IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MAGGI POLISI )
)
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR:
v. ) 1. Sexual Harassment
) 2. Failure to Prevent Harassment
PARKER & GOULD LLC, a business entity; ) 3. Retaliation
SIMON CLARK, an individual )
)
Defendants )
)
)
______________________________________ )

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, alleging against the Defendants as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff MAGGIE POLISI (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “POLISI”) is a natural person who

is, and at all times was a resident of the United States and a domiciliary of the State of

North Carolina.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant PARKER & GOULD

LLC, (hereafter “P & G”) is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, a law firm

authorized for and engaged in the practice of law in the State of North Carolina, County of

Wake.

3. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times herein mentioned Defendant

CLARK (hereafter “CLARK”), was and is an equity partner of P & G and operated in a

supervisory role during Plaintiff’s handling of assignments during her tenure at P & G.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each named Defendant is

responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and Plaintiff’s injuries and
 damages as herein alleged are directly, proximately and or legally caused by the

Defendants.

5. The tortious acts and omissions alleged to have occurred herein were performed by

Defendant P & G’s equity partner CLARK. Defendant P & G allowed and or condoned a

continuing pattern of unlawful practices, and have caused and will continue to cause,

Plaintiff economic damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

6. Defendant P & G had constructive knowledge of the tortious acts and or omissions alleged

herein as the result of participating in the wrongful acts or ratifying or affirming the acts

once heard or known of.

7. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, oppressively and

with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and vindictive

motive amounting to malice. Alternately, Defendants’ wrongful conduct was carried out in

flagrant and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

8. Such tortious acts were authorized or ratified by the equity partnership employees of

Defendant P & G. The actions of the Defendants, and each of them, against the Plaintiff

constitute unlawful practices in violation of North Carolina and Federal law, and have

caused, and will continue to cause Plaintiff loss of earnings, loss of employment benefits,

loss of employment opportunities and other losses in amounts to be proven at trial.

9. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 180

days later in December 2020 received a Right-To-Sue letter. The complaint and letter are

collectively attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.

2
 SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

11. P & G functions as a large law firm providing a full range of legal services to clients

throughout the United States. P & G currently consists of 350 lawyers and of that number

75 are partners. The firm is comprised of a corporate division, a tax division, and an estate

division.

12. CLARK is and was one of P & G’s top attorneys. He is also recognized as being responsible

for attracting and securing some of P & G’s best clients. He is frequently assigned as lead

attorney for P & G’s most important casework.

13. Plaintiff was employed as an Associate Attorney with P & G until December 15th of 2019

at which time she was compelled to leave the firm.

14. Plaintiff began her career at P & G as a paralegal and completed assignments for several

partners, including CLARK. Plaintiff’s educational background includes a Bachelor of

Science degree partly earned at the University of Pennsylvania and later completed at the

University of Nita. Plaintiff also holds a Juris Doctorate degree awarded by the University

of Nita. At the time Plaintiff left P & G she was an Associate on track to become an Equity

Partner, having also worked as a law clerk and lower-level associate.

15. Plaintiff excelled at her job since her initial hiring as recognized by Defendants and

received steadily positive performance reviews as well as oral and written praise from her

co-workers, clients of P & G and other partners in the firm. Throughout her employment

Plaintiff has been valued and committed to P & G.

3
16. During Plaintiff’s time as a paralegal, she was assigned to work on a commercial case of

importance to P & G. The partner in charge of the case was CLARK and at the conclusion

of the litigation, Plaintiff received a substantial bonus and a pay raise. CLARK was very

complimentary of Plaintiff’s work on the case and encouraged her to pursue a law degree.

Accordingly, Plaintiff applied to the Evening Division Program at Nita University School

of Law and through the recommendation and assistance of P & G partners CLARK and

Cliff Fuller, was accepted despite submitting a late application.

17. Plaintiff maintained her employment at P & G throughout her law school career and

ultimately graduated in the top 5% of her class.

18. From the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment at P & G, CLARK took a keen interest in

Plaintiff and she observed that CLARK seemed to be genuinely interested in her life and

in the progress of her career. While still enrolled as a student Plaintiff declined several

dinner invitations from CLARK although at the time, she believed his interest to be strictly

professional.

19. At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s first year of law studies, she was promoted to the position

of law clerk at P & G and met or exceeded P & G expectations as evidenced by successive

pay increases.

