SUPERVALU,
the
the
INC;
parties
resident
principles
agreement
and
corporation
provisions
3. 2. 1. ACME
of Newark,
seq. (the Age Discrimination
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
of28
and
in
De P1amt!
with
The
of
the
MARKETS,
the
fendant
ancillary
INe.
Defendants.
U.S.C.
United off
claims
Delaware.
dIb/aACME Anthony
Supervalu,
by
said
States
grocery
and
FOR
virtue
INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
§ 1367.
defendant District M. was and Inc. Patemsoter the COMPLAINT supermarket Court d/b/a! Acme
THE
pendent
of
the
jurisdiction
pendency
in Employment MARKETS,
parent
DISTRICT
Parties
for
ACME
Markets,
corporation
is,
Document 1
the
Jurisdiction
of
and
as business,
District
a
Markets,
federal
well
Inc.,
at
Civil
all
of
OF DELAWARE
as
of
claim which
defendant
Delaware Inc.
the
times
Action
the
employer
(hereinafter
supplemental
JURY TRIAL
COURT
under
entered
relevant
Filed 07/19/2007
No.
DEMANDED
has
Acme
29
jurisdiction
D.S.c.
of
into
hereto
Markets,
"Acme")
Anthony
jurisdiction
a
§
Page 1 of 5
merger was,
621
over
Inc.,
is
M.
et
Inc. on or about January 22, 2006, and is the successor to
a a
Act) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and under
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
Document 1
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 2 of 5
Facts
4. Plaintiff Anthony Paternoster had been an employee of Acme for approximately
thirty-four years when he was terminated from his employment on or about August 12,2005.
5.
At
the
time
of
his
termination,
Mr.
Paternoster
was
over
the
age
of
6.
qualified for a
Mr. Paternoster had extensive experience in the area of loss prevention, and was
continued position with Acme when, on or about August 12, 2005, he was
discharged
from
his
position
as
a
loss
prevention
7.
At
the
time
of
Mr.
Paternoster's
manager.
termination,
Acme
had
made
forty.
or
was
in
process of making offers of employment and/or continued employment to individuals employment and/or continued employment to individuals substantially younger than Mr. Paternoster, in the specific area of loss prevention in which he worked, as part of a restructuring ofthe loss prevention area. 8.
him to miss time
During his tenure at Acme, Mr. Paternosterhad had heart bypass surgery, causing
from work.
COUNTI
Violation of Af!e Discrimination in Emolovment Act. 29 V.S.C. § 621 et sea.
9.
10.
Paragraphs to 7 arerestatedasifmore fully set forth herein. 1
The action of defendant Acme in terminating Mr. Paternoster was motivated by
unlawful
age
discrimination,
in
violation
of
the
federal
Age
Discrimination
in
Employment
11.
Mr. Paternoster has suffered damages as a result of the actions of Acme, including
.
lost salary and benefits, damage to his career and reputation, great mental anguish and
embarrassment, and other losses.
2
Act.
the
was
unlawful
Violation
not,
surgery.
14. 13.
15.
in
12.
embarrassment,and other losses.
disability
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
16.
violation
of
Delaware Managers
Violation
Paragraphs
Mr.
The
Paternoster
discrimination
action
ofthe
A2e
of and
1-15
Americans
defendant
and
has
are
of Americans
decisionmakers
Disabilities
suffered in
restated
that
with
Acme
it
damages
Disabilities
as
regarded
ifmore
Discrimination in
Document 1
with Disabilities
COUNT II
COUNT III
Paragraphs 1 to 11 are restated as ifmore fully set forth herein.
Paternoster'sheart bypass surgery, and regarded him as disabled as a result of such heart bypass
lost salary and benefits, damage to his career and reputation, great mental anguish and
3
terminating as him a Act, result as 42 a Mr. of V.S.C. disabled the Paternoster actions § 12101 person of was et Acme, when seq. motivated in including fact he by
at
defendant
fully
set
forth
statute.
Acme
herein.
Filed 07/19/2007
19
were
Del.
C.
aware
§
Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seQ.
711
Page 3 of 5
et
of
seQ.
Mr.
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
Document 1
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 4 of 5
17.
The
action
of
defendant
Acme
in
terminating
Mr.
Paternoster
was
motivated
unlawful age and disability discrimination, in violation of the State of Delaware statutory protections against age and disability discrimination in employment, 19 Del. C. § 711 et seq. 18. Mr. Paternoster has suffered damagesas a result of the actions of Acme, including
lost salary and benefits, damage to his career and reputation, great mental anguish and embarrassment,and other losses.
COUNT
Violation
of
the
Delaware
Common
Law
Covenant
IV
of
Good
Faith
and
Fair
(Falsification
of Reasons)
19.
Paragraphs
1
to
18
are
restated
as
if
more
fully
set
forth
20.
The
defendant
Acme
informed
Mr.
Paternoster
that
he
lacked
herein.
the
skill
Dealin2
set
perform
any
longer
as
a
loss
prevention
manager
and
was
being
terminated
for
that
reason,
to
in fact thesereasonswere falsified and the true reasonsrelated to age and disability discrimination and/or other hostility unrelated to Mr. Paternoster's "skill set."
21. The actions of defendant Acme constitute a violation of the Delaware common
law
Covenant
of
Good
Faith
and
Fair
WHEREFORE,
plaintiff
demands
Dealing.
that
judgment
be
entered
in
his
favor
defendant
on the above claims,
including
awards of compensatory
damages,
punitive
damages,
costs
of
suit,
interest,
attorneys'
fees
under
any
appropriate
or
relevant
statutory
or
common
against
when
basis, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
4
law
by
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
Document 1
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 5 of 5
PLAINTIFF ANTHONY
M.
By:
521
West
Wilmington,
Street
Delaware
19801
(302) 658-6101
herb [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
DATE: July 19, 2007
5
PATERNOSTER
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
Document 1-2
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
Document 1-2
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00446-SLR
Document 1-3
Filed 07/19/2007
Page 1 of 1