevant period, Supervisor Duddy instructed
Plaintiff Gnadinger she had to get "sexier clothes" and that he wanted her to wear her hair in a
more provocative way.
158. Repeatedly during the relevant period, Plaintiff Gnadinger heard Defendant
Giglione exhort employees gathered in the auditorium to "Rock out with your cock out"; "Ladies
you can jam out with your clams out." This was his constant mantra, so much so that other men
would use these sexually offensive phrases.
23
159. Defendant Zuccato would discuss bribing Plaintiff Gnadinger: if she made a
sale he would say he would take her to get a massage.
160. Throughout the relevant period, Plaintiff Gnadinger observed Defendants
Zuccato and Lobello tossing a ball around in the main room of the office. On one occasion, it hit
Plaintiff Gnadinger in the face and one of them asked, "Why don't you put my ball in your mouth?"
161. Plaintiff Gnadinger observed that sexual innuendo was a constant with male
agents, especially Defendants Lobello and Zuccato.
162. Demeaning sexual comments were frequently made at company meetings. This
defined the corporate culture.
163. This culture was so open and notorious that Defendant Giglione felt comfortable
repeatedly referring to a leading female agent, Ms. Atiya Bell, as "my bitch." Plaintiff Gnadinger
was present in a meeting when this occurred.
164. Plaintiff Gnadinger suffered significant emotional distress from the sexual
harassment she was forced to endure.
165. Due to the objectively intolerable and hostile atmosphere, Plaintiff Gnadinger was
Plaintiff Diorio
166. Plaintiff Diorio was at all times subjected to a sexually hostile work environment
as detailed above. In addition to the general allegation she experienced harassment including but
167. In the relevant period including up to her constructive discharge, Plaintiff Diorio
was told by her supervisor David Hausman, when wearing a dress, "oh you must want to show her
24
legs."
168. Plaintiff Diorio was repeatedly instructed by him to turn on "her womanly
charm."
169. Throughout the relevant period she heard supervisors constantly demean a
colleague who had large breasts, when they would refer to her breasts as the "girls". These
supervisors would say "Here come the girls". All of these sexual statements were unwelcome.
Plaintiff Diorio had to put up with this environment to do her job as the same sense of demeaning
women came from the top, which caused her considerable stress and humiliation.
170. Throughout the relevant period, every Monday and Thursday it was customary
for the managers to order dinner during the 2pm to 9pm calling sessions. On numerous occasions,
Plaintiff Diorio observed that Defendant Zuccato would make the suggestion of ordering hot dogs
so they could "watch the girls eat hot dogs." The other managers would goad him on. Zuccato
seemed to be the ringleader and other senior managers joined in after he got the ball rolling.
171. Throughout the relevant period, during the Monday and Thursday 2pm to 9pm
calling sessions, Plaintiff Diorio observed Defendant Zuccato, JR Attalah, Dory Freud and
Defendant Lobello throwing a football around the Impact Center. They would deliberately throw
the ball at or towards a woman's face which was followed by the comment "my balls hit her chin"
or " it's not the first time you had balls on your face".
172. In the relevant period, also during the Monday and Thursday 2pm to 9pm calling
sessions, in the Impact Center, Plaintiff Diorio heard Defendant Lobello refer to a female agent as
his "bitch." She observed the female agent was making calls to set appointments. She was getting
up to put a hash mark on the white board on a particular day to indicate that she had booked the
required 8 appointments for that day. When she yelled out that she had her eighth appointment,
25
Lobello yelled out "That's my bitch!" Plaintiff Diorio was seated on the right of the conference
center and Lobello was on the left but she could hear Lobello loud and clear. There were at least
50 people present who heard him make this remark.
173. During the period in 2020 through 2021 when due to COVID agency meetings
were held via Zoom, Eric Giglione would call out names as people joined the Zoom call. On one
occasion, Defendant Giglione called out a woman by her full name followed by "and she brought
her girls with her," referring to her breasts. All eyes went to this woman and created a very
uncomfortable situation. Additionally, Defendant Giglione's comment made future Zoom calls
stressful to the point of Plaintiff Diorio being concerned about what she was wearing and fearful
that she too could be called out, embarrassed, sexualized and humiliated in front of a large group
of her coworkers.
174. Throughout the relevant period , during Zoom calling to clients Plaintiff Diorio
constantly heard male managers talking about who they "banged", who they wanted to "bang",
who cheated on their wife, which woman had the best "ass" and, in a more degrading fashion, who
they wouldn't bang even with "a bag over her head". Most of these conversations were led by
Defendant Zuccato with other men chiming in. Because exiting the Zoom was frowned upon,
Plaintiff Diorio chose to mute her computer in an attempt to not hear their degrading and vulgar
conversations. These men repeatedly made Plaintiff Diorio and her female coworkers
uncomfortable by objectifying women and describing in graphic detail their sexual desires.
175. Throughout the relevant period, including up to her constructive discharge,
Plaintiff Diorio observed when women came in with a shorter skirt Defendant Zuccato would
stare and openly ogle them. It seemed he was undressing them with his eyes..
176. Throughout the relevant period, including up to her constructive discharge,
26
Plaintiff Diorio observed Defendant Zuccato would come up behind female agents and start
massaging their shoulders without asking them and did not announce himself. Women looked
startled and surprised.
177. At all times relevant this atmosphere was pervasive, harassing, offensive and
oppressive to Plaintiff Diorio.
178. Plaintiff Diorio was told by more than one manager: if you want any chance to
succeed, stay on Defendant Ackerman's good side as he controls the leads. She feared retaliation
in the workplace for voicing her concerns regarding the open and notorious misogyny.
