Matthew A. Luber, Esq.

NJ ID # 017302010
mal@njlegal.com
Armen McOmber, Esq. NJ ID # 018251998
ram@njlegal.com
Christian V. McOmber, Esq. NJ ID # 012292010
cvm@njlegal.com
Elizabeth A. Matecki, Esq. NJ ID # 108372014
eam@njlegal.com
Kaitlyn R. Grajek, Esq. NJ ID # 208202016
krg@njlegal.com
McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C.
54 Shrewsbury Avenue
Red Bank, NJ 07701
(732) 842-6500 Phone
(732) 530-8545 Fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole Orlando, Evelyn Grondski, and Donna Simone

NICOLE ORLANDO, EVELYN GRONDSKI,

and DONNA SIMONE, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiffs, MIDDLESEX COUNTY
vs.
DOCKET NO.:
CORPORATE BAILOUT, LLC, PLG
SERVICING, LLC, AMERICAN FUNDING
GROUP, COAST TO COAST FUNDING, Civil Action
MARK MANCINO, RICHARD MASSINI,
TIMOTHY MOMAT, MICHAEL HAMILL, COMPLAINT & DEMAND
MICHAEL MARINO, PATRICK SHEEHAN, FOR TRIAL BY JURY
and DARYL ALESSI,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Nicole Orlando (Plaintiff Orlando), Plaintiff Evelyn Grondski (Plaintiff

Grondski), and Plaintiff Donna Simone (Plaintiff Simone) (collectively Plaintiffs), by way

of Complaint against Defendant Corporate Bailout, LLC (Defendant Corporate Bailout),

Defendant PLG Servicing, LLC (Defendant PLG), Defendant American Funding Group

(Defendant American Funding), Defendant Coast to Coast Funding (Defendant Coast)

(Corporate Defendants), Defendant Mark Mancino (Mancino), Defendant Richard Massini

(Defendant Massini), Defendant Timothy Momat (Defendant Momat), Defendant Michael

Hamill (Defendant Hamill), Defendant Michael Marino (Defendant Marino), Defendant

Patrick Sheehan (Defendant Sheehan), and Defendant Daryl Alessi (Defendant Alessi)

(Individual Defendants) (collectively Defendants), allege as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case concerns the corporate culture of a predatory lending and debt relief

firm that is so sexually aggressive, morally repulsive, and unlawfully hostile that it is rivaled only

by the businesses portrayed in the films Boiler Room and The Wolf of Wall Street.

Defendants workplace, is permeated with sexual promiscuity, flooded with misogyny, swarming

with provocatively dressed women, and infused with sex, drugs, and alcohol. It is the epitome of

a sexually-hostile working environment.

2. For example, at the encouragement and/or instruction of male managers, a female

employee lifted her skirt and pressed her bare buttocks against a glass conference room window -

for the entire office to see. Instead of reprimanding or disciplining the employee, as would be

expected in a professional environment, Defendant Marino gleefully threw himself against the

other side of the glass and began simulating sex with the female employee while proudly

exclaiming how else could I respond to that?!

3. When Defendant Hammill and Defendant Mancino need to summon Wendy

Greene, a female sales representative, to their private office to have a discussion, they do so by

yelling out, Wendy - get your tits in here. In the office, Defendant Hammill and Defendant

Mancino can be heard taking turns motorboating Ms. Greenes breasts.1 As Ms. Greene

1
Motorboating is the colloquial term for placing ones face in the area between a womans breasts and blowing
onto her skin while rapidly shaking ones head, thereby creating a sound similar to that of an outboard boat motor.

2
attempted to leave the office, Defendant Hamill could be heard saying, Wendy, bring your tits

back over here and who hasnt seen Wendys tits.

4. When Defendants celebrate special occasions, they decorate the office with genital-

themed garland and sex toys; they require employees to sign waivers2 stating the company

intends to have lewd activity in the office during business hours; and they hire strippers to give

lap dances and engage in other sexual conduct with the Individual Defendants, all of which is

proudly captured by photo and on video:

5. If that was not enough, Defendants intentionally hire young attractive female

employees for the specific purpose of having quid pro quo sexual relationships. Older male

managers obsessively pursue sexual relationships with younger female employees and they use

their money and power to coerce female employees into engaging in sexually promiscuous conduct

in the workplace. Purely for male employees to gawk at in the office, female employees are

explicitly encouraged and sometimes required to wear crop tops, backless dresses, and short

skirts, among other provocative and skin-bearing clothing.

2
If an employee did not sign a waiver, they were laughed at for being lame, prude, or a tight ass, and
employees who did not participate in the lewd activity were ostracized or terminated by the Individual Defendants.

