McBride v. Madison Security Group, Inc.
Madison Security Group, Inc. has been sued for race discrimination in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The plaintiff in the case alleges that Madison Security fired him because he is African American. He seeks damages for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101, et seq. The docket number of the case is 19 Civ. 3203 (WFK) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.).
The plaintiff in the case alleges that Madison Security fired him because he is African American. He seeks damages for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101, et seq. The docket number of the case is 19 Civ. 3203 (WFK) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.).
The Race Discrimination Complaint
Here is the text of the Amended Complaint that was filed against Madison Security Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Richard McBride, by his undersigned attorneys, as and for his amended complaint against defendant Madison Security Group, Inc., alleges as follows:
This is an action for damages and other remedies for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101, et seq.
Plaintiff seeks: (a) compensatory and punitive damages; (b) an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs; and (c) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Jurisdiction and Venue
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims form part of the same case or controversy as the federal law claims.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
The Parties
Plaintiff RICHARD McBRIDE (“Plaintiff”) is an African American. He resides in Kings County, New York.
Defendant MADISON SECURITY GROUP, INC. (“Madison Security”), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with a place of business at 2931 Westchester Avenue, Bronx County, New York 10461.
Facts Common to All Claims
Plaintiff was employed by defendant Madison Security as a security guard in Queens County, New York.
Madison Security had a company policy that stated: “Any violation of the law that you commit on or off duty must be reported immediately to the Human Resources Department.”
On July 17, 2017, plaintiff entered the New York City subway with two Metrocards in his wallet. Plaintiff did not realize that the Metrocard he pulled out of his wallet had expired. When it did not work in the turnstile, he moved to another turnstile and tried again.
A New York City police officer arrested plaintiff and issued him a desk appearance ticket.
On July 28, 2017, Madison Security’s human resources manager, Mr. Frazier, handed plaintiff a letter stating that his employment was being terminated because he failed to report a violation of the law.
Plaintiff informed Mr. Frazier that he did not violate the law.
Plaintiff was never found guilty of any violation of the law.
Mr. Frazier told plaintiff that his employment was terminated because he failed to report a violation of the law.
Plaintiff asked Mr. Frazier if he could apply for re-employment after the charges were dismissed.
Mr. Frazier told plaintiff that he could not apply for re-employment after the charges were dismissed because he had violated the policy requiring him to report a violation of the law.
When plaintiff went to court for the desk appearance ticket, he was told by the clerk that all charges were dismissed.
All charges against plaintiff were dismissed.
On October 5, 2017 – after all charges against plaintiff had been dismissed – Madison Security appealed plaintiff’s receipt of unemployment benefits. In its appeal papers, Madison Security argued that plaintiff was not eligible for unemployment benefits because he failed to comply with company policy requiring that he report a “violation of the law.”
The New York State Department of Labor rejected Madison Security’s appeal on the ground that the company policy only required plaintiff to report a “violation of the law.” The company policy did not require plaintiff to report an arrest.
The New York State Department of Labor found that, because plaintiff was innocent of the charges, “he committed no act of misconduct by not reporting the matter to the employer.”
Other employees of the defendant have been arrested and either allowed to continue working while criminal charges were pending or allowed to return to work when criminal charges were dismissed.
Chris Callado is an Hispanic male who is employed by Madison Security at the same location where plaintiff was employed. Mr. Callardo is not Black or African American.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callado was arrested while he was employed by Madison Security.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callardo did not report his arrest to Madison Security.
Upon information and belief, Madison Security knew that Mr. Callardo was arrested.
Upon information and belief, Madison Security knew that Mr. Callardo failed to report his arrest to the company.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callardo was never told that he was ineligible to apply for re-employment.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callardo returned to work for Madison Security after the criminal charges against him were dismissed.
Timothy Grover is a White male who is both an employee and an owner of Madison Security. Mr. Grover is not Black or African American.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover was arrested on a number of serious charges while he was employed by Madison Security, including assault with intent to rape a 20 year old woman, assault of a student at a high school, and assault of a police officer.
Upon information and belief, a judge held Mr. Grover without bail after finding that he was dangerous to the community.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover was previously arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, assault, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and driving under the influence of alcohol.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover is still an employee of Madison Security.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover continues to receive compensation and benefits as an employee of the company notwithstanding his arrest, detention, and pending criminal charges.
Plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination against Madison Security with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
On or about May 10, 2019, the EEOC found probable cause that Madison Security discriminated against plaintiff based on his race and issued a right to sue letter.
On or about August 6, 2019, plaintiff timely commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein
Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions as result of Madison Security’s conduct.
The adverse employment actions included termination of plaintiff’s employment and the determination that plaintiff was ineligible to apply for re-employment.
Madison Security treated plaintiff differently than other employees because of his race.
The stated reasons for Madison Security’s conduct were not the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the company’s discriminatory animus.
As a direct and proximate result of Madison Security’s conduct, plaintiff was subjected to race discrimination.
Plaintiff suffered compensable injuries as a direct and proximate result of Madison Security’s conduct.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein.
Madison Security’s conduct constitutes race discrimination against plaintiff in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein.