179. Plaintiff Diorio suffered significant emotional distress from Defendants’ sexual
harassment.
180. Due to the objectively intolerable and hostile atmosphere, Plaintiff Diorio was
Plaintiff Belokrylets
181. Plaintiff Belokrylets was at all times subjected to a sexually hostile work
environment as detailed above. In addition to the general allegations, she experienced harassment
182. In the relevant period until her last day, Plaintiff Belokrylets was subjected to
sexual remarks and advances by her supervisor Morgan Lobello.
183. At all times relevant until her last day, Defendant Lobello referred to Plaintiff
Belokrylets as a "Russian Doll" who was down the hall from his office.
184. Throughout the relevant period until her last day, working from the hours of 2pm-
9pm, agents would make calls to set up dates and times when they would go to someone's residence
27
and present the possibilities of life insurance to them. On one of these call sessions during the
relevant period, George O'Shea and Defendant Lobello approached Plaintiff Belokyrlets and
O'Shea said that she resembled a Russian Doll. Defendant, Lobello took it a step further by calling
Plaintiff Belokyrlets a Russian Mail Order Bride.
185. On one occasion, Defendant Lobello sent Plaintiff Belokyrlets $400.00. When
she tried to send him the money back, he refused stating that Plaintiff Belokyrlets "will find a way
to repay" him.
186. At various times Defendant Lobello would refer to Plaintiff Belokyrlets as a "bad
girl" in a salacious manner.
187. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant Lobello would sit on Plaintiff
Belokrylets' desk where other of his direct reports could observe him and discuss his dating and
sex life, the kind of women he liked, whether he was a "breast or butt kind of person," and solicit
advice from his direct reports about another employee whom he was dating.
188. Repeatedly Defendant Lobello asked Plaintiff Belokrylets to go out with him,
and would not take no for an answer. Defendant Lobello made an unwanted sexual advance on
Plaintiff Belokrylets. In seeking to deflect this unwanted sexual attention, she informed him that
she knew he was involved with someone at the time--another employee. Defendant Lobello
responded that he would gladly leave the woman he was seeing for a "night out" with Plaintiff
Belokyrlets. Again, she felt like she was cheap and degraded by the unwanted advance. When she
asked him what that meant, he winked at her and walked away.
189. Defendant Lobello constantly sent Plaintiff Belokrylets direct messages through
Instagram. After she left she deleted all his messages and has decided not to engage in any social
media.
28
190. During Plaintiff Belokyrlets' training period, she and her team manager George
O'Shea would have to travel together on the road and go to numerous houses in a day in order to
sell an AIL Policy. Most times, Mr. O'Shea made this part of the training feel very uncomfortable.
Mr. O'Shea was always either too close when sitting next to her at the other side of the table during
a presentation to a family, or when they were in the car, he would rest his arm on the middle
console but would make it a point to rub his elbow on her left arm in a sexual manner.
191. One day during the relevant period, a female coworker complimented Plaintiff
Belokyrlets' shoes and the dress that she had on, when Defendant Zuccato was passing by and
heard their conversation, and stated "Long legs make them easier to wrap around." Plaintiff
Belokyrlets immediately stood up out of her chair and told Defendant Zuccato that his comment
was inappropriate. He then replied "I'm not for the weak hearted," and brushed off her concern.
192. At all times these sexual comments and advances were unwanted.
193. Plaintiff Belokyrlets' experience of the atmosphere at work caused her
considerable stress and humiliation as she felt she had no way to stop it due to the continuous
pervasive sexually harassing and sexually hostile work environment she experienced.
194. As a result of Defendants’ sexual harassment, Plaintiff Belokyrlets has suffered
significant emotional distress.
Plaintiff Kelmendi
195. Plaintiff Kelmendi was at all times subjected to a sexually hostile work
environment as detailed above. In addition to the general allegation, she experienced harassment
196. Plaintiff Kelmendi was present on one occasion in or about November 2019 when
29
Defendant Lobello was speaking to the female agents about how a female Asian agent would post
ads on craigslist to recruit and that she would sleep with her clients in order to sell them policies.
Morgan Lobello said, "This is one way to make it, ladies!" not only implying that this agent was
prostituting herself for sales, but also describing this type of prostitution as a potential option to
the female agents he was speaking to. George O'Shea was also present and said "Asians like to
fuck like rabbits."
197. Plaintiff Kelmendi understood Mr. O'Shea was having an affair with another
female agent who received preferential leads because of her sexual relationship with him. In or
about September or October of 2019 Plaintiff Kelmendi asked supervisor George O'Shea `"Do
you have to date a manager here or have a baby with one to make it?", to which O'Shea replied
"Yes."
198. Plaintiff Kelmendi's Regional General Agent Defendant Lobello, would often
stand close to her while she was sitting and shove his private parts in the area of her face. This
was a completely unwanted and inappropriate sexual advance. She felt so uncomfortable due to
Mr. Lobello's behavior that she brought this matter to General Agent Corey Hallam’s attention in
August of 2019. Mr. Hallam did nothing in response.
199. First interviews for new agents were held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
After new candidates applying to become agents completed their interviews, Plaintiff Kelmendi
repeatedly heard Defendant Lobello and other managers refer to the female candidates by their
appearance, discussing their "tits", "ass" and other aspects of their body or appearance. She heard
male managers openly discuss how they would try to sleep with the candidates. This sexualization
and objectification of the female candidates made Plaintiff Kelmendi uncomfortable, and