3
 6. In short, a clear double-standard exists. On one hand, employees who are willing

to engage in the sexual debauchery are rewarded with raises, bonuses, gifts, and promotions that

do not in any way correlate with skill, experience, or work performance. On the other hand, the

few women (like Plaintiffs) who were not willing to participate in, or otherwise complained of,

lewd conduct occurring the workplace, are shunned, ostracized, and terminated.

7. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs and other female employees to a work environment

rife with discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiffs thus bring this lawsuit to expose Defendants

conduct and to seek redress for numerous violations of the New Jersey Law Against

Discrimination (NJLAD) and Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).

II. PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Orlando is an individual residing in Neptune, New Jersey, and at all times

relevant hereto was employed by Corporate Defendants as the Director of Human Resources.

7. Plaintiff Grondski is an individual residing in Neptune City, New Jersey, and at all

times relevant hereto was employed by Corporate Defendants as a Customer Service

Representative.

8. Plaintiff Simone is an individual residing in Manchester, New Jersey, and at all

times relevant hereto was employed by Corporate Defendants as a Customer Service

Representative.

9. Defendant PLG is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company with its principal place

of business at 30 Park Road, Suite 3, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724.

10. Defendant Corporate Bailout is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company with its

principal place of business at 30 Park Road, Suite 3, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724.

4
 11. Defendant American Funding is a New Jersey company with its principal place of

business at 30 Park Road, Suite 3, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

12. Defendant Coast to Coast is a New Jersey company with its principal place of

business at 30 Park Road, Suite 3, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

13. Defendant Mancino, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and co-

owner/Chief Financial Officer of Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant

Mancino in his individual capacity and as an agent of Corporate Defendants.

14. Defendant Massini, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and co-owner for

Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant Massini in his individual capacity

and as an agent of Corporate Defendants.

15. Defendant Momat, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and co-owner of

Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant Momat in his individual capacity

and as an agent of Corporate Defendants.

16. Defendant Hamill, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and Underwriting

Manager for Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant Hamill in his

individual capacity and as an agent of Corporate Defendants

17. Defendant Marino, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and Accounts

Receivable Manager for Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant Marino

in his individual capacity and as an agent of Corporate Defendants.

18. Defendant Sheehan, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and General

Manager for Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant Sheehan in his

individual capacity and as an agent of Corporate Defendants.

5
 19. Defendant Alessi, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual and Customer

Service Supervisor for Corporate Defendants. This claim is brought against Defendant Alessi in

his individual capacity and as an agent of Corporate Defendants.

20. At all relevant times, Defendants have been single and joint employers of Plaintiffs.

Defendants operations are interrelated and unified, and they share common management,

centralized control of labor relations, common ownership, common control, common website,

common business purposes, and interrelated business goals. In addition, they jointly determine

and manage the pay practices, rates of employee pay and method of payment, maintenance of

employee records and personnel policies, practices and decisions with respect to the employees.

III. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

A. Corporate Defendants Illicit Business Practices

21. Plaintiffs repeat each allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein at length.

22. Corporate Defendants constitute several commercial finance companies that

purport to provide commercial debt consolidation and high-risk commercial loans to struggling

companies.

23. Corporate Defendants employee approximately 75-100 employees, most of which

comprise of customer service and loan representatives.

24. Through their website and other promotional materials, Corporate Defendants

portray themselves as a legitimate alternative to traditional commercial banking.

25. For example, Defendant Corporate Bailout touts on its website that it was founded

by attorneys who had seen firsthand the effects that debt was having on small businesses and

since then, the company has applied our storied legal background to help companies restructure

outstanding debt.

6
 26. Through a three-step process, Corporate Defendants purport to provide bailout

loans to companies that could not otherwise stay operational. First, Corporate Defendants

experts analyze the commercial debt during an initial consolidation and immediately [provide

an] actionable plan that charts [a] path towards greater financial health. Second, Corporate

Defendants help the client come up with a realistic budget. Third, Corporate Defendants will

handle [the] creditors and will make arrangements that you and your creditors can all accept.

27. But unsuspecting consumers and businesses should beware. Defendants prey on

desperate companies looking to improve their financial situation by misrepresenting services being

provided to clients.

28. Corporate Defendants are owned and/or managed by a trust that controls five

separate divisions and bank accounts. Defendant PLG is the loan servicing arm of the Company.

Defendant Corporate Bailout is the sales and debt consolidation arm of the Company. Defendant

Coast to Coast and Defendant American Funding provide predatory merchant cash advances

(MCAs) to small businesses.3

29. All of Corporate Defendants employees work out of a single office in Tinton Falls,

New Jersey, even though the company websites for Defendant PLG and Defendant Corporate

Bailout give separate addresses to portray the appearance that they are separate companies.

30. In fact, employees are specifically instructed to never mention that Defendant

American Funding and Defendant Coast to Coast Funding work out of the same office as

Defendant PLG and Defendant Corporate Bailout.

