1. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
Alice Bennett, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action, 11 Civ. 9568
)
Rikards-Hayley, )
)
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Discrimination
1. Plaintiff, Alice Bennett, is a resident of New York, residing at 2367 Meadow Ln.
2. Defendant, Rikards-Hayley, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws
of New York, engaged in the business of investment banking, with its principal place of business
located at 121 Centre St., New York, New York.
3. The acts primarily took place within New York, New York, at Rikards-Hayley.
4. On December 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a verified complaint with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that defendant had committed an unlawful
employment practice against plaintiff in violation of Title 7 within the preceding four years.
5. On December 14, 2013 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued
plaintiff a right to sue letter informing plaintiff of the right to file suit against defendant within
180 days. On January 21, 2014, plaintiff informed the EEOC that plaintiff had determined to file
suit against defendant privately and requested that the accusation filed with EEOC be dismissed.
6. Plaintiff is a female of 39 years of age, born on September 15, 1974. Plaintiff began
working for defendant on January 5, 2009, she worked for defendant in numerous clerical
positions. On January 1, 2012, plaintiff was promoted by defendant to acting manager of the
department at Rickards-Hayley and served in that position until November 21, 2013. Plaintiff has
worked competently and loyally for defendant throughout her four years of employment.
7. As operating manager of the department, plaintiff was one of a group of supervising
managers. On August 20, 2013, defendant decided to permanently fill the position for
management.
8. To head the Training and Development Department, defendant promoted Martina
Yardley. By the time of Yardley’s promotion, plaintiff had worked for defendant for almost four

2. 2
years in Training and Development. By August 20, 2013, plaintiff was not only substantially
more experienced than Martina Yardley but was more competent as manager.
9. In spite of this overwhelming difference in suitability for the manager position, defendant
entirely overlooked and rejected plaintiff for manager. Martina Yardley was placed in the
manager position, at a pay level and benefit level substantially above plaintiffs.
10. Over the course of plaintiff’s four years working at Rikards-Hayley, plaintiff has received
only superior evaluations from her supervisors.
11. When plaintiff applied for the management position in Training and Development she
was told by her supervisor that she did not quite fit the image they were seeking. Plaintiff was
told she needed to lose weight as well as change her attitude toward male employees.
12. Instead of a promotion to manager of Training and Development, defendant offered
plaintiff a position as manager under Martina Yardley. At such time, defendant did offer plaintiff
a one percent pay increase to accompany the move, but stated that her salary would be “red-
circled,” or frozen at the new level subsequently.
13. While working under Martina Yardley, plaintiff and her work were constantly criticized.
Defendant made comments about her appearance, stating that she should lose weight and “fix
herself up.”
14. After plaintiff’s service and qualifications were persistently ignored in favor of less able
and qualified male employees, and after defendant informed plaintiff that she would not be
considered for positions she was amply qualified for in favor of less qualified men, plaintiff was
terminated on November 21, 2013.
15. The conduct of defendant, as set forth above, constitutes unlawful discrimination against
plaintiff on the basis of sex, in violation of Title 7.
16. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer substantial losses in earnings, job experience, retirement benefits, and other employee
benefits that she would have received absent defendant’s discrimination. Furthermore, plaintiff
has incurred additional costs and expenses due to defendant’s discrimination. Plaintiff does not
know at this time the exact amount of her damages, but is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that the amount of her loss will be $75,000 or more. Plaintiff requests leave of the court
to ament the complaint when these damages are more fully known.
17. As further proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, plaintiff has suffered
humiliation, mental pain and anguish, all to plaintiff’s damage of $2,500.
18. The above-mentioned acts of defendant were willful, wonton, malicious, and oppressive,
and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages of $162,500.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract
19. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 14 of the First Cause of Action,
and by such reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set forth here.
20. At all times relevant to this action, defendant has represented to employees various
writings, but not limited to, personnel policies and procedure manuals, retirement and profit-
sharing plan and employee guidelines, that their employment relationship with defendant would

