STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT
CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Olga Bedrytska-Meier ("Plaintiff"), by and through her counsel of record, Jared B. Jennings, Esq. and Adam R. Fulton, Esq., of the law firm of Jennings & Fulton, LTD., and Defendant Hearts on Fire Company, LLC. ("Defendant"), by and through its counsel of record, Lisa A. McClane, Esq. and Dione C. Wrenn, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., hereby stipulate and agree to allow Plaintiff's counsel to file the First Amended Complaint correcting the typographical errors of Plaintiff's name from OLGA BEDRYTSHA-MEIER to OLGA BEDRYTSKA-MEIER pursuant to FRCP 15.
Whereas, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall have leave to correct typographical errors in the Complaint and file the First Amended Complaint.
2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shall only change the typographical errors of Plaintiff's name from OLGA BEDRYTSHA-MEIER to OLGA BEDRYTSKA-MEIER.
3. The Parties further agree that Defendant will not have to serve a new Answer because the First Amended Complaint does not assert any new allegations or claims against Defendant.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that upon Stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing, Plaintiff shall have leave to correct typographical errors in the Complaint and file the First Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shall only change the typographical errors of Plaintiff's name from OLGA BEDRYTSHA-MEIER to OLGA BEDRYTSKA-MEIER.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant will not have to serve a new Answer because the First Amended Complaint does not assert any new allegations or claims against Defendant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file the First Amended Complaint on or before April 10, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Olga Bedrytska-Meier ("Plaintiff"), by and through her counsel of record, Jared B. Jennings, Esq. and Adam R. Fulton, Esq., of the law firm of Jennings & Fulton, LTD., hereby alleges and complains a cause for action against Defendant Hearts on Fire Company, LLC. ("Defendant"), a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company, DOES I through X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, collectively, the "Defendants" as follows:
PARTIES
1) Plaintiff, Olga Bedrytska-Meier is an individual who is and was at all relevant times a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
2) Defendant, Hearts on Fire Company, LLC., ("Defendant"), is a Massachusetts limited liability company, and at all relevant times hereto is and was duly authorized to transact business in Clark County, Nevada.
3) At all times mentioned herein, Defendant hired Plaintiff and is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
4) Plaintiff does not know the true names of the individuals, corporations, partnerships and entities sued and identified in fictitious names as DOES I through X and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X. Plaintiff alleges that such Defendants assisted or participated in activities that resulted in damages suffered by Plaintiff as more fully discussed under the claims for relief set forth below. Plaintiff requests leave of this Honorable Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of each such fictitious Defendant when Plaintiff discovers such information.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this case arises under federal and state law, specifically for violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and Nevada's Unlawful Employment Practices statute, Nevada Revised Statutes 613.330.
6) Venue is proper because both Plaintiff and Defendants reside and/or do business in the District of Nevada. Venue is also proper in this Court because the acts and transactions that give rise to this action occurred in the District of Nevada.
ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES
7) More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue, giving plaintiff ninety (90) days from receipt of such notice to file her Complaint related to her Title VII claims and disability discrimination claims. A true and correct of Plaintiff's Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto as "Exhibit 1". Plaintiff received the EEOC Right to Sue letter February 20, 2018.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8) On or about July of 2015, Plaintiff applied for a "Sales Specialist" position with Hearts on Fire Company, LLC., located in the Forum Shops at Caesars Palace.
9) At all relevant times stated herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the Sales Specialist position.
10) On or about July 30, 2015, Defendants Store Manager, Leslie Hanley, hereinafter ("Hanley"), e-mailed Plaintiff to see if she was interested in the Sales Specialist position and that she saw Plaintiff's resume online.
11) On or about July, 30, 2015, Plaintiff informed Hanley that she was interested in the position.
12) On or about August 6, 2015, Hanley contacted Plaintiff, and explained that a test was required to see if Plaintiff qualified for the position before a formal interview took place.
13) On or about August 7, 2015, Plaintiff submitted the required test.
14) On or about August 12, 2015, Hanley contacted Plaintiff, stating Plaintiff was qualified for the position, and scheduled a formal interview at Defendants store location on August 15, 2015.
15) During the interview on August 15, 2015, Plaintiff explained that the earliest she would be able to start working would be the end of October of 2015 due to a preplanned trip to Ukraine, and Hanley said that would not be a problem.
16) During the August 15, 2015 interview, Hanley stated that Plaintiff was very qualified, and that Plaintiff would now need to complete a telephone interview with the Corporate Manager, Libby Wallace.
17) On or about August 21, 2015, after completing the telephone interview with Libby Wallace, Hanley contacted Plaintiff stating that she passed her phone interview and was hired, and could begin working when she returned from Ukraine.
18) On or about August 28, 2015, Hanley e-mailed Plaintiff stating, "I want to chat next week just to catch up. I want to meet up again after you return from your vacation at the end of October."
19) On or about September 21, 2015, Plaintiff e-mailed Hanley stating, "Hi Leslie, I just wanted to check in with you before my trip to Ukraine. Thank you again for the opportunity to interview with your company. I just want you to know that I am very interested in the position. I will be returning on October 20th, I hope to hear from you soon."