3
MCAs are a lump sum cash advance on a borrowers future revenue. The borrower then pays back this balance and
exorbitant fees, which are automatically deducted from a credit card or bank account. The automatic deductions
continue for as long as there is money for the cash advance company to withdraw. Without understanding how the
loans work, many businesses take out new advances to pay off previous advances, plunging them into more debt.

7
 31. Unbeknownst to consumers and clients, Defendant PLG and Defendant Corporate

Bailout solicit and service the same clients Defendant American Funding and Defendant Coast to

Coast are offering MCAs (among other debtors) and offer to help them with their debt.

32. Consumers, clients, and third-party finance companies are deliberately kept in the

dark about the relationship between the companies. This allows Defendants to double-dip on the

debts of unsuspecting consumers and clients.

33. For example, Defendant American Funding and Defendant Coast to Coast provide

consumers with MCAs, which are funded by a third-party financial company or investor. The

client then pays down the MCA with monthly installments that include hefty premiums and fees

paid to Defendants. If the client defaults on the MCA, the client will be referred to Defendant

Corporate Bailout or Defendant PLG for debt relief services, which are just as predatory.4

34. More specifically, Defendants convince debtors to stop making payments on the

MCA while they renegotiate better terms with creditors, which are the same third-party financial

companies and investors that provided the MCA to Defendant American Funding and Defendant

Coast to Coast. In fact, Defendants have a standing rule so long as the MCA clients makes six

to ten payments on any cash advance, Defendants can profit on the loan and do not care if the

client defaults. This is because, once the client defaults, Defendants can bamboozle the client

again through the debt consolidation and settlement arms of the company.

35. As part of the debt settlement and consolidation terms, Defendants are paid first

before any money goes towards payment of the debt. The terms of Defendants advances and

loans are not clearly outlined, including the total amount of the hefty fees and charges stacked on

4
Debt settlement is negotiating with creditors to settle a debt for less than what is owed. Debt consolidation is an
effort to combine debts from several creditors and take out a single loan to pay them all, hopefully at a reduced
interest rate and lower monthly payment. While Defendants know that most clients will not reduce, but in fact, will
go deep into debt as a result of their services, Defendants could careless so long as long as their fees have been paid.

8
top of the initial advance. Customer service representatives are expressly instructed to lie to

customers about Defendants loan and consolidation fees. Neither the client nor the third-party

MCA provider is told that Defendant Corporate Bailout or Defendant PLG are related to Defendant

American Funding and Defendant Coast to Coast.

36. Furthermore, once they are hired by a client, Corporate Defendants do little to

nothing to actually consolidate or eliminate a customers debt. Upon information and belief,

Corporate Defendants generate revenue of more than $100,000.00 per day, most of which is

through predatory loan and debt relief practices.

37. Defendants lie to clients about the actual services being provided, the status of the

debt settlement negotiations, and their escrow accounts.

38. For example, as part of the debt settlement service, Defendants require clients to

make up-front payments or monthly installments into an escrow account. In theory, when enough

money has accumulated, the Defendants will contact creditors, attempt to negotiate or lower debt,

and use the escrowed funds to settle the debt. Without making any real effort to settle debts,

Defendants simply allow fees and interest to build, which are taken directly from the client escrow

account on a weekly basis.

39. These terms and conditions are rarely explained or misrepresented to clients before

they engage Defendants debt settlement services. Customer service representatives are instructed

to simply lie to clients who question whether Defendants had attempted to settle debts or why

money was being taken out of the escrow account.

40. Employees in the customer service department are also told to refrain from referring

to the weekly drafts costs as payments to Corporate Defendants, and to instead refer to them as

the clients weekly drafts into their escrow account. Customer service representatives were

9
specifically instructed to confuse clients about the fees being paid, and many clients did not realize

that they had been swindled until it was too late and they money is gone from their escrow account.

41. In addition, when Defendants settled a debt, they also failed to tell the clients

altogether or in a timely basis. This resulted in the clients continuing to pay their weekly escrow

payments even though the debt was settled.

42. On the flip side, clients are also told that Defendants had settled their debts with

creditors when that was not true. In turn, clients continued to pay the monthly installments to

Defendants even though no actual debt service was performed.

43. Some businesses are paying Corporate Defendants approximately $1,000.00 per

week without seeing any results because, as discussed below, Corporate Defendant are primarily

concerned with selling services to desperate consumers and not actually helping them.

44. The predatory debt reductions services and loans have created slush fund for

Individual Defendants that has led to lavish personal purchases on the company books, (e.g., yacht,

extravagant vacations for friends and family, a Monmouth Beach house, and hotel rooms and gifts

for certain employees with whom Individual Defendants are having sex) and has triggered a

sexually hostile work environment.

B. Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Hostile Work Environment.

