Adam J.Conti, LLC - 404.531.0701

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO; BONNIE BALLONE,
MELISSA CARSON, LILLIAN CHRISTIAN,
GERTRUDE DEVLIN, MAUREEN EVANS,
DONALD FERNBACKER, THERESA FLAHERTY,
CHRISTINE FLINT, PATRICIA FORD,
BARBARA JEAN GRAY, TERESA HOROWITZ,
DESMOND JENKINS, SHERRY KOMUDA,
ALFRED LEONE, MILDRED LIBURD,
RICHARD LOPEZ, SR., CHAUNDOLYNE MACK,
JOSEPH McCABE, JOSEPH McCARTHY,
RICHARD PAUL MEYER, IVAN MILLIAN,
GLADYS OWENS, PATRICIA PASTORE,
GEORGE PATERNO, CARL PETRI,
ELIZABETH RIVERA, HENRY SAMON,
HATTIE SANTOS, GAIL SEMINARO-FAMOLARO,
MARY SWAYHOOVER, CYNTHIA TAYLOR, )
SHARENE UTTER, LOUISE WASHINGTON,
MARGARET WHITTEMORE, ELLEN WINTERS,
PENNY WORTZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION, NYNEX
CORPORATION, NEW YORK TELEPHONE
COMPANY, EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY
COMPANY, LTD., NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE
AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY,
TELESECTOR RESOURCES GROUP, INC.,
NYNEX INFORMATION RESOURCES

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is a class action brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601, et seq. ( the FMLA ) to correct various wilful employment practices, policies and procedures implemented by the Defendants (collectively referred to as NYNEX ) that have denied benefits guaranteed by the FMLA to eligible employees, and/or discriminated against eligible employees who sought to exercise their FMLA rights. Plaintiff Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO ( CWA ) is the collective bargaining representative of certain employees of the Defendant companies and brings this action in its representative capacity to obtain appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief for its represented employees whose rights guaranteed by the FMLA have been wilfully impaired and denied by Defendants. The individual Plaintiffs seek appropriate class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as monetary damages, for the harm caused to them by the wilful actions of Defendant companies which have denied them leave and other protections guaranteed by the FMLA and/or have caused them to be discriminated against for exercising their rights under the FMLA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 29 U.S.C. Section 2617(a). Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sections2201 and 2202, and by Rule 57, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The employment policies and practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Venue is appropriate in this District because it is the District where Defendants reside and/or are authorized to conduct and are conducting business and where Plaintiff CWA, through duly authorized officers, agents or other representatives, is the collective bargaining representative for certain employees of Defendant companies.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization which is and has been at all relevant times the duly authorized collective bargaining representative of certain non-management employees of the Defendant companies. At the present time, CWA represents at least 34,000 employees of the Defendant companies. CWA brings this action in its capacity as collective bargaining representative for these employees who are all similarly situated insofar as Defendants have denied them FMLA rights, protections and benefits, discriminated against them for exercising or attempting to exercise FMLA rights and/or impaired or interfered with the rights, protections and benefits guaranteed by the FMLA. CWA's claims are brought under the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CWA also sues in its individual capacity to remedy NYNEX's unlawful policies and practices which impair or threaten to impair CWA's ability to represent bargaining unit employees with respect to negotiating their terms and conditions of employment.

4. Plaintiff Bonnie Ballone was an employee of Defendant NYNEX at all relevant times until her termination in November, 1995. She resides in Schuylerville, New York. Ms. Ballone is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

5. Plaintiff Melissa Carson is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Gasport, New York. Ms. Carson is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

6. Plaintiff Lillian Christian is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Troy, New York. Ms. Christian is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

7. Plaintiff Gertrude Devlin is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Smithtown, New York. Ms. Devlin is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

8. Plaintiff Maureen Evans is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Buffalo, New York. Ms. Evans is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

9. Plaintiff Donald Fernbacker is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Long Island City, New York. Mr. Fernbacker is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

10. Plaintiff Theresa Flaherty is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Farmingdale, New York. Ms. Flaherty is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

11. Plaintiff Christine Flint is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Ilion, New York. Ms. Flint is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