20. Although it was not a standard practice of P & G to award bonuses to law clerks, Plaintiff

was allowed to remain a participant in the bonus compensation program she previously

enjoyed as a paralegal. CLARK personally handed Plaintiff the bonus check she received

as a law clerk that year. Further, Plaintiff was embarrassed by CLARK when he replied,

“with that reaction, I wish I could have given you more”, in response to a brief non sexual

4
 hug she gave him upon receipt of the unexpected bonus that enabled her to provide a

Christmas experience for her family that they would not have otherwise enjoyed.

21. While enrolled in law school and employed as a law clerk for P & G, Plaintiff completed

several assignments under the direction of CLARK, who was always pleased and

complimentary of the expertise she demonstrated, and the work product submitted to him.

However, CLARK also continued his pattern of issuing personal dinner invitations to

Plaintiff and on every occasion, she declined to accompany him to dinner although she did

join him at occasional lunches during business hours. Plaintiff accepted the lunch

invitations because she felt compelled to maintain a strong professional relationship with

her employer’s top litigator and she did not want to be perceived as unmotivated or

unfriendly. Further, Plaintiff was aware that her status as a single mother unable to travel

was viewed as a detriment and she participated in lunches with CLARK in part to maintain

her job security.

22. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at P & G, whenever she was assigned to cases handled

by CLARK, Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted touching by CLARK on non-intimate

areas of her body, and comments about her appearance that made her feel uncomfortable.

Plaintiff did not alert CLARK that his comments and physical contact were unwelcome

because of his position as her superior.

23. When Plaintiff initially joined P & G, she was warned by senior paralegals and several

female associates that she should “watch out” for CLARK. It was open knowledge at P &

G that CLARK was unhappily married and that he engaged in open affairs with colleagues

and subordinates. CLARK was known to lure women into relationships using his unhappy

marriage as a ‘baiting’ tactic and by making illusory promises that he would divorce his

5
 wife and enter a relationship with his chosen conquest. It was open knowledge at P & G

that many of these women would either resign or were terminated by P & G at the

conclusion of their romantic relationship with CLARK.

24. P & G was aware or should have been aware of CLARK’s predatory interactions with

female colleagues and subordinates. Due to his position and the esteem, he garnered as P

& G’s best litigator, P & G made no effort to restrain, curtail or discipline CLARK for his

conduct with its female employees.

25. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at P & G, Plaintiff struggled to maintain a distance

from CLARK and to interact with him only in the context of their professional obligations.

When Plaintiff’s interactions with CLARK were limited to business, Plaintiff’s career at P

& G advanced consistently and her reputation for excellence was widely known and

acknowledged. Plaintiff typically received above average performance reviews except for

the period surrounding her father’s diagnosis and eventual death from pancreatic cancer.

26. At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s singular year of below average performance Plaintiff was

offered the choice of leaving P & G with complimentary recommendations, obtaining

employment with one of P & G’s clients or working very closely with CLARK on anti-

trust litigation. The options that included leaving P & G were acknowledged as having the

professional impact of a demotion and therefore were unappealing to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff opted to work with CLARK on the anti-trust litigation.

27. In January of 2018, CLARK made an overt, unwelcome sexual proposition to Plaintiff

while they were out of town together working on the above-mentioned case. On that

occasion, CLARK waited until Plaintiff was exhausted after a long day of work and

attempted to take advantage of Plaintiff’s diminished capacity for resistance by massaging

6
 her shoulders and kissing her neck. Plaintiff rebuffed CLARK’s advances but immediately

noticed that his conduct toward her became more formalized. However, the formal conduct

was not lasting and CLARK subsequently resumed his pattern of unwanted touching and

oversharing of personal information.

28. As Plaintiff and CLARK spent more time together working on out-of-town litigation,

CLARK continued to communicate about personal matters and encouraged Plaintiff to do

the same. CLARK made efforts to share details and information about his marriage and his

life in general. Plaintiff similarly shared personal details of her life with CLARK.

29. CLARK increased the attentions given to Plaintiff and eventually convinced Plaintiff that

his marriage would soon end because his children were older and would no longer be living

in his home full-time. CLARK took pains to give Plaintiff the impression that he viewed

her differently than previous women he dated extramaritally. Plaintiff had limited

experience with men other than her former spouse and readily believed CLARK’s

assurances that she was special to him and that he had given up his previous womanizing

tendencies.

