You are on page 1of 16

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________ x
:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
:
COMMISSION,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
______________________________________ x

CIVIL ACTION NO.


15-4141
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED

NATURE OF THE ACTION


This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion, and to
provide appropriate relief to Bilal Abdullah, Muhammad Farhan and a class of similarly
aggrieved applicants and employees of Defendant who have been adversely affected by such
practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 14-21 below, Defendant United
Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) has discriminated nationwide against applicants and employees
whose religion conflicts with the companys Uniform & Appearance Policy (appearance
policy), in violation of Title VII. This discrimination includes the unlawful failure to provide
religious accommodations to UPSs appearance policy, failure to hire, failure to promote, and the
segregation of those individuals whose religious beliefs conflict with the appearance policy into
a particular subset of positions.

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 451, 1331, 1337, 1343
and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (Title
VII) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in numerous
locations, including within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission), is the
agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and
enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1)
and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
has continuously been doing business in the State of New York and has continuously had at least
15 employees. Defendant operates throughout the United States.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Bilal Abdullah and
Muhammad Farhan filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by
Defendant. In addition, more than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, a charge was
2

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3

filed with the Commission by Stuart J. Ishimaru, a member thereof, alleging violations of Title
VII by Defendant UPS.
7. On June 27, 2012, the Commission issued to Defendant a Letter of Determination on
all three charges finding reasonable cause to believe that Title VII was violated, and inviting
Defendant to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor to
eliminate the discriminatory practices and provide appropriate relief.
8.

The Commission engaged in communications with Defendant to provide Defendant

the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of Determination.
9.

The Commission was unable to secure from Defendant a conciliation agreement

acceptable to the Commission, and on August 25, 2014 issued to Defendant a Notice of Failure
of Conciliation.
10.

All conditions precedent to the initiation of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

11.

Bilal Abdullah and Muhammad Farhan both observe the Muslim faith and, as part

of their religious observance, wear a beard .


12. Defendant is the nations largest package delivery company, operating in every state
in the country. It employs over 300,000 people nationwide, including drivers, driver helpers and
package handlers.
13.

Defendant maintains a Uniform & Appearance Policy that is applicable to all

employees in positions that require customer contact (including driver and driver helper) and to
all employees with supervisory responsibility. The appearance policy prohibits covered male
employees from wearing facial hair below the lip (e.g., beards) or from growing their hair below
collar length. The appearance policy does not apply to back of the facility positions which do
not involve customer contact.

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4

14.

Since at least 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its

facilities across the United States, in violation of Sections 701(j) and 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
2000e(j) and e(2). Specifically, Defendant has refused to accommodate qualified individuals
whose religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy where the requested
accommodation would not pose an undue hardship to Defendant.
15.

The unlawful practices alleged in paragraph 14 above include but are not limited to

the following:
a) Defendant has failed to inform applicants and employees of its policy
through which individuals may seek a religious accommodation to the appearance
policy.
b) Defendant has denied the existence and availability of religious accommodations
to its appearance policy when such accommodations have been requested by
applicants and employees.
c) Defendant has unreasonably delayed action on employee requests for religious
accommodation, including delays of several years, forcing employees to choose
between violating their religious beliefs or violating Defendants appearance
policy with the attendant risk of discipline or dismissal.
d) For example, a driver in San Francisco sought an accommodation to the
appearance policy permitting him to wear a beard, consistent with his observance
and practice of Islam. While awaiting UPSs evaluation of his request, he often
shaved his beard, against his religious beliefs, so that he could work. When he
chose not to shave, UPS sent him home without pay. Two years after his initial

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5

request, UPS granted his accommodation, but instructed him that he would be
required to reapply if, at any time, he was assigned a new supervisor.
e) Similarly, in Brooklyn, NY, a Muslim employee sought an accommodation to
permit him to wear a beard while working as a customer service representative for
Defendant. His first supervisor told him that no such accommodations existed
and that if he did not shave his beard, he would be fired. Several years later,
when Defendant finally informed the employee that he could avail himself of the
companys accommodation request process, it refused to grant the
accommodation without first receiving certification from his iman that wearing a
beard was part of the employees religious observance. It took Defendant an
additional nine months to grant the accommodation.
f) As another example, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania an employee of Defendant
asked that he be permitted to wear a beard as part of his observance of his
Christian faith. After three years of making verbal requests, Defendant finally
provided the worker with the form to make a written request. Before his request
was acted on, the employees supervisor asked him why, in light of his religious
observance, he had even bothered to come to UPS to work.
g) Also, at Defendants location in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a part-time load
supervisor and practicing Rastafarian requested a religious accommodation to
permit him to wear dreadlocks and refrain from cutting his hair, as his religious
practice required. His manager ignored his request, told the employee he didnt
want any employees looking like women on his management team, and
repeatedly asked the employee when he was going to cut his hair. When the

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6

employee contacted Defendants human resources department, he was questioned


as to why he practiced the Rastafarian religion at all since he is not Jamaican.
h) The manager of another Christian employee in Harrisburg, after receiving the
employees request for an accommodation to wear a beard in compliance with
his faith, telephoned the employees minister to inquire as to whether the worker
attended church regularly, whether his belief was sincere, and whether the Bible
mandated a particular length of beard.
i) Also, on Long Island, a Rastafarian employee requested an accommodation to
wear a beard, after being promoted to driver. Defendant rejected his request
because the employee did not identify a location or institution where the
employee worshiped. Upon information and belief, the employee eventually
provided the requested documentation from his spiritual adviser that satisfied
Defendant and his request was granted, two years after he first sought the
accommodation.
16.