demonstrated the prominence of a sexually hostile work environment.
30
200. Plaintiff Kelmendi saw Gina Alaimo, a female agent, often being physically
touched by her supervisor/manager Defendant Zuccato in sexual ways. She recalls one instance
where she observed Defendant Zuccato touch Ms. Alaimo's buttocks. Ms. Alaimo texted Plaintiff
Kelmendi saying she was being mentally abused by managers at Giglione and Ackerman and they
"tried to use me as a sexy target" to make sales.
201. On a weekly basis, while making calls on Tuesdays and Thursdays at the Impact
Center, Plaintiff Kelmendi heard Defendant Zuccato talk about "fucking", porn and "pussy" to
Defendant Lobello during the work day, in between calls. Further, she was present when
Defendant Zuccato stated to Plaintiff Gnadinger, "I'd like to put something in your mouth." She
also repeatedly heard Defendant Zuccato referring to Atiya Bell's breasts, including discussing her
"big tits" while in front of many other agents..
202. On Monday meetings everyone would dress up and Defendant Zuccato would
often sit in the VIP section. As female agents walked by, Plaintiff Kelmendi heard him say out
loud "She's hot!" and "I would bang the shit out of her" on a weekly basis, commenting on the
bodies of female agents and his desire to have sex with them.
203. The company preyed on single mothers and desperate women. At the Impact
Center around the summer of 2020 Supervisor Dory Freud and Dan Arif told Plaintiff Kelmendi
that single mothers were their favorite clients. They were having a conversation among themselves
about how single mothers were the best target for clients and agents. Mr. Arif asked Mr. Freud
"Doesn't Melissa [your wife] care?" It was clear that they were referring to Mr. Freud’s infidelity
and affairs with single mothers. Mr. Freud replied, "My wife doesn't care as long as the bills are
paid."
204. Male managers would drive to customers’ residences in cars with female agents.
31
Plaintiff Kelmendi believes what happened to her with Corey Hallem who was involuntarily
touching her thigh happened to other female agents.
205. Upon information and belief, many other male managers involuntarily touched
female agents’ thighs and/or other body parts in similar circumstances. This touching was so
pervasive that upper management including the individual Defendants knew or should have known
of it.
206. In December of 2020 Supervisor Dory Freud nonconsensually touched Plaintiff
Kelmendi's leg while she was training the father of his friend, Billy.
207. In January or February of 2020 AIL President David Zophin, came to the Edison
office and approached Plaintiff Kelmendi sexually, nonconsensually holding her hand in a
provocative manner.
208. Plaintiff Kelmendi was asked during Zoom meetings by various male managers
whether she would cheat on her husband.
209. During Zoom meetings Defendant Giglione frequently commented on female
agents' physical appearance.
210. Respondent Giglione contacted Plaintiff Kelmendi late one rainy night in
November or December of 2019 as she was driving home from the field in Trenton. He said he
called to ask if she made a sale that night, and then proceeded to comment on Plaintiff Kelmendi's
physical appearance, stating that she dressed well. He said that she is beautiful and must take care
of herself. Although he complimented Plaintiff Kelmendi on her work ethic and capacity as an
employee, he then told her if she was in a room full of millionaire men, she would attract them.
He said that attracting them was key to her success in business. These comments regarding
Plaintiff Kelmendi's appearance by her boss were entirely unwanted and demeaned her
32
achievements as a worker, reducing Plaintiff Kelmendi to nothing more than her body. The next
day at 9:30am in a conference room with Defendant Giglione, Defendant Ackerman, Dory Freud
and other managers, Plaintiff Kelmendi thanked Defendant Giglione for calling her and corrected
him, stating she would rather be one of the millionaires than merely a "beautiful woman."
211. Male managers' offices had couches, and Richie Zuccato's office had a bed,
sending a message of sexual menace to female employees. No female manager had beds or
couches in their offices.
212. Plaintiff Kelmendi was not promoted even though she was a top producer.
213. In late 2020 Plaintiff Kelmendi informed State General Agent David Ackerman
that she did not want to transfer so as to be under Defendant Lobello again because of lewd
comments he had made. Ackerman appeared disturbed by the report that Defendant Lobello had
said "you have to rock out with your cock out," but, upon information and belief, Defendant
Lobello was not disciplined, nor was sexual harassment training offered by Defendants at any
time.
214. Shortly after reporting, in December 2020, Plaintiff Kelmendi was again sexually
harassed despite having reported to Defendant Ackerman just two months earlier. Corey Halley
asked: “Let's be serious, who do you want to sleep with most on the team? He then said he thought
she has a “thing” for Arif." Plaintiff Kelmendi replied "I didn't come here to sleep with anyone. I
came here to make money."
215. On one occasion in January 2021, Defendant David Ackerman pulled Plaintiff
Kelmendi into his office and commented on her appearance in a sexualized manner stating she
looked “like a million bucks.” Defendant Ackerman continued to make comments about her
appearance, saying “You look like an angel.” Plaintiff was embarrassed by the attention to her
33
appearance and did not want to cross Defendant Ackerman as he controlled leads.
216. On another occasion in February 2021, RGA Dory Freud asked Plaintiff
Kelmendi about her sex life and whether she cheated on husband. She was also asked this question
by manager JR Attalah on one occasion.
217. At all times these sexual comments and advances were unwanted.
218. Plaintiff Kelmendi suffered significant emotional distress from Defendants’
sexual harassment.
219. Due to the objectively intolerable and hostile atmosphere, Plaintiff Kelmendi was
220. After her termination, Plaintiff Kelmendi complained to Defendants that the
gender based hostile work environment had left her no choice but to leave her employment with
Defendants.
221. Despite Plaintiff Kelmendi’s complaint, no investigation was initiated and