45. Plaintiff Orlando commenced her employment with Corporate Defendants in

February 2017. Although Plaintiff Orlando was originally hired as a Bookkeeper, and despite little

to no experience in human resources, she was immediately promoted to Human Resources Director

for all of the Corporate Defendants.5

5
At the time Plaintiff Orlando was hired, the Human Resources Director role was filled by Stephanie Baker
(Stephanie Baker or Ms. Baker). Ms. Baker, who is 23 years old, was transferred to accounting (though she had
no accounting experience) to take over the role of the recently terminated Chief Financial Officer, Mark Bloom. Upon
information and belief, Ms. Bakers transfer to accounting was intentional. Defendants preferred Ms. Baker in an

10
 46. As Human Resources Director, Plaintiff Orlando was, among other things, tasked

with updating job requirements and job descriptions for all positions; establishing a recruiting,

testing, and interviewing programs; monitoring employee work results by training managers to

coach and discipline employees; scheduling management conferences with employees; hearing

and resolving employee grievances; counseling employees and supervisors; ensuring legal

compliance by monitoring and implementing applicable human resource federal and state

requirements; conducting investigations, and maintaining records regarding employment matters.

47. Because of her Bookkeeping background, Plaintiff Orlando, on occasion, would

perform accounting and bookkeeping duties when asked.

48. Plaintiff Grondski commenced her employment with Corporate Defendants in May

2017. Plaintiff Grondski was employed as customer service representative.

49. Plaintiff Simone is 65 years old and commenced her employment with Corporate

Defendants in September 2016. Plaintiff Simone was employed as customer service

representative. Plaintiff Simone was diagnosed with Cancer for which she receives bi-weekly

chemo-therapy treatments.

50. As customer service representatives, Plaintiff Grondksi and Plaintiff Simone were

to answer incoming customer calls regarding billing issues, product problems, service questions

and general client concerns. Plaintiff Grondksi and Plaintiff Simone were also responsible for

updating customer information in the customer service database during and after each call and

working with the management team to stay updated on product knowledge and be informed of any

changes in company policies.

accounting position because an experienced, competent accountant would continually alert Defendants of any
financial irregularities and red flags.

11
 51. But Corporate Defendants workplace is anything like the professional,

longstanding, law abiding company that is promoted in marking materials.

52. To the contrary, Corporate Defendants business operated in a misogynistic,

sexually charged, and unlawful manner.

53. During the course of Plaintiffs employment, Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to

repeated, pervasive, severe, and continuing instances of sexual harassment, discrimination, and

retaliation.

54. The Individual Defendants regularly demeaned, objectified, assaulted, and sexually

harassed Plaintiffs and other women employed by Corporate Defendants.

55. The pattern of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation directed at Plaintiffs and

other women in the workplace includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a. The Individual Defendants regularly flirt with, grope, touch, and gawk at

women working at Corporate Defendants office.

b. The Individual Defendants regularly make sexual advances and sexually

charged comments toward female employees, including comments about

their physical appearance, hair, clothing, breasts, and buttocks.

c. The Individual Defendants also inappropriately leer at female employees

and look their bodies up and down in a sexually flirtatious manner, they

consistently engage in inappropriate physical contact with female

employees, incessantly harass female employees for sexual favors or to

engage a sexual relationship, and other such inappropriate conduct. This

conduct occurs regularly and openly in the workplace.

d. Defendant Mancino openly and regularly discusses that he receives male

12
 testosterone shots and that he ingests male erectile enhancement pills, which

are sent directly to Corporate Defendants office. On one occasion,

Defendant Mancino explained to Plaintiff Orlando his rationale for having

the male enhancement pills sent directly to the office I have to keep my

dick working to keep up with these young ladies in the office.

e. For Halloween 2016, Defendant Mancino dressed as Willy Wonka and

hired a stripper to dress as an Oompa Loompa and give lap dances to male

employees in the office. The Individual Defendants also hired a stripper on

June 2, 2017 for Defendant Hamills birthday. That same day, Plaintiff

Orlando was told by Defendant Mancini to make sure you have enough

money to pay the stripper out of petty cash. When Plaintiff Orlando

pushed back and explained that is not a good idea, Defendant Mancini

told Plaintiff Orlando to get over it and to stop being a tight ass. This

time, the stripper played the role of a dominatrix and put a ball gag6 in

Defendant Hamills mouth, handcuffed him to a chair, gave him a lap dance

while whipping him on the office floor, sensually rubbed his genital area,

squatted on his face, and grinded on his pelvic region while lashing him

with a whip in one hand and a sex toy (dildo) in the other hand. The

Individual Defendants also ordered a plus size version of a sex blow up doll,

which had enlarged breasts and nipples and wig near the crotch to mimic

pubic hair. Defendant Mancini explained to the entire office that he ordered

6
A ball gag is a bondage item that consists of a ball on a rope or strap at is shoved into the victim's mouth and tied
or strapped in order to muffle screams.

