Instead, alleging that David was her boss and he sexually harassed her to such an
extent she could not return to work even though she needed the money (complaint,
¶ 39), plaintiff brought the instant action for sexual harassment, constructive
discharge and infliction of emotional distress against the two Brooks brothers and their
respective companies.
Based on her two-week employment, plaintiff's nine-count complaint (defendants'
exhibit C) seeks: (i) a judicial declaration that defendants violated Executive Law §
296 and Admin Code § 8-107 because they "harassed, discriminated against,
constructively discharged, and retaliated against [p]laintiff of the basis of sex"; (ii) "past
and future" lost wages and benefits and "back pay and front pay"; (iii) "compensatory
damages for mental, emotional and physical injury, distress, pain and suffering and injury
to reputation [a claim not otherwise alleged in the complaint]"; (iv) punitive damages; (v)
three days of unpaid wages; and, (vi) "attorney's fees, costs, and [litigation] expenses."
"It is declared policy of the State to afford every individual within this State an
equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life and that the failure to provide such
equal opportunity ... because of discrimination ... not only threatens the rights and proper
privilege of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free
democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the
state and its inhabitants'" (City of Schenectady v State Division of Human Rights,
37 NY2d 421, 428 [1975], rearg den 38 NY2d 856 [1976], citations omitted). The abuse
of the anti-discrimination laws enacted in furtherance of this policy, by unscrupulous