corrective action was taken.
Defendants’ Actions Harmed Plaintiffs
222. By and through this creation of a discriminatory, hostile and harassing work
environment by individual Defendants and manager agents of Defendants, Defendants have
violated the NJLAD.
223. At all times relevant Defendants Giglione, Lobello, Zuccato, Corey Hallem and
other managers and or principals, acted as agents of Defendants.
224. At all times relevant, the unlawful acts described herein were taken against
Plaintiffs in full view of Defendants' staff members and managers and the corporate Defendants
34
were on notice of the harassment.
225. At all times relevant Defendants Giglione, Lobello, Zuccato, Corey Hallem and
other managers and or principals, exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility over
Plaintiffs directly or indirectly.
226. At all times relevant based on the open and notorious nature of the sexually
harassing conduct of Defendants Giglione, Lobello, Zuccato, Corey Hallem and managers,
towards Plaintiffs, Defendants should have known of Defendants Giglione, Lobello, Zuccato,
Corey Hallem and others managers’ discriminatory conduct and failed to exercise reasonable
diligence to prevent such discriminatory conduct.
227. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' harassing and discriminatory and
treatment of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, pain, mental anguish, loss
of enjoyment of life and damage to her reputation and career.
Defendants Aided and Abetted Discrimination And Harassment
228. At all times relevant the individual Defendants either actively participated in or
aided and abetted discrimination and harassment including by failing to take corrective action.
229. At all times relevant, Defendants condoned the actions of Defendants Giglione,
Lobello, Zuccato, Corey Hallem and other managers, or at very least acted with a conscious
disregard for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace.
230. The Corporate Defendants’ culture of condonation, and actual open and
notorious participation in sexual assault by a principal, Defendant Giglione, establishes actual
knowledge as well as deliberate indifference to claims of sexual harassment and battery and to the
safety of female employees including Plaintiffs.
35
231. Further indicative of the willfulness on the part of the Company is the fact that
no anti-sexual harassment training was provided to employees whatsoever, despite the fact that in
person training was required by the NJLAD.
232. Thus, at no time did Defendants establish and comply with policies, programs
and procedures for the prevention and detection of unlawful discriminatory practices by
employees and supervisors.
233. In fact, supervisors acted in violation of the applicable policies and sought to chill
Plaintiffs' rights.
234. Defendants lacked a meaningful and responsive procedure for investigating
complaints of discriminatory practices and for taking appropriate action against those persons who
are found to have engaged in such practices rendering reporting futile;
235. For example, Plaintiff Kelmendi was able to make a complaint to AIL regarding
harassment in the workplace at the end of her tenure and on information and belief no corrective
action in terms of correction of the harassers was done by AIL.
236. Another female employee however was denied the opportunity to make
complaints regarding gender discrimination directly to AIL and directed to call Giglione &
Ackerman "human resources" instead, rendering complaints to AIL HR futile, as no such
department exists and complaints to Giglione-Ackerman would involve reporting to known
harassers.
237. Another female employee was able to make a complaint to Giglione-Ackerman
regarding a gender based hostile work environment but no corrective action was taken against the
harasser.
36
238. Plaintiff Kelmendi provided the names of various harassers to her supervisor Eric
Giglione and no corrective action was taken against any if the harassers.
239. Yet another female employee, a leading producer, provided evidence of
harassing conduct by Morgan Lobello to her supervisor Eric Giglione and no corrective action
was taken against the harasser.
240. Any Defendants' failure to inform themselves about complaints made pursuant
to their own policy which deliberately insulates them from and dissuades the reporting of
complaints is failure to take reasonable care to prevent discrimination.
241. Further, Defendants lacked a firm policy against such practices which is
effectively communicated to employees and supervisors;
242. Defendants lacked a program to educate employees and supervisors about
unlawful discriminatory practices under state, and federal law.
243. Defendants lacked procedures for the supervision of employees and supervisors
and for the oversight of employees.
244. That is, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct any
harassing behavior.
Plaintiffs Have Suffered Emotional Distress as a Result of Defendants' Actions
245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' harassing and discriminatory
treatment, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, pain, mental anguish, and loss of
enjoyment of life.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
37
(Sexual Harassment and Gender-Based Hostile Work Environment--Under the NJLAD)
Against All Defendants
246. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the preceding
paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
247. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of gender in
violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by subjecting Plaintiffs to sexual
harassment and a hostile work environment because of their gender.
248. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful discriminatory conduct
in violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, monetary and/or
economic harm for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
in violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, severe mental anguish
and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment,
stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, as well as emotional pain and suffering,
for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Gender Discrimination Under the NJLAD) Against All Defendants by Plaintiffs