3. 3
be based on good faith, that employees would be treated fairly and equitably, that employees
would be judged on the basis of individual merit and ability, and that employees would receive
just compensation for their services rendered to the defendant. These provisions and
representations form part of plaintiff’s express employment contract with defendant.
21. Prior to plaintiff’s discharge by defendant on November 21, 2013, plaintiff had
performed all conditions, covenants, promises, duties, and responsibilities required of her to be
performed in accordance and in conformity with her employment contract with defendant.
22. Plaintiff’s severance package presented after her termination consisted of six months’
salary. Male employees who hold positions equal to Plaintiff’s commonly consist of a years’
worth of salary.
23. On August 20, 2013, defendant breached plaintiff’s contract and wrongfully failed to
judge plaintiff on the basis of merit and ability, rendered plaintiff’s working environment
intolerable, and wrongfully and without cause terminated plaintiff.
24. As a result of defendant’s breach of contract as mentioned above, plaintiff has suffered
and will suffer damages in excess of the jurisdictional requirements of this court. Plaintiff
requests to amend this complaint on learning the extent of the damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
25. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 14 of the First Cause of Action
and Paragraphs 19 through 23 of the Second Cause of Action, and by such reference repleads
and incorporates them as though fully set forth here.
26. The above-described employment agreement has implied in law a covenant of good faith
and fair dealing by which defendant promised to give full cooperation to plaintiff in her
performance under the employment agreement and to refrain from any act that would prevent or
impede plaintiff from performing all of the conditions of the agreement.
27. Beginning on approximately July 10, 2013, and culminating with defendants discharge of
plaintiff on November 21, 2013 defendant breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing with regard to plaintiff by:
a. Discriminatorily refusing to judge plaintiff on the basis of her ability and merit;
b. Refusing and failing to make available to her equal opportunity for promotion and
advancement;
c. Failing and refusing to reconsider plaintiff’s merit and ability for promotion;
d. Failing to give any consideration to plaintiff’s long-term record of employment
service;
e. Violating company procedures regarding job interviews for openings, including
interviews of qualified candidates who have expressed a desire to be considered;
and
f. Failing to consider fairly plaintiff for manager position of Training and
Development despite plaintiff’s abundant qualifications and the impending
elimination of plaintiff’s present position by defendant, all with the object of
denying plaintiff the opportunity to continue in management, with the termination

4. 4
of her position, reducing salary costs, and avoiding its obligation to pay plaintiff
employment and retirement benefits.
28. As a proximate cause of defendant’s breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, retirement
benefits, and other employee benefits that she would have received had defendant not breached
the agreement. Plaintiff requests leave to amend this complaint on learning the extent of the
damages.
29. As a further proximate resulting of the above-mentions acts, plaintiff has suffered
humiliation, mental pain and anguish, all to plaintiff’s previously mentioned damage of $2,500.
30. The above-mentioned acts of defendant were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,
and justify the awarding of previously mentioned punitive and exemplary damages of $162,500
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Discharge
31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in Paragraphs
1 through 14 of the First Cause of Action and Paragraphs 19 through 23 of the Second Cause of
Action, and Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Third Cause of Action, and by such reference repleads
and incorporates them as though fully set forth here.
32. The above-described actions of defendant constitute a wrongful discharge entitling
plaintiff to general, compensatory, and punitive damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in Paragraphs
1 through 14 of the First Cause of Action and Paragraphs 19 through 22 of the Second Cause of
Action, and Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Third Cause of Action, and by such reference repleads
and incorporates them as though fully set forth here.
34. Defendant, in committing the above-described acts, intended to and did inflict severe
emotional distress upon plaintiff. Defendant acted with a reckless disregard of the probability of
causing emotional distress to plaintiff.
35. As a direct result of the outrageous acts and omissions, conduct, and discrimination,
plaintiff became physically distraught and sustained shock to her nervous system and sustained
severe emotional distress, all resulting in previously mentioned damages in excess of $2,500.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgement as follows:
On Second Cause of Action:
1. Actual damages against the plaintiff of $75,000, with interest thereon from the
date of judgment until paid.
On First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action:

5. 5
1. Actual damages to be determined at trial
2. General and compensatory of $2,500
3. And punitive damages of $162,500
On all Causes of Action
1. Costs of suit;
2. Reasonable attorney’s fees; and
3. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. Dated February
14, 2014
The Webster Law Firm
______________________________
Dana Burrows
Attorney At Law
(314) 443-7868
1862 Geyer Blvd
Saint Louis, MO 63121