Since at least 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at

facilities across the United States, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.
Specifically, Defendant has refused to hire individuals whose religion conflicts with Defendants
appearance policy.
17.

These unlawful practices described in paragraph 16 above include but are not

limited to the following:


a) Defendant has refused to hire qualified employees because of their religion.
b) Defendant has refused to hire qualified employees for the positions for which they
applied, and are qualified to perform, because of religion and has instead directed

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7

those individuals into positions that are not subject to Defendants appearance
policy.
c) Defendant has refused to hire qualified employees whose religion conflicts with
Defendants appearance policy and has not permitted those individuals to seek an
accommodation to the appearance policy.
d) Charging Party Bilal Abdullah applied for a position as a driver helper with
Defendant in Rochester, NY in November 2005. When Defendants hiring
official told Abdullah he would have to shave to be considered for the driver
helper position, Abdullah, who is Muslim, explained that he wears a beard as part
of his religious observance. UPSs hiring official replied that God would
understand if he shaved his beard to get a job. Defendant told Abdullah that he
could apply for a package handler position, which did not require customer
contact. Defendant did not hire Abdullah for either position.
e) As another example, in 2007, an applicant for a driver helper position at the UPS
facility in Lancaster, Massachusetts informed Defendant that he wore a beard as
part of his Muslim religious observance and inquired as to whether or not the
company would grant him an exception, on that basis, to the appearance policy.
The applicant was told that Defendant granted absolutely no exceptions for
beards. When the applicant inquired about the possibility of applying for another
position, he was told to shave his beard and cut his hair if he wanted to work for
Defendant.
f) Also, in 2007, a Native American applicant for a receiving position at UPS in
Stockton, California, after explaining that he wore his hair long as part of his

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8

religious observance and offering to wear it under his shirt or in a hair net, was
told, No hair cut, no job.
18.

Since at least 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at

facilities across the United States, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.
Specifically, Defendant has refused to promote, or in the alternative, failed to hire or transfer to a
different position, individuals whose religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy.
19.

The unlawful practices described in paragraph 18 above include but are not limited

to the following:
a) Defendant has refused to promote qualified employees because of their religion.
b) Defendant refused to promote qualified employees whose religion conflicts with
Defendants appearance policy and has not permitted those individuals to seek an
accommodation to the appearance policy.
c) Defendant has told qualified employees whose religion conflicts with Defendants
appearance policy that they will not be promoted unless they comply with the
appearance policy.
d) Charging Party Muhammad Farhan worked for Defendant as a package handler in
Dallas, Texas. In April 2007, upon reporting to his first day of driver training in
anticipation of a promotion to the driver position, Farhan was told by Defendant
that he would not be permitted to work as a driver because of his beard. Farhan,
who is Muslim, explained that he wore his beard as a religious observance and
asked that he be provided an accommodation. Defendants agent, Farhans
supervisor, stated that no such exception to the policy would be made. Farhan
then asked at least four other UPS supervisors, including Human Resources

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9

personnel, for the form so that he could request a religious accommodation, and
was repeatedly told that the supervisors were not aware of any such form. Only
after Farhan filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC, and two months after his
initial request, did UPS provide him with a form through which he could make a
written request for a religious accommodation. In the intervening time, Farhan
lost the opportunity to train for a promotion for which he was qualified and lost
wages.
e) As a further example, Defendants managers in Portland, Oregon in 2007
repeatedly told a Muslim part-time loader that he had completed all the
preparation to be promoted to a supervisory position, and that his life would be
better and easier as a manager. But they also told him that he could not apply for
the position until he shaved his beard. These managers repeatedly pressured him
to shave his beard and apply for the promotion.
f) In Harrington, Delaware, a Muslim preloader applied for a driver helper position
in 2007, and was denied. It was not until November 2009 that he was provided
with the form to request an accommodation permitting him to wear his beard.
g) In Plainsfield, Illinois, in approximately July 2004, a Muslim Information
Technology Department employee was forced to shave by Defendants
management. Seven months after his first request for accommodation and only
after three requests were made, Defendant permitted him to wear a beard limited
to inch in length. When he applied for a promotion to a management position,
Defendant required him to agree in writing that he understood that if he wanted a
future promotion within the Information Technology Department, he would have

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10

to shave and that if he was to maintain facial hair, it could limit his opportunities
for positions involving customer contact or management.
20.