Little, Ramsey, Gnadinger, Diorio and Kelmendi
250. Plaintiffs Little, Ramsey, Gnadinger, Diorio and Kelmendi hereby repeat and
reallege each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
251. Defendants, including individual Defendants Giglione and Ackerman, have
discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of gender in violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination by failing to promote Plaintiffs, denying them equal employment opportunities
38
and causing all Plaintiffs to leave their employment, and thus constructively discharging them as
a result of the gender and Defendants' hostility towards women.
in violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, monetary and/or
economic harm for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
in violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, severe mental anguish
and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment,
stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, as well as emotional pain and suffering,
for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Aiding and Abetting Gender Discrimination Under the NJLAD) Against All Defendants
254. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding
paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
255. Defendants, including individual Defendants Giglione and Ackerman, have
discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of gender in violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination by aiding and abetting their own harassment and/or the harassment of other
managers.
256. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful discriminatory conduct in
violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, monetary and/or economic
harm for which they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
257. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful discriminatory conduct in
violation of the NJLAD, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, severe mental anguish and
39
emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and
anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, as well as emotional pain and suffering, for which
they are entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as follows:
a. An order declaring that the actions of Defendants alleged in this complaint violate the
NJLAD;
b. An award of compensatory damages in an amount that would fully compensate
Plaintiffs, plus prejudgment interest, for the economic loss, mental anguish, emotional
pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, feelings of paranoia
and distrust, depression, low self-esteem, sleep deprivation, loss of enjoyment of life and
interference with life’s daily activities as well as continued stress and anxiety caused by
Defendants’ violations of the law alleged in this complaint, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
c. An award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs in an amount that would punish Defendants
for the willful, wanton, reckless misconduct alleged in this Complaint that would
effectively deter Defendants from future discrimination and other unlawful behavior, in
an amount to be determined at trial.
d. An order directing that Defendants reinstate Plaintiffs to the positions from which they
were constructively discharged
e. An award of backpay and front pay to all Plaintiffs
40
f. An award of all penalties available under the applicable laws;
g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the fees and costs of experts, and the costs of
this action; and
h. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. R. 4:35-1, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on claims so triable.
Date: January 19, 2024 /s/David Tykulsker