12. Plaintiff Patricia Ford is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in the Bronx, New York. Ms. Ford is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

13. Plaintiff Barbara Jean Gray is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Hempstead, New York. Ms. Gray is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

14. Plaintiff Teresa Horowitz is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Seaford, New York. Ms. Horowitz is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

15. Plaintiff Desmond Jenkins was an employee of Defendant NYNEX at all relevant times until his termination in May, 1996. He resides in Brooklyn, New York. Mr. Jenkins is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

16. Plaintiff Sherry Komuda is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Warners, New York. Ms. Komuda is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

17. Plaintiff Alfred Leone is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Lynbrook, New York. Mr. Leone is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

18. Plaintiff Mildred Liburd is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in the Bronx, New York. Ms. Liburd is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

19. Plaintiff Richard Lopez, Sr. is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Kent Lakes, New York. Mr. Lopez is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

20. Plaintiff Chaundolyne Mack is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in New York, New York. Ms. Mack is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

21. Plaintiff Joseph McCabe is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Long Beach, New York. Mr. McCabe is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

22. Plaintiff Joseph McCarthy is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Glenhead, New York. Mr. McCarthy is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

23. Plaintiff Richard Paul Meyer is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Oceanside, New York. Mr. Meyer is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

24. Plaintiff Ivan Millian is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in South Setauket, New York. Mr. Miller is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

25. Plaintiff Gladys Owens is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in West Islip, New York. Ms. Owens is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

26. Plaintiff Patricia Pastore is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Nesconset, New York. Ms. Pastore is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

27. Plaintiff George Paterno is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Elmont, New York. Mr. Paterno is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

28. Plaintiff Carl Petri is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Holbrook, New York. Mr. Petri is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

29. Plaintiff Elizabeth Rivera is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in the Bronx, New York. Ms. Rivera is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

30. Plaintiff Henry Samon is and had been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. He resides in Freeport, New York. Mr. Samon is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

31. Plaintiff Hattie Santos is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in New York, New York. Ms. Santos is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

32. Plaintiff Gail Seminaro-Famolaro is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Sauquoit, New York. Ms. Seminaro-Famolaro is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

33. Plaintiff Mary Swayhoover is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Oakdale, New York. Ms. Swayhoover is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

34. Plaintiff Cynthia Taylor is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Freeport, New York. Ms. Taylor is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

35. Plaintiff Sharene Utter is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Oneonta, New York. Ms. Utter is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

36. Plaintiff Louise Washington is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Freeport, New York. Ms. Washington is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

37. Plaintiff Margaret Whittemore is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in North Merrick, New York. Ms. Whittemore is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

38. Plaintiff Ellen Winters is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Rockville Centre, New York. Ms. Winters is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

39. Plaintiff Penny Wortz is and has been at all relevant times an employee of Defendant NYNEX. She resides in Clifton Park, New York. Ms. Wortz is an eligible employee under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(2).

40. This action is brought by Plaintiff CWA as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against all Defendants. The class represented by CWA consists of current and former employees of Defendants who are or were represented by CWA for collective bargaining purposes and who, within three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, were eligible for FMLA leaves and have been or are being denied FMLA rights, protections or other benefits, discriminated against for exercising or attempting to exercise FMLA rights, and/or whose FMLA rights, protections and other benefits were impaired or interfered with by Defendants through the adoption of unlawful policies, practices and procedures that have class-wide application and effect, as more particularly set forth below in Paragraphs 57 through 93.

41. The exact size of the class is not presently known but is believed to consist of at least 3000 current or former employees of Defendant companies, making the class so numerous that joinder of individual members would be impractical. The questions of law and fact whether Defendants' policies, practices and procedures that apply to and affect these employees have been adopted and implemented in violation of the FMLA are common to all members of that class.

42. The claims asserted are typical of those of all of the members of the class.

43. CWA has a substantial interest in the outcome of this litigation insofar as the rights of the employees it represents are being interfered with and denied in violation of the FMLA and, despite repeated efforts, CWA has been unable to convince Defendants to comply with their FMLA obligations through negotiation and contractual grievance resolution. CWA will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

44. Prosecution of separate actions by individual class members challenging Defendants' policies, practices and procedures that have class-wide application and effect would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendant companies.