Madison Security’s conduct constitutes race discrimination against plaintiff in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff is entitled to and demands a jury trial.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Richard McBride requests judgment against defendant Madison Security Group, Inc., awarding him: (a) compensatory and punitive damages for violations of Title VII, the NYS Human Rights Law, and the NYC Human Rights Law; (b) an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs; and (c) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
November 4, 2019
THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
By: John J.P. Howley
Attorneys for Plaintiff
225 West 34th Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10122
(212) 601-2728
This is an action for damages and other remedies for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101, et seq.
Plaintiff seeks: (a) compensatory and punitive damages; (b) an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs; and (c) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Jurisdiction and Venue
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims form part of the same case or controversy as the federal law claims.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
The Parties
Plaintiff RICHARD McBRIDE (“Plaintiff”) is an African American. He resides in Kings County, New York.
Defendant MADISON SECURITY GROUP, INC. (“Madison Security”), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with a place of business at 2931 Westchester Avenue, Bronx County, New York 10461.
Facts Common to All Claims
Plaintiff was employed by defendant Madison Security as a security guard in Queens County, New York.
Madison Security had a company policy that stated: “Any violation of the law that you commit on or off duty must be reported immediately to the Human Resources Department.”
On July 17, 2017, plaintiff entered the New York City subway with two Metrocards in his wallet. Plaintiff did not realize that the Metrocard he pulled out of his wallet had expired. When it did not work in the turnstile, he moved to another turnstile and tried again.
A New York City police officer arrested plaintiff and issued him a desk appearance ticket.
On July 28, 2017, Madison Security’s human resources manager, Mr. Frazier, handed plaintiff a letter stating that his employment was being terminated because he failed to report a violation of the law.
Plaintiff informed Mr. Frazier that he did not violate the law.
Plaintiff was never found guilty of any violation of the law.
Mr. Frazier told plaintiff that his employment was terminated because he failed to report a violation of the law.
Plaintiff asked Mr. Frazier if he could apply for re-employment after the charges were dismissed.
Mr. Frazier told plaintiff that he could not apply for re-employment after the charges were dismissed because he had violated the policy requiring him to report a violation of the law.
When plaintiff went to court for the desk appearance ticket, he was told by the clerk that all charges were dismissed.
All charges against plaintiff were dismissed.
On October 5, 2017 – after all charges against plaintiff had been dismissed – Madison Security appealed plaintiff’s receipt of unemployment benefits. In its appeal papers, Madison Security argued that plaintiff was not eligible for unemployment benefits because he failed to comply with company policy requiring that he report a “violation of the law.”
The New York State Department of Labor rejected Madison Security’s appeal on the ground that the company policy only required plaintiff to report a “violation of the law.” The company policy did not require plaintiff to report an arrest.
The New York State Department of Labor found that, because plaintiff was innocent of the charges, “he committed no act of misconduct by not reporting the matter to the employer.”
Other employees of the defendant have been arrested and either allowed to continue working while criminal charges were pending or allowed to return to work when criminal charges were dismissed.
Chris Callado is an Hispanic male who is employed by Madison Security at the same location where plaintiff was employed. Mr. Callardo is not Black or African American.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callado was arrested while he was employed by Madison Security.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callardo did not report his arrest to Madison Security.
Upon information and belief, Madison Security knew that Mr. Callardo was arrested.
Upon information and belief, Madison Security knew that Mr. Callardo failed to report his arrest to the company.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callardo was never told that he was ineligible to apply for re-employment.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Callardo returned to work for Madison Security after the criminal charges against him were dismissed.
Timothy Grover is a White male who is both an employee and an owner of Madison Security. Mr. Grover is not Black or African American.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover was arrested on a number of serious charges while he was employed by Madison Security, including assault with intent to rape a 20 year old woman, assault of a student at a high school, and assault of a police officer.
Upon information and belief, a judge held Mr. Grover without bail after finding that he was dangerous to the community.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover was previously arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, assault, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and driving under the influence of alcohol.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover is still an employee of Madison Security.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Grover continues to receive compensation and benefits as an employee of the company notwithstanding his arrest, detention, and pending criminal charges.
Plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination against Madison Security with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
On or about May 10, 2019, the EEOC found probable cause that Madison Security discriminated against plaintiff based on his race and issued a right to sue letter.
On or about August 6, 2019, plaintiff timely commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein
Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions as result of Madison Security’s conduct.
The adverse employment actions included termination of plaintiff’s employment and the determination that plaintiff was ineligible to apply for re-employment.
Madison Security treated plaintiff differently than other employees because of his race.
The stated reasons for Madison Security’s conduct were not the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the company’s discriminatory animus.
As a direct and proximate result of Madison Security’s conduct, plaintiff was subjected to race discrimination.
Plaintiff suffered compensable injuries as a direct and proximate result of Madison Security’s conduct.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein.
Madison Security’s conduct constitutes race discrimination against plaintiff in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein.
Madison Security’s conduct constitutes race discrimination against plaintiff in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff is entitled to and demands a jury trial.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Richard McBride requests judgment against defendant Madison Security Group, Inc., awarding him: (a) compensatory and punitive damages for violations of Title VII, the NYS Human Rights Law, and the NYC Human Rights Law; (b) an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs; and (c) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
November 4, 2019
THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
By: John J.P. Howley
Attorneys for Plaintiff
225 West 34th Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10122
(212) 601-2728
Other Documents Filed in the Case
Madison Security Group, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's race discrimination complaint. Click here to read plaintiff's opposition to the motion.