DAVID TYKULSKER, Esq.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. R. 4:5-1(c), David Tykulsker, Esq. is hereby designated as trial
counsel for Plaintiffs.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO N.J. Ct. R. R. 4:5-1(b)(2)
I hereby certify, pursuant to. R. 4:5-1, that the matter of Bell v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Docket No. MID-L-004928-22, may arguably relate to the instant
matter. However, Bell was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
the matter has been tentatively settled. In addition the matters of Lafontant v. American Income
Life Ins. Co. et al. and Bell v. American Income Life Ins. Co. et al filed today in this Court may be
considered related. Apart from the foregoing, the undersigned certifies that the matter in
41
controversy herein is the subject of no other pending or contemplated legal proceeding or
arbitration.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO N.J. Ct. R. R. 4:5-1(b)(3)
I hereby certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents
now submitted to the court and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in
accordance with N.J. Ct. R. R. 1:38-7(b).

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
161 Walnut Street
Montclair, New Jersey 07042
(973) 509-9292
(973) 509-1181 (fax)
david@dtesq.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
______________________
Ria Julien*
JULIEN MIRER SINGLA &
GOLDSTEIN, PLLC
rjulien@workingpeopleslaw.com
1 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 231-2235
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Pro hac vice application to be filed
42

Little v. AIL - Case No MID-L-000417-24 - Jan 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Little v. AIL - Case No MID-L-000417-24 - Jan 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

