4. All female employees of Defendants during the relevant time period who were sexually harassed in violation of Title VII.
11. Defendants required Plaintiff to meet and sit with customers who visited its establishments and to allow the customers to sexually harass Plaintiff. This harassment included allowing customers to touch and fondle Plaintiff's breast and vagina.
12. Plaintiff objected and complained about allowing customers to harass her in this manner. Plaintiff complained to Defendants' management. Management rejected her complaints and directed her to permit customers to sexually harass her in the above described manner.
13. Defendant continued to subject Plaintiff and other female employees of Defendant to harmful and offensive touching.
14. Following Plaintiff's complaints to management, co-workers and other employees of Defendants engaged in a course of harassing and retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff. Such conduct included verbal and physical abuse of Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not want to pennit customers to sexually harass her.
15. The conduct of Defendants and Defendant's management, agents and employees as set forth above made the working conditions so intolerable that Plaintiff was forced to leave her employment on July 8, 2009.
16. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. Plaintiff fulfilled all conditions precedent required prior to instituting this action.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, an award of back-pay and front-pay with pre-judgment interest; an award of compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described above, including relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses; an award of compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from unlawful employment practices complained of, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, lost of enjoyment of life, and humiliation; an award for punitive damages for malicious and reckless conduct, reasonable attorney's fees; liquidated damages' temporary work authorization; and transfer relief.
Eric O'Malley, the CNMI's immigration enforcement attorney, filed with the Superior Court 19 criminal counts against 33-year-old Takayuki Umeda and Japan Enterprises Corp., which does business as Club Micronesia.A Saipan jury acquitted the owner of the charges in 2005. From the Saipan Tribune:
O'Malley said the nightclub employed at least one underaged girl from June to July 2004 and let her “engage in prohibited conduct.”
The prosecutor said the defendants facilitated the girl's entry from Manila, the Philippines, to Saipan through forged documents. He accused the defendants of harboring the girl despite knowing that she was staying in the Commonwealth illegally.
He said the defendants knowingly subscribed as true a false statement in applying for the girl's nonresident worker's permit. He said the defendants made the girl subscribe as true alleged false statements on these documents.
The Superior Court yesterday acquitted a businessman and his nightclub on charges that they employed illegal aliens and exploited at least one minor who worked as exotic dancer.Wonder what happened to those alleged victims?
Associate judge Ramona Manglona discharged 33-year-old Takayuki Umeda and Japan Enterprises Corp., which does business as Club Micronesia, from any liability.
A jury handed down an all-not guilty verdict on 18 charges each against Umeda and the nightclub. The court earlier dismissed two counts of unlawful exploitation against Umeda and the nightclub.