13
that particular blow up doll because Defendant Hamill likes healthy

women and does not like fat girls. During the strip show, Defendant

Mancini announced that, if Defendant Hamill did not put the fucking ball

gag in his mouth he was going to have [the stripper] use the strap on him.

Defendant Mancino also shouted that Defendant Hamill was getting a hard

on while the stripper was giving him a lap dance. In other words,

Defendant Mancino was shouting out in the office that Defendant Hamill

was becoming sexually aroused and that his penis was becoming erect from

the strippers lap dance. The celebration culminated with the presentation

of a giant penis cake that read Happy Birthday Dick.

14
 Later in the day, after Defendant Hamill became increasingly intoxicated,

he inserted a cigarette inside the blow up dolls vagina and a party horn into

the anus.

f. On June 16, 2017, disturbed by the events of June 2, 2017, and in the wake

of receiving numerous complaints from horrified employees, Plaintiff

Orlando pleaded with Defendant Mancini not to engage in similar conduct.

Defendant Mancini told Plaintiff Orlando that if she did not lighten up, she

would be replaced.

g. While there were no strippers at the next office party, employees were

15
 encouraged to play drinking games and the Individual Defendants took

numerous shots of alcohol in Defendant Mancinis office. It was not long

before the Individual Defendants became extremely intoxicated and began

flirting with the female employees in the office.

h. Defendant Marino has repeatedly attempted, over Plaintiff Orlandos

objection, to grab Plaintiff Orlandos buttocks on several occasions.

Defendant Sheehan also approached Plaintiff Orlando from behind to rub

her shoulders. Although Plaintiff Orlando complained to management

about such conduct, the complaint was ignored, and Defendant Sheehan

inappropriately touched Plaintiff Orlando again the following day. By way

of another example, while Defendant Sheehan was helping Plaintiff

Grondski with a client, Defendant Sheehan knelt between her chair and her

desk and rested his hand on Plaintiff Grondskis hip, in a sexually

provocative manner, while he purported to look for a client file. The

Individual Defendants also openly discussed that the former Chief Financial

Officer wanted to fuck Stephanie Baker, who held the position of Human

Resources Director prior to Plaintiff Orlando.

i. In a management meeting, Defendant Mancino and Defendant Hamill

debated, in front of Plaintiff Orlando, about their ideal sexually

attractive employee. While on a conference call in that same meeting, the

men discussed young girls changing their clothing outside of their office.

Defendant Mancino and Defendant Hamill immediately asked are the girls

hot and if so to take some video of it and send it to them. Defendant

16
 Mancino and Defendant Hamill also stated, but if [the girls are] fatties,

then forget it.

j. Defendant Sheehan also regularly touches and rubs female employees in the

office, including Stephanie Baker (the former Human Resources Director),

despite numerous complaints from female employees about such conduct.

Defendant Sheehan is widely known for rubbing the shoulders of women in

the office, so much so that it has become a running office gag among the

Individual Defendants. Defendant Alessi has even posted pictures of a

business man giving a message on Stephanie Bakers filing cabinet to tease

her about Defendant Sheehans conduct. In response, Stephanie Baker

(again, the former Human Resources Director) spread penis confetti and

penis-shaped gummy candies on Defendant Alessis desk, with a card that

read eat a bag of dicks.

k. Defendant Alessi habitually tells female employees to suck my dick when

he is frustrated or upset at the office. Defendant Alessi also discusses his

desire to engage in sexual relations with numerous female employees.

Defendant Alessi makes such comments regularly in the workplace.

17
l. The Individual Defendants regularly play sexual jokes and pranks on each

other. For example, the Individual Defendants often leave sex toys, such

as Dildos, in each others offices and cars.

m. In addition, the Individual Defendants also bring blow up sex dolls with

exposed breasts into interviews with potential new male employees. The

Individual Defendants tell new male hires that this is how we do business

here, this is what youre getting yourself into, and ask if have you ever

been to an interview with a sex doll?

n. Male employees were not treated in such a manner. The above

discrimination and harassment would not have occurred but for Plaintiffs

gender.

18
 56. Furthermore, the Individual Defendants, all of whom are management or ownership

level employees, generally favor young, attractive female employees who partake in quid pro quo

relationships, or who acquiesce to the sexual debauchery in the workplace.

57. The Individual Defendants favor those female employees who dress provocatively,

who have large breasts, or who are having an actual sexual relationship with the Individual

Defendants.

58. Female employees are instructed or encouraged to wear skimpy or provocative

clothing in the office, such as backless dresses, crop tops, and short skirts with exposed underwear.

On Halloween last year, the Individual Defendants made it mandatory for female employees to

dress in Halloween costumes and advised the skimpier the better.