Since at least 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at

facilities across the United States, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.
Specifically, Defendant has segregated individuals on the basis of their religion, by placing
individuals whose religious beliefs conflict with the appearance policy into different job
positions in its facilities based on the appearance policy and Defendants refusal to accommodate
religious practices. It has segregated those individuals by keeping them in back-of-the-facility
positions, which involve no customer contact.
21.

The unlawful practices described in paragraph 20 above include but are not limited

to the following:
a) A Rastafarian package handler in Long Island sought a driver position in 2006
but was required to request an accommodation based on his religious
practices. He was segregated into a back of the facility position during the
two years it took for UPS to grant his accommodation request.
b) A Rastafarian package sorter in Hodgkins, Illinois applied for a promotion to
a supervisor position and requested an accommodation to wear long hair
because of his religious practice. UPS refused the accommodation request
and denied him the supervisor position, instead segregating him to the back of
the facility as a sorter.
c) A Rastafarian package sorter in Tampa, Florida applied in 2004 to be a driver
and requested an accommodation so that he could wear a beard in accordance
with his religious practice. He was first told there were no exceptions to the

10

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11

appearance policy for his beard and long hair, if he wished to be a driver.
After three years and repeated accommodation requests, UPS granted him
limited accommodations and allowed him to obtain work as a driver.
d) Charging Party Bilal Abdullah applied for a position as a driver helper and
was asked to apply instead for a package handler position in the back of the
Rochester hub because his religious requirement of wearing his beard
conflicted with Defendants appearance policy.
22.

The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 14-21 above has been to

deprive applicants and employees whose religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy,
including Bilal Abdullah and Muhammad Farhan, of equal employment opportunities and
otherwise adversely affect the terms and conditions of their work, including their ability to be
hired and promoted, because of their religion.
23.

The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 14-21 above were

and are intentional.


24.

The unlawful employment practices complained of in 14-21 above were done with

malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Abdullah, Farhan and
other applicants and employees whose religion conflicted with Defendants appearance policy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants,

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging
in employment practices that discriminate on the basis of religion.

11

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12

B.

Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

provide equal employment opportunities regardless of religion, and which eradicate the effects of
its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C.

Order Defendant to make whole Abdullah, Farhan and all applicants and employees

who have been discriminated against because their religion conflicts with Defendants
appearance policy by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be
determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful
employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring, reinstatement, and/or
promotion of Abdullah, Farhan and all applicants and employees who have been discriminated
against because their religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy.
D.

Order Defendant to make whole Abdullah, Farhan and all applicants and employees

who have been discriminated against because their religion conflicts with Defendants
appearance policy by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from
the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 14-21 above in amounts to be
determined at trial.
E.

Order Defendant to make whole Abdullah, Farhan and all applicants and

employees who have been discriminated against because their religion conflicts with
Defendants appearance policy by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary
losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 14-21 above, including
but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, and inconvenience, in amounts to be
determined at trial.
F.

Order Defendant to pay Abdullah, Farhan and all applicants and employees who

have been discriminated against because their religion conflicts with Defendants appearance

12

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13

policy punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 14-21
above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.
H.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.


JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Dated: July 15, 2015


New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,
David P. Lopez
General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams
Associate General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
131 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20507
/s/Robert D. Rose______________________
Regional Attorney
/s/Nora Curtin___________________________
Supervisory Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
New York District Office
33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 336-3747
13

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14

/s/Elizabeth Fox-Solomon____________________
Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Buffalo Local Office
6 Fountain Plaza, Suite 350
Buffalo, New York 14202
(716) 551-3393

14

JS 44 (Rev. 1/2013)

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

United Parcel Service, Inc.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)


NOTE:

Kings County

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)


IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)


U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York District
Office, 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004,
212-336-3747.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)


1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

U.S. Government
Defendant

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff


(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1

DEF
1

Citizen of Another State

Incorporated and Principal Place


of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

and One Box for Defendant)


DEF
PTF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)


CONTRACT

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure


of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS


870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES

375 False Claims Act


400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)


1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

An action to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion at defendant's facilities nationwide.

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION


VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:


Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/Nora E. Curtin, Supervisory Trial Attorney

07/15/2015
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-04141 Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16


CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY

Local Arbitration Rule 83.10 provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certification to the contrary is filed.
Nora Curtin
Plaintiff
I, ______________________,
counsel for __________________,
do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is
ineligible for compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s):

monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
the complaint seeks injunctive relief,
the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1
Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:

RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)


Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a)
provides that A civil case is related to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or
because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the
same judge and magistrate judge. Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that A civil case shall not be deemed related to another civil case merely because the civil
case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties. Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that Presumptively, and subject to the power
of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be related unless both cases are still pending before the
court.

NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)


1.)

Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
No
County:_________________________

2.)

If you answered no above:


a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk
No
County?_________________________
b) Did the events of omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
Yes
District?_________________________

If your answer to question 2 (b) is No, does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau
or Suffolk County?______________________
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts).
BAR ADMISSION
I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.
Yes
No
Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?
Yes
(If yes, please explain)
No

I certify the accuracy of all information provided above.

/s/Nora E. Curtin, Supervisory Trial Attorney


Signature:____________________________________________