20) On or about September 21, 2015, Hanley replied stating, "Wow great minds think alike. I was going to email you this afternoon. I will get in touch with you when you return. Have a wonderful trip!!!"
21) On or about October 21, 2017, Plaintiff e-mailed Hanley immediately after she returned from Ukraine to begin working.
22) On or about October 21, 2017, Hanley replied stating, "Hi I hope you had a wonderful trip. I will keep you posted."
23) On or about November 24, 2015, Hanley e-mailed Plaintiff to wish her a Happy Thanksgiving, and to inform her that she would be out of the office until December 20, 2015, which was the last correspondence between Plaintiff and Hanley.
24) On or about January 5, 2016, Hanley asked Carol Spelman, (hereinafter "Spelman"), an employee of Defendant, who was also an acquaintance of Plaintiff, how Plaintiff was doing, and to let Spelman know that Plaintiff had been told she was hired and was going to start working soon.
25) After the January 5, 2016 conversation, Spelman informed Hanley that Plaintiff had become pregnant in November, and Hanley responded by saying, "she could not, and would not hire her now," and that "corporate would not like it if she (Hanley), hired a person that would need to take maternity leave immediately after being hired."
26) On or about February of 2016, Defendants Human Resources Department conducted an investigation regarding discrimination and hostile work environment into the branch that Plaintiff had applied, and where Spelman and Hanley currently worked.
27) During this investigation, Spelman informed the investigators of Hanley's statements refusing to hire Plaintiff due to her pregnancy.
28) On or about August 31, 2016, Spelman contacted Plaintiff, and informed her about the conversation she had with Hanley, and the subsequent Human Resources Investigation.
29) Upon being informed of Hanley's statements about her pregnancy and hiring, and the subsequent Human Resources investigation, Plaintiff filed her Claim with the EEOC on or about September 12, 2016.
30) Although Defendant had notice of the employment discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and/or promptly correct the discriminatory behavior.
31) As a result, the effect of the practices complained of above deprived Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her employment status because of her sex and pregnancy.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Discrimination — Sex/Pregnancy
In Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
32) Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
33) At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was informed she was hired prior to her pregnancy, and Defendant refused to permit Plaintiff to work after discovering her pregnancy.
34) At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was qualified to perform her job duties for Defendant until she would go on maternity leave.
35) Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions because of her pregnancy, including, but not limited to, refusing to allow Plaintiff to work after informing her she was hired and Hanley stating, "she could not, and would not hire her now," and that "corporate would not like it if she (Hanley), hired a person that would need to take maternity leave immediately after being hired." Further, Defendant refused to fulfill its promise that Plaintiff had been hired and refused complete the hiring process of Plaintiff by failing to schedule her and provide her the job she had been promised.
36) As a direct and proximate result of these unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of salary, wages, earnings and benefits, diminution of future earning capacity, loss of accumulated benefits, mental anguish and other compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
37) Defendants conduct was malicious and/or oppressive conduct and undertaken with the intent to defraud and oppress Plaintiff, thus warranting the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to NRS § 42.005 deterring such conduct in the future.
38) Plaintiff has been forced to hire an attorney to prosecute this action and therefore seeks recovery of attorneys' fees and court costs.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Discrimination — Sex/Pregnancy
Violation of N.R.S. 613.330
39) Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
40) At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant, and Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to begin work after becoming aware of her pregnancy.
41) At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was qualified to perform her job duties for Defendant until she would go on maternity leave.
42) Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions because of her pregnancy, including, but not limited to, refusing to allow Plaintiff to work after informing her she was hired and Hanley stating, "she could not, and would not hire her now," and that "corporate would not like it if she (Hanley), hired a person that would need to take maternity leave immediately after being hired."
43) Defendant is in violation of its duty to engage in lawful employment practices in Nevada, specifically sexual and pregnancy discrimination.
44) As a direct and proximate result of these unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of salary, wages, earnings and benefits, diminution of future earning capacity, loss of accumulated benefits, mental anguish and other compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
45) Defendants conduct was malicious and/or oppressive conduct and undertaken with the intent to defraud and oppress Plaintiff, thus warranting the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to NRS § 42.005 deterring such conduct in the future.
46) Plaintiff has been forced to hire an attorney to prosecute this action and therefore seeks recovery of attorneys' fees and court costs.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
47) Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys of record, Jared B. Jennings, Esq. and Adam R. Fulton, Esq., of the law firm of Jennings & Fulton, Ltd., hereby demands a jury trial of all of the issues in this matter.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court:
a. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Hearts on Fire Company, LLC., its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and pregnancy;
b. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for pregnant woman, and which eradicates the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
c. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff by providing appropriate pay with pre- and post-judgment interest, in an amount to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
d. Compensatory damages in an amount to be shown at trial for past and future economic and non-economic losses, including extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, impairment of the quality of life; and consequential losses,
e. Punitive damages for Defendants malicious and reckless conduct, in an amount to be determined at trial;
f. For entry of an order compelling Defendants to pay Plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees;
g. Pre and post-judgment interest on any awards at trial; and
h. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