59. Female employees who comply with the Individual Defendants sexual demands

are rewarded with, among other things, promotions and generous salaries. Because the Individuals

Defendants were more concerned with pursuing a sexual relationship with female employees than

actual work performance, they favored female employees they wanted to have sex with.

60. By way of example, Defendant Mancino has paid low-level female employees, with

whom he is having an affair, an executive level salary and additional compensation to pay for her

breast implants.

61. It also was widely known that Defendant Mancino was having an affair with

another 22-year-old female employee in Corporate Defendants banking and finance department,

Gabby Salstead. Defendant Mancino met Ms. Salstead at his local gym. While at the gym,

Defendant Mancino asked Ms. Salstead what her then-current employer paid her and offered to

pay her more money if she came to work for Corporate Defendants. Ms. Salstead accepted. While

employed by Defendants, Ms. Salstead wore scantily clad outfits in the office and, during

19
meetings, intentionally bent over so Defendant Mancino could gawk at her body and rub her inner

thigh. Defendant Mancino also rubbed Ms. Salteads shoulders and would lick his lips while

staring at her body.

62. Although Ms. Salstead has limited capabilities and experience as a customer service

representative, she earns approximately $60,000 per year in salary and has virtually unlimited

access and use to the company credit card (which she uses daily). Defendant Mancino also bought

Ms. Salstead a car, paid for her luxurious beauty treatments, and a $4,000 Gucci bagall with the

company credit card.

63. Plaintiff Orlando was specifically instructed to treat such personal purchases as

legitimate company expenses. Employees were also advised by Defendant Mancino to tell [his

wife] nothing if she called and to explain that Ms. Salstead did not work for Corporate

Defendants. Defendant Mancinos wife eventually learned of the affair and, upon information

and belief, is in the process of divorcing Defendant Mancino. This conduct occurred openly in the

workplace and numerous employees, including Plaintiff Orlando complained about this behavior,

but were ignored.

64. As another example, the Individual Defendants repeatedly and openly made sexual

advances toward customer service representative Maria Formoso. Plaintiffs witnessed Defendant

Mancino, in particular, repeatedly and aggressively flirting with Ms. Formosa. On one occasion,

when another male employee put a sex toy on Ms. Formosas desk, Plaintiffs witnessed Defendant

Mancino ask if it was her sex toy and if she had used it.

65. Further, after only six months of employment at Corporate Defendants, Ms.

Formosa notified Defendants of her intention to resign by providing two-week notice. Ms.

Formosa was immediately called into Defendant Mancinos office to convince her otherwise

20
because he desperately wanted to pursue a sexual relationship with Ms. Formosa. Plaintiff

Orlando was relieved to see that Ms. Formosa intended to resign; Ms. Formosa was a poor

employee who had called out of work more than 20 times in less than six months of employment

and arrived late to work almost every single day. When Plaintiff Orlando explained as much to

Individual Defendants, Defendant Hamill rolled his eyes and said hes not going to let her go,

[Defendant Mancino] wants to put his dick in her. Thus, after conferring with Defendant

Mancino, Defendant Hamill laughed and told Plaintiff, well slap me with a wet noodle. I am

giving her a raise, forgiving her loan of $850 and giving her a bonus.

66. Ultimately, Ms. Formosa signed and accepted the offers but, about a week later,

she advised Plaintiff Orlando that she was leaving the company because she could not take the

sexual harassment any longer.

67. As another example, Defendant Mancino openly discussed sponsoring a singing

audition for a family of Angela Carrazano, a 22-year old customer service representative.

Defendant Mancino explained that he was doing so only because he was trying to sleep with

Ms. Carrazano.

68. Numerous female employees, including Plaintiffs, complained to management or

Plaintiff Orlando about the aforementioned behavior. Whenever Plaintiff Orlando attempted to

address such matters with the Individual Defendants, she was told to let it go and, if she did not,

they would simply replace her with someone who would.

69. In general, female employees that Individual Defendants did not want to sleep with,

or who were not willing to engage in the overtly sexual and inappropriate conduct in the office,

were immediately terminated.

70. Competent female employees who dressed conservatively or refused to take part in

21
the sexual promiscuity were blackballed and ridiculed. For example, Nadia Perez was terminated

Defendant Mancino on her second day of employment because she did not fit in with the sex-

driven culture.

C. Plaintiffs Complain of Defendants Sexual Harassment,

Discrimination, Quid Pro Quo Relationships, and Illicit Business
Practices They Are All Terminated Simultaneously.

71. As Human Resources Director, Plaintiff Orlando had countless employees come to

her to complain about the conduct in the office, or they reported in exit interviews that the work

place was a sexually hostile work environment.

72. Although Plaintiff Orlando raised such matters with the Individual Defendants, her

concerns went unaddressed.