MID-L-000417-24 01/19/2024 6:05:51 PM Pg 1 of 42 Trans ID: LCV2024173528

DAVID TYKULSKER, Esq. (Attorney Id. # 031111982)

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs AMEENAH LITTLE, DEA SHINIQUE RAMSEY, RACHEL GNADINGER,

DARINA BELOKRYLETS and CAROL DIORIO, and PRANVERA KELMENDI, on behalf

of themselves, allege as follows:

Lobello and Richard Zuccato.

2. Plaintiffs allege Defendants and their agents subjected Plaintiffs to an egregious

hostile work environment based on their gender.

3. Defendants tolerated and perpetuated an atmosphere pervaded by sexual

4. Defendants encouraged a sexualized “party” atmosphere at company events held

others to let loose.

5. This primarily consisted of objectifying female employees and granting male

employees and managers license to sexually harass their female reports.

company event in Edison, New Jersey.

7. At these company events Defendant Giglione directed women to “get on stage

and dance! Ladies get on up here and dance.”

8. Women were also subjected to gender-based stereotypes by being directed to

womanly charms” and “show your legs.”

9. Further various Plaintiffs were subject to sexual propositions and sexual

11. By these acts, Defendants perpetuated an atmosphere where Plaintiffs were

subjected to hostile, discriminatory treatment based on their gender.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

business in the state of New Jersey.

15. Plaintiff Ameenah Little is an adult resident of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

to on or about February 2, 2022, as an agent.

23. Plaintiff Rachel Gnadinger is an adult resident of Metuchen, New Jersey.

24. Plaintiff Gnadinger was employed by Defendants from in or about November

2019 to in or about January 2021 as an agent.

27. Plaintiff Darina Belokrylets is an adult resident of Sussex, New Jersey.

to on or about late 2020 as an agent.

or about September 2021 as an agent.

in or about September 2021 as an agent and a supervising agent.

39. Defendant American Income Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “AIL”) is an

supplemental health insurance, including in the state of New Jersey.

the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment.

42. Plaintiffs signed an Agent contract with AIL.

43. Plaintiffs were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“hereinafter

Local 277 governing all AIL employees.

44. Plaintiffs were paid by AIL checks.

45. Plaintiffs received training through AIL.

(“SGA”) meetings on Zoom.

highlights the achievements of AIL’s agents, regardless of SGA affiliation.

50. Giglione-Ackerman Agency, LLC (hereinafter “Giglione-Ackerman”) is a New

State General Agent of AIL.

51. Giglione-Ackerman is headquartered at 450 Raritan Center Parkway, Ste. A,

and procedures all with the approval of AIL.

53. Eric Giglione (hereinafter “Defendant Giglione”) is a co-owner and manager of

Giglione-Ackerman and the New Jersey State Director of AIL.

54. David Ackerman (hereinafter “Defendant Ackerman”) is a co-owner and

manager of Giglione-Ackerman and a New Jersey State Director of AIL.

Rumson, New Jersey.

participated in the harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

when he could have done so.

61. Morgan Lobello (hereinafter “Defendant Lobello”) is a Regional General Agent

(“RGA”) for AIL based out of the Giglione-Ackerman Agency.

participated in the harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

64. Richard Zuccato (hereinafter “Defendant Zuccato”) is a Managing General

Agent (“MGA”) for AIL based out of the Giglione-Ackerman Agency.

and participated in the harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

accident, and supplemental health insurance policies.

Edison, New Jersey headquarters.

Agreement") and become licensed to sell insurance in New Jersey.

70. Plaintiffs are all licensed to sell insurance in New Jersey.

AIL and the State General Agent Defendant Giglione-Ackerman.

of hiring, training, compensation, firing, policies, disciplines and enforcement of performance