45. Prosecution of separate actions would also create the risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of members who are not parties to those adjudications and would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

46. In adopting and implementing the policies, practices and procedures alleged herein, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

47. The class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy concerning whether Defendants' policies, practices and procedures that have class-wide impact and effect are in violation of the FMLA.

48. Defendant Bell Atlantic ( Bell Atlantic ) is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of New York and New York City and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. Bell Atlantic is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

49. Defendant NYNEX Corporation ( NYNEX ) is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of New York and New York City and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. NYNEX is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

50. In or about August, 1997, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX effected a merger or consolidation of their respective corporations and business activities and NYNEX began doing business after that date using the name Bell Atlantic.

51. Defendant New York Telephone Company ( New York Telco ) is, upon information and belief, a New York corporation and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. New York Telco is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

52. Defendant Empire City Subway Company, Ltd. ( Empire City ) is, upon information and belief, a New York corporation and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. Empire City is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

53. Defendant New England Telephone and Telegraph Company ( New England Telco ) is, upon information and belief, a New York corporation doing business in the States of New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. New England Telco is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

54. Defendant Telesector Resources Group, Inc. ( TRG ) is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of New York and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. TRG is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

55. Defendant NYNEX Information Resources Company ( NIRC ) is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of New York and has at all relevant times continuously had at least fifty employees employed for at least 20 calendar workweeks. NIRC is a covered employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601(4).

56. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times herein, all of the Defendant Companies other than Bell Atlantic Corporation are wholly owned subsidiaries of NYNEX and rely and implement corporate policies, procedures, and practices, including those affecting employee benefits and leave entitlements, that are promulgated by NYNEX. Upon further information and belief, unless otherwise indicated herein, these corporate-wide policies, procedures, and practices apply to all CWA-represented employees at NYNEX and each of its subsidiary Companies. NYNEX was acquired by Bell Atlantic in or about August 1997. Defendants will be collectively referred to hereafter as NYNEX or Defendants.

BACKGROUND FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS AND CLASS CLAIMS NYNEX'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE FMLA

57. At all relevant times, Defendants have been on notice of and subject to the obligations imposed by the FMLA to provide notice to their employees of their rights and entitlements to FMLA benefits and protections, and to afford leaves and other benefits provided by the FMLA. Despite Defendants' awareness of these statutory obligations, they have failed to (A) post conspicuous and prominent notices explaining the FMLA and its enforcement procedures to their employees; (B) include information about the FMLA's rights and protections in employee handbooks explaining personnel policies and procedures; (C) provide employees with legible, easily readable and understandable explanations of their FMLA rights, in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2619(a), and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Sections825.300 and 825.301.

58. As a direct result of Defendants' failure to provide the notice required by the FMLA, Plaintiffs have been deprived of information regarding their rights to leave and other benefits provided by the FMLA, have been denied FMLA leave and other benefits and protections, and have had various adverse employment actions taken against them in violation of the FMLA. Defendants' actions have interfered with and impaired the rights of its current and former employees in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2615(a)(1) and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Section 825.220.

59. Despite their failure to provide their employees with proper notice of FMLA protections, rights and responsibilities, Defendants have taken adverse actions against and denied leaves to employees, as explained more particularly below in Paragraphs 61 through 84.

60. Defendants' failure to provide notice, as alleged above, constitutes a wilful violation of the FMLA.

THE NYNEX ABSENCE CONTROL PLAN

61. Defendant NYNEX has an attendance policy known as the Absence Control Plan ( ACP ) which has covered employees since 1964. In 1983, the ACP became subject to collective bargaining which modified certain aspects of the policy. At all relevant times from 1983 until January, 1996, the ACP provided that employees who were absent from work were subject to monitoring and placement on various steps of the program depending on the number and nature of their absences. An employee's attendance was measured on a calendar basis. Employees with less than 25 years of net credited service were subject to six steps and those with more than 25 years of service were subject to seven steps, measured in three month increments, with each step accompanied by a supervisory warning of a progressively more serious nature and the final, highest step resulting in the employee's termination. An employee whose attendance was perfect for three months was retrogressed to an earlier step, except in the case of an employee who had reached the fifth or next to last step of the ACP, where six months of perfect attendance was required to retrogress to an earlier step. Under the ACP, employees with less than one year of net credited service are considered short term employees, subject to three condensed steps under the program. An employee's ACP records are taken into account in reviewing qualifications for promotions and transfers to different positions within the company and an employee can be denied promotion and/or transfer based on the ACP information.