73. In May, June, and July 2017, the above misconduct reached a tipping point.

74. In or around May 2017, Plaintiffs complained about Defendants illicit business

practices, namely, the (i) conflict of interest between the debt consolidation and debt settlement

companies soliciting and servicing the same clients from the same office location, (ii) the

misrepresentation of the actual terms and conditions for debt consolidation and MCAs, and (iii)

the misrepresentation pertaining to Defendants actual attempts to negotiate debt settlements, the

status of clients escrow accounts, and Defendants failure to report to clients when they actually

settled debts.

75. In June and July 2017, Plaintiff Orlando reported her concerns with the above

practices to management, which was also reported to her by Plaintiff Grondksi and Plaintiff

Simone. Plaintiff Grondksi and Plaintiff Simone also raised their concerns with management

independent. These complaints fell on deaf ears.

76. When Plaintiff Orlando raised the conflict of interest issue to management,

Defendant Mancino instructed Plaintiff Orlando to cover up traceable connections between the
22
two companies. Defendant Mancino explained I want you to go get their computers and phones

off our bills. Cancel their fax line. They have to get their own equipment and things in a different

name. Plaintiff Orlando refused.

77. Plaintiffs complained to Defendants, or to Plaintiff Orlando, about this unlawful

conduct in June and July 2017.

78. Plaintiffs also complained to the Individual Defendants about the sexually hostile

conduct in the office, and Plaintiff Orlando reported to management that numerous other female

employees reported that the working environment was sexually hostile.

79. When Plaintiff Orlando advised management in July 2017 that the sexually

promiscuous behavior needed to stop, Defendant Mancino responded that You are a grown

woman. Handle it and resolve your issues. Ill replace you if I have to.

80. Further, just days after Plaintiff Grondski and Plaintiff Simone complained to

Plaintiff Orlando who, in turn, reported the complaints to management, Defendants terminated

Plaintiffs in blatant retaliation for complaining of the above misconduct and/or refusing to

participate in the sexual promiscuity.

81. While Plaintiff Orlando and Plaintiff Grondski were told that their terminations

were due to a Corporate Restructuring, Defendants provided Plaintiff Simone a more sinister

reason Defendant Sheehan also explained we took your medical condition [cancer] into

consideration and it has nothing to do with your work performance, we just need to let you go.

82. In addition to the above harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, Defendants did

not conduct an adequate investigation and failed to take proper remedial action to protect Plaintiffs

from discriminatory behavior and retaliation.

23
 83. Defendants did not have an effective anti-harassment policy in place, Defendants

have not maintained an anti-harassment policy that is current and effective, and Defendants anti-

harassment policy existed in name only.

84. Defendants did not maintain useful formal and informal complaint structures for

victims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

85. Defendants did not properly train its supervisors and/or employees on the subject

of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

86. Defendants failed to institute appropriate monitoring mechanisms to check the

effectiveness of the policies and complaint structures.

87. Defendants did not have a commitment from the highest levels of management that

harassment will not be tolerated; in fact, the highest levels of management deliberately and actively

retaliated against those who complained about such conduct.

88. Defendants failed to conduct prompt and thorough investigations of employee

complaints of harassment or provide a remedial plan reasonably calculated to stop any harassment

that is found.

COUNT ONE

NJLAD DISPARATE TREATMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, & HOSTILE WORK

ENVIRONMENT DISCRIMINATION DUE TO GENDER AND DISABILITY

89. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

90. The pattern and practice of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation directed at

Plaintiffs is outlined above.

91. Plaintiffs were subjected to repeated, pervasive, severe, and continuing instances

of disparate treatment and harassment based on gender and disability.

24
 92. The above-described conduct would not have occurred but for Plaintiffs gender

and disability.

93. The harassing and discriminatory conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make

a reasonable person and employee believe that the conditions of employment were altered and the

working environment was hostile and discriminatory.

94. As the employer and/or supervisor of Plaintiffs, Defendants are vicariously, strictly,

and/or directly liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

(NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq., in that the affirmative acts of harassment, discrimination, and

retaliation committed by Individual Defendants occurred within the scope of their employment;

the creation of the hostile work environment was aided by Corporate Defendants in delegating

power to Individual Defendants to control the day-to-day working environment; and/or Corporate

Defendants were deliberately indifferent, reckless, negligent and/or tacitly approved the

discrimination, hostile work environment, and/or retaliation; and/or Corporate Defendants and

Individual Defendants failed to create and/or have in place well-publicized and enforced anti-

harassment policies, effective formal and informal complaint structures, training, and/or

monitoring mechanisms for same despite the foreseeability of harassment, discrimination, and

retaliation in the workplace; and/or by having actual knowledge of the harassment, discrimination,

and retaliation of Plaintiffs and failing to promptly and effectively act to stop it.

95. Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced, and/or attempted to

aid, abet, incite, compel and/or coerce Individual Defendants to commit acts and omissions that

were in violation of the NJLAD by committing affirmatively harassing, discriminatory, and

retaliatory acts toward Plaintiffs in violation of the supervisory duty to halt or prevent harassment,

25
retaliation, and discrimination, rendering all Defendants individually and collectively liable to

Plaintiffs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(e).

96. Individual Defendants and the managers and/or supervisors of Plaintiffs aided,

abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced, and/or attempted to aid, abet, incite, compel and/or

coerce Defendants to commit acts and omissions that were in violation of the NJLAD by

committing affirmatively harassing, discriminatory, and retaliatory acts toward Plaintiffs in

violation of their supervisory duty to halt or prevent harassment, retaliation, and discrimination

rendering Defendants individually and collectively liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-

12(e).

97. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions set forth herein,

Plaintiff have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants on this Count,

together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under NJLAD, punitive

damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit and for such other relief

that the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT TWO

NJLAD RETALIATION/IMPROPER REPRISAL

98. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

99. Plaintiffs complained and/or protested against the continuing course of harassing,

discriminatory, and retaliatory conduct set forth at length above. Defendants had knowledge about

those complaints and/or protests.

26
 100. Plaintiffs were affirmative and/or constructively terminated by Defendants in

retaliation for making complaints about Defendants conduct and due to Defendants failure to

take corrective and remedial action. As a direct result, Defendants took retaliatory action against

Plaintiffs, which is outlined above.

101. Defendants are vicariously, strictly and/or directly liable to Plaintiffs for unlawful

retaliatory conduct in violation of the NJLAD pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d).

102. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions set forth herein,

Plaintiffs have sustained emotional and pecuniary damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendants on this Count,

together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under NJLAD, punitive

damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit and for such other relief

that the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT THREE

NJLAD QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRMINATION

103. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

104. Plaintiffs were subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment in the form of sexual

advances or requests for sexual favors.

105. If Plaintiffs did not accede to sexual demands or otherwise take part in the sexual

promiscuity, Defendants, among other things, threatened Plaintiffs and/or instilled fear in Plaintiffs

they would lose their jobs, receive unfavorable performance reviews, be passed over for

promotions, or suffer other adverse employment consequences.

106. Defendants had knowledge of such conduct.

27
 107. Plaintiffs suffered retaliation on a number of occasions as a result thereof, including

wrongful termination.

108. As a direct result of Plaintiffs raising complaints regarding Defendants conduct,

Defendants took retaliatory action against Plaintiffs, which is outlined above.

109. Corporate Defendants are vicariously, strictly and/or directly liable to Plaintiffs for

unlawful retaliatory conduct in violation of the NJLAD pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d).

110. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions set forth herein,

Plaintiffs have sustained emotional and pecuniary damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants on this

Count, together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under NJLAD,

punitive damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit and for such

other relief that the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT FOUR

RETALIATION AND VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY CONSCIENTIOUS

EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA)

111. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

112. At all times relevant to the factual circumstances set forth above, Defendants were

employers as that term is defined in N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(a).

113. At all times relevant to the factual circumstances set forth above, Plaintiff Orlando

was an employee as that term is defined in N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(b).

114. During the course of Plaintiff Orlandos employment with Defendants, she objected

to activities and practices of the Defendants that she believed were in violation of law, fraudulent,

or in violation of public policy.

28
 115. As a direct result of the foregoing, Defendants took retaliatory action against

Plaintiff Orlando by discharging him from employment.

116. Defendants also took retaliatory action against Plaintiff Orlando due to her

disclosure of the aforementioned activities and practices to her supervisors. N.J.S.A. 34:19-3a, et

seq.

117. Defendants are vicariously, strictly and/or directly liable to Plaintiff Orlando for an

unlawful retaliatory discharge and violation of CEPA pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq.

118. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts and admissions set forth herein,

Plaintiff Orlando has sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Orlando demands judgment in her favor and against Defendants on this

Count, together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under CEPA,

punitive damages, pre and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit, and for such

other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE

Pursuant to Rule 4:10-2(b), demand is made that Defendants disclose to Plaintiffs attorney

whether or not there are any insurance agreements or policies under which any person or firm

carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of the judgment which may

be entered in this action or indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment and

provide Plaintiffs attorney with true copies of those insurance agreements or policies, including,

but not limited to, any and all declaration sheets. This demand shall include and cover not only

primary insurance coverage, but also any excess, catastrophe, and umbrella policies.

29
 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues.

McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: ______________________________
Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
Dated: August 10, 2017

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, MATTHEW A. LUBER, ESQUIRE is hereby designated as trial

counsel for Plaintiff.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, it is hereby certified that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no

other civil actions or arbitration proceedings involving this matter with respect to this matter and

no other parties need to be joined at this time.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: ______________________________
Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
Dated: August 10, 2017

30