The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEVIN FOX, Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this action, plaintiff Jenny Molina ("Molina") alleges violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII);
42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"); the New York Human Rights
Law ("NYHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law. § 296, and the New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code. § 8-107, against defendants
J. F. K. Tailor Corp. ("JFK") and Koo Kim ("Kim") (collectively "defendants").
Upon the defendants' failure to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, your Honor referred the matter to the undersigned to conduct
an inquest and to report and recommend the amount of damages, if any,
to be awarded to plaintiff against the defendants.
The Court directed plaintiff to file and serve proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law and an inquest memorandum setting forth her
proof of damages, costs of this action, and her attorney's fees. Each defendant was directed to file and serve
opposing memoranda, affidavits and exhibits, as well as any alternative
findings of fact and conclusions of law it or he deemed appropriate, and
to state whether a hearing was requested for the purpose of examining
Plaintiff served and filed an inquest memorandum, including proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff also submitted a
declaration in support of her claim for damages. The defendants did not
respond to the Court's order for submissions.
Plaintiff's submissions aver that she is entitled to back pay, front
pay, compensatory damages for emotional pain and mental anguish, punitive
damages, and costs and attorney's fees, in an amount to be determined by
For the reasons stated below, I recommend that plaintiff be awarded
back pay in the amount of $32,812.50, prejudgment interest on the back
pay award at the rate referred to in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), calculated
for the relevant time period and compounded annually, with the back pay
award being divided evenly over that time period, front pay in the amount
of $9,100, compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000, and punitive
damages in the amount of $20,000.
Based on submissions by the plaintiff, the Complaint filed in the
instant action the allegations of which, perforce of defendants'
default, must be accepted as true, except those relating to damages,
see Cotton v. Slone, 4 F.3d 176, 181 (2d Cir. 1993);
Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E. L. U. L. Realty Corp.,
973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992) and the Court's review of the entire
court file maintained in this action, the following findings of fact are
made: Molina is a Hispanic female, who resides at 53-03 Skillman Avenue, Apt.
1C, Woodside, New York. JFK is a garment manufacturing corporation,
formed and existing under the laws of the state of New York. It has its
principal place of business at 307 West 36th Street, 13th Floor, New
York, New York. At all relevant times, defendant Kim was a principal
shareholder of JFK, who managed its operations and had the authority to
hire and fire its employees, including the plaintiff. At all relevant
times, JFK was an employer for the purposes of Title VII, having more
than 15 employees.
Molina was hired as a seamstress in May 1995. During the period of her
employment at JFK, Molina performed her duties as a seamstress in a
satisfactory manner. Kim began to harass Molina sexually in 1997, at the
time he became the principal shareholder of JFK. The harassment consisted
initially of making comments of a sexual nature, touching Molina around
the private and intimate parts of her body while she was at her work
station on the sewing floor, and urging Molina to accompany Kim to his
office for the purpose of having sexual relations with him. In or around
September 1997, Molina submitted to Kim's demands. Molina avers that she
did so because Kim threatened to fire her if she refused. In 1998, Molina
was assigned to a different sewing machine at a table closer to Kirn's
office. That work station had become vacant after the termination of
another employee who complained about being sexually harassed by a
supervisor at JFK. After Molina was relocated to her new work station,
Kim's uninvited touching became a daily routine. Molina submitted to
Kim's sexual demands, including engaging in sexual intercourse and other
sexual contact, on a regular basis for almost three years.
In December 1999, Molina told Kim that she did not want to continue
having sexual relations with him and warned Kim that if his conduct did not
change, she would report him to a governmental agency. Kim responded by
telling Molina to look for another job.
On August 3, 2000, Kim informed the plaintiff that he had quarreled
with another manager at JFK and that this person had threatened to reveal
Kim's sexual relations with Molina to Kim's wife. On August 11, 2000,
Molina was summoned to Kim's office, where Kim and his wife were present.
Kim's wife asked Molina whether she had been having sexual relations with
Kim. Molina said no. Although Molina denied that she had engaged in
sexual relations with Kim, she was discharged from her employment the
On September 30, 2000, Molina filed a timely charge of discrimination
against Kim and JFK with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"). On February 12, 2001, the EEOC issued a "Dismissal and Notice
of Rights" letter ("right-to-sue letter") to Molina. The instant action
was commenced on May 11, 2001.
The plaintiff claims that, as a result of the defendants'
discriminatory conduct, she has suffered lost past and future wages, lost
benefits, damage to her reputation, embarrassment and mental anguish. The
plaintiff also claims that the defendants' conduct was intentional and
malicious and, therefore, that she ...