30. Plaintiff and CLARK began a consensual sexual and romantic relationship during

Plaintiff’s sixth year as an associate with P & G. For as long as Plaintiff and CLARK were

involved intimately, Plaintiff’s career at P & G continued the trajectory she began at her

initial hiring. She excelled at her tasks, earning praise and notice from both clients and

partners. Plaintiff was informed that the circumstances were favorable for her consideration

for a partnership vote in the near future. On the occasion of this news CLARK hugged and

kissed Plaintiff in full view of other employees. This action made Plaintiff very

uncomfortable and she requested that CLARK refrain from any further public displays of

7
 affection between the two of them because she felt it was unprofessional and that other

employees might hold the conduct against her. CLARK agreed with Plaintiff’s assessment

of the situation but stated that the firm would “have to get used to it”, which Plaintiff

believed to be indicative of a permanent position in both the firm and in CLARK’s life.

31. Plaintiff was romantically involved with CLARK for some time. Throughout their

relationship CLARK made promises to divorce his wife and make a permanent bond with

Plaintiff. CLARK failed to keep this promise and Plaintiff subsequently ended their

romantic relationship.

32. CLARK was angered by Plaintiff’s decision to terminate their romantic relationship and

stated to her “You’ll regret this. I promise you.”

33. Upon information and belief, CLARK carried out his promise to make Plaintiff regret her

decision to leave him by retaliating against her and limiting her ability to advance at the

same pace she enjoyed before her relationship with him.

34. At the conclusion of her relationship with CLARK, Plaintiff observed that her assignments

at P & G were diminishing. Plaintiff was noticeably less busy with work from the firm.

Plaintiff was subsequently summoned into the office of Cliff Fuller, whom she considered

a friend and who had served as a personal mentor during her tenure at P & G. During the

meeting, Mr. Fuller provided a litany of thinly disguised excuses for why Plaintiff should

reconsider seeking a partnership position at P & G. Mr. Fuller conveyed to Plaintiff that if

she pursued partnership at that time she would be turned down. Plaintiff pressed Mr. Fuller

to expand on his statements and directly asked whether CLARK was responsible for the

change in her status with P & G. While Mr. Fuller did not directly blame CLARK, he did

8
 offer to lend his support to Plaintiff in the event she decided to pursue the partnership

against his advice.

35. Plaintiff opted to present herself for partnership and was subsequently denied. Plaintiff was

informed that she should seek employment elsewhere and was given six months to secure

another position. Plaintiff asked whether she could be considered for a partnership at

another time and was informed that “once an associate chose to go forward as [she] did,

there was no turning back. Mr. Fuller also relayed that he believed that any subsequent

attempts to be offered a partnership would also end in failure for Plaintiff.

36. Plaintiff made applications to several law firms in the town of Nita. Plaintiff was informed

that she should use Mr. Fuller and CLARK as references and did so. Additionally, Mr.

Fuller showed to Plaintiff a letter that he drafted. Said letter is attached here as “Exhibit

B”. Plaintiff was led to believe that CLARK would send the letter to prospective

employers. Contrary to what Plaintiff was informed by Mr. Fuller, CLARK did not present

the letter to prospective employers. Instead, CLARK drafted another letter, attached here

as “Exhibit C” and hand wrote the words “be careful” at its conclusion.

37. The letter drafted by Mr. Fuller was accurate and correctly detailed both his experiences

with Plaintiff, her expertise, and her performance during her time at P & G. The letter

drafted by CLARK was not accurate and did not correctly describe Plaintiff’s abilities nor

was it indicative of the quality of her work at P & G. Moreover, CLARK made efforts to

deliberately discourage prospective employers from hiring Plaintiff.

38. As a result of CLARK’s deliberate efforts to discourage prospective employers from

offering Plaintiff a position, she was unable to secure another position at any other law firm

and was forced to rely solely on her work as an adjunct professor for income.

9
39. Upon information and belief Plaintiff understood that CLARK’s actions toward her were

similar to his pattern of entering into relationships with women employed at P & G and

then acting subversively to create circumstances that resulted in the woman leaving her

position at the conclusion of the relationship with him.

40. Plaintiff is informed and believes that since the start of her employment with P & G, other

women have brought forth claims of unfair and or retaliatory conduct on the part of

CLARK.