62. In January, 1996, NYNEX unilaterally adopted a new ACP which applied only to employees of the Department of Operator Services ( the Operator ACP ). Under the Operator ACP, the number of steps was reduced from six to five, and the fourth step included not only a final warning but also a five day suspension. In addition, retrogression required six months of perfect attendance instead of three months. The Operator ACP also changed the description of short term employees to include employees with less than three years of net credited service.

63. Under the Operator ACP, employees of the Department of Operator Services are regularly suspended for absences and face discharge more easily. Upon information and belief, employees of this Department are being graded as ineligible for promotion or transfer based upon their absence record under the Operator ACP, while employees with identical records in other Departments can be and are being considered eligible for such promotions or transfers.

64. NYNEX adopted the Operator ACP in direct response to the FMLA, with full knowledge that the FMLA prohibits interference with an employee's rights under the FMLA and in retaliation against employees of the Department of Operator Services who had taken leaves covered by the FMLA. In its conception and its implementation, the Operator ACP discriminates against these NYNEX employees by interfering with their FMLA-protected rights in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. Section 2615.

65. Defendants' adoption of the Operator ACP constitutes a wilful violation of the FMLA.

POLICIES OF THE ABSENCE BENEFIT CENTER

66. Prior to 1996, employees of the Defendant companies wishing to take medical leaves of absence were required to submit their requests for such leave to their supervisors who were responsible for approving or denying the leave or taking other action in response to the request. In early 1996, NYNEX changed this practice for its facilities located in New York. For these locations, NYNEX established a separate unit which was given the responsibility for responding to employee requests for approved absences for sickness and disability purposes. This unit is known as the Absence Benefit Center ( the ABC center ). Personnel employed by the ABC center include registered nurses and other individuals with medical training. Employees of NYNEX facilities located in New York who wish to take FMLA leaves must deal with the ABC center in connection with those leaves.

67. At all times relevant to this action, NYNEX has authorized and ratified all discriminatory actions taken by ABC center personnel against employees who sought or were eligible to take FMLA leaves.

68. The current policies, practices and procedures adopted and implemented by the ABC center violate the FMLA, as more particularly alleged below in Paragraphs 69 through 84.

FAILURE TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATIONS AND SECOND OPINIONS

69. Prior to the establishment of the ABC center in early 1996, whenever a NYNEX employee became ill, their request for a medical leave was first acted upon by a supervisor. If an employee was absent for seven days due to illness, their continued entitlement to leave and other sickness and absence benefits was determined in accordance with the provisions of the Sickness Disability Benefit Plan which provides for a specific number of weeks paid at full pay and a specific number of weeks paid at half pay, depending upon an employee's length of service with the company. No medical certification is required under the Sickness Disability Benefit Plan for the first seven days of an employee's absence due to illness. For FMLA leave, however, registered nurses and other health care personnel employed by the ABC center now determine whether an individual is entitled to leave immediately upon notice that the employee is ill. If an employee requires a leave that is protected under the FMLA, these registered nurses and other medically-trained personnel employed by NYNEX determine whether the stated reason for the illness falls under the FMLA's protection, either by making their own individual determination to that effect based on the information submitted by the employee and/or by reviewing and approving or rejecting the medical certification submitted by the employee's individual health care provider. Such actions violate the FMLA by allowing employees regularly employed by or under contract with NYNEX to make the initial determinations of FMLA eligibility and to deny leaves for medical reasons rather than requiring NYNEX to obtain a second opinion, at its own expense, as required by the FMLA and by the Department of Labor in its implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Section 825.307.

REQUESTS FOR OVERