Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BABA v. WARREN MGMT. CONSULTANTS

April 13, 1995

SUSAN BABA, Plaintiff against WARREN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., N.Y. STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DEBORAH A. BATTS

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

 Susan Baba, proceeding pro se, brings this suit under Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., against plaintiff's former employer, Warren Management Consultants ("WMC"), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR").

 BACKGROUND

 Defendant WMC is a domestic corporation based in New York City. (Silverman Aff. P 3.) It engages in the search for, and recruitment of, executive candidates. (Silverman Aff. P 3.) Plaintiff Susan Baba -- a resident of New York City -- began working for WMC as a researcher in 1986. (Baba Aff. of 8/10/94, P 9.) Baba received fees for her services at a rate of $ 15 per hour. (Silverman Aff., Ex. 9 (EEOC Charge of Discrimination no. 160922075) [hereinafter EEOC Charge].) She received no other benefits from WMC and worked on a free-lance basis. (EEOC Charge.)

 On or about November 14, 1989 a dispute developed between WMC and Baba over the amount and quality of work that Baba was performing for WMC. (Baba Statement attached to Complaint P 4; Silverman Aff. P 5.) WMC stopped paying Baba for all work performed from that date forward, and on January 19, 1990, plaintiff stopped working for WMC due to the lack of payment. (EEOC Charge.) Baba claims that she tried to settle her claim for unpaid wages and expenses amicably by going to WMC's office on April 4, 1990. (Baba Statement attached to Complaint P 5.) Plaintiff alleges that rather than settling the matter, she was subjected to sexual harassment by WMC's president, Robert Warren. (Baba Statement attached to Complaint P 5; EEOC Charge.) Specifically, Baba claims that Warren tried to kiss her at the front door of his office. (Baba Statement attached to Complaint P 5; EEOC Charge.)

 On May 1, 1990, plaintiff commenced an action in New York City Civil Court to recover her unpaid wages and expenses. (Baba Statement attached to Complaint P 5; Silverman Aff. P 6.) Arbitration was suggested and accepted as an alternative to litigation by both parties. As a result of the arbitration, Baba was awarded $ 513.86. (Silverman Aff. P 7; Baba Aff. of 8/10/94, P 5.) Unhappy with this result, plaintiff filed a Demand for a Trial De Novo, (Silverman Aff. P 8), which commenced in New York City Civil Court on January 10, 1992, (Silverman Aff. P 10). Baba was again successful in her claim and was awarded $ 3,007.29 by Judge Paula J. O'Mansky. (Silverman Aff. P 10.)

 On February 5, 1992, a general release of all claims as against WMC was executed by the plaintiff. (Baba Aff. of 8/10/94, Ex. E.; Silverman Aff. P 11.) According to WMC, this release was the result of a negotiated settlement to the civil case whereby WMC would forego any appeals of the judgment in return for the general release of all claims by Baba. (Silverman Aff. P 11.) Plaintiff Baba disputes this characterization, (Baba Aff. of 8/10/94, P 10), but the release presented was executed by Baba on February 5, 1992. That same day a satisfaction of judgment was filed with the court. (Silverman Aff. P 11.)

 On May 6, 1992, plaintiff filed a complaint of sex discrimination with the EEOC against WMC. (Silverman Aff. P 14.) Baba claims that she was terminated from WMC as a result of her gender and national origin. (EEOC Charge.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c), the case was deferred to the DHR for initial determination. (Silverman Aff. P 14.) The DHR held that there was a lack of jurisdiction due to plaintiff's status as an independent contractor, as well as due to the untimely filing of the claim. (Silverman Aff., Ex. 10.) Plaintiff appealed the decision to the EEOC. By letter dated October 27, 1993, the EEOC upheld DHR's ruling without stating specific reasons. (Silverman Aff., Ex. 11.) Plaintiff then filed the instant complaint with this court.

 DISCUSSION

 I. The Action Against the EEOC and DHR

 Absent an employment relationship between the EEOC and plaintiff, Title VII does not provide, implicitly or explicitly, a cause of action against the EEOC. Ward v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 719 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1983); Peavey v. Polytechnic Inst. of New York, 7 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.