41. P & G, a leader in the field of commercial litigation has promoted and encouraged an

industry wide belief that it is a supporter of female legal professionals. However, behind

closed doors, its ranks are highly homogenized both racially and in terms of gender. No

woman has ever been made a partner in the litigation section to perform regular commercial

litigation. In fact, the only women employed as a partner in litigation is limited to domestic

litigation in support of the firm’s existing business clients. Of the 30 attorneys working as

general litigation partners, none are women.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

SEXUAL HARASMENT V. All Defendants

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

43. Plaintiff was at all times material hereto an employee covered by North Carolina and

Federal law which prohibits harassment in employment based on sex.

44. Defendants are, and at all times material hereto were, an employer and or person within the

meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids discrimination based on race, color,

10
 religion, national origin, and sex, and as such, are barred from harassing Plaintiff on the

basis of her sex.

45. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted and harassing conduct based on her sex, as set forth

herein.

46. The harassing conduct was overt and frequent.

47. A reasonable woman in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work

environment created by Defendants’ to be hostile or abusive, and Plaintiff did, in fact

consider the work environment to be hostile or abusive.

48. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has

sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, employment benefits,

employment opportunities, and Plaintiff has suffered other economic losses in an amount

to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff has sought to mitigate these damages by

obtaining employment as a law professor, at a significant decrease in income from her

earnings as an Associate Attorney and far less than her projected earnings as a potential

equity partner at P & G.

49. As a result of Defendants’ deliberate, outrageous, and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled

to recover punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendants’ wrongful acts

and sufficient to punish and deter future similar reprehensible conduct.

50. In addition to such other damages as may properly be recovered herein, Plaintiff is entitled

to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to North Carolina law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT v. Defendant P & G

11
51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

52. Plaintiff was subjected to discriminatory and harassing conduct based on her sex, as set

forth herein. Plaintiff was also subjected to retaliation for opposing said discrimination and

harassment.

53. Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and

retaliation, as described herein.

54. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has

sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, employment benefits,

employment opportunities, and Plaintiff has suffered other economic losses in an amount

to be determined at time of trial. Plaintiff has sought to mitigate these damages.

55. As a result of Defendant’s deliberate, outrageous, unlawful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to

recover punitive and exemplary damages in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s

wrongful acts and sufficient to punish and deter future similar wrongful conduct.

56. In addition to such other damages as may properly be recovered herein, Plaintiff is entitled

to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to North Carolina law.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

RETAILIATION v. Defendant CLARK

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

58. At all times mentioned herein, North Carolina law was in full force and effect and was

binding on Defendant. The law requires Defendant, as an employer, to refrain from

retaliating against any employee who has opposed any practices forbidden under Civil

12
 Rights Act of 1964, or because the employee has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in

any preceding under North Carolina law governing fair employment practices.

59. Defendant engaged in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially, and adversely affects the

terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and in fact, prevented her from obtaining

employment, as stated herein, up to and including subjecting Plaintiff to diminished work

assignments, altered job duties, reduced responsibility and removal from a partner track

employment position and isolation.

60. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that her opposition to the sexual harassment and

continuation of her romantic relationship with Defendant was a motivating reason for

Defendant engaging in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially, and adversely affected

the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, as stated herein, up to and including

subjecting Plaintiff to diminished work assignments, altered job duties, reduced

responsibility and removal from a partner track employment position and isolation.

61. Defendant’s conduct of retaliating against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and privileges

of her employment as an associate at P & G, as stated herein violates North Carolina and

Federal law.

62. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has

sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, employment benefits,

employment opportunities, and other economic losses in an amount to be determined at

time of trial. Plaintiff sought to mitigate these damages.

63. As a result of Defendant’s deliberate, outrageous, and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled

to recover punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s wrongful acts

and sufficient to punish and deter future similar unlawful conduct.

13
 64. In addition to such other damages as may properly be recovered herein, Plaintiff is entitled

to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to North Carolina law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

1. For compensatory damages, including loss of wages, promotional opportunities, benefits,

and other opportunities of employment, according to proof;

2. For back pay, front pay and other monetary relief;

3. For punitive damages in an amount necessary to make an example of, and to punish,

defendants, and to deter future similar misconduct;

4. For costs of suit, including attorney fees as permitted by law, including those available

pursuant to North Carolina anti-discriminatory law.

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just under all the

circumstances.

PLAINTIFF MAGGI POLISI demands a jury trial on all issues in this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

KENNEDY & DAUGHTER, LLC

________________________

Angela Kennedy
NC State Bar Number:12345
Attorney for Plaintiff
224 Farrington Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: 980-318-8255
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 980-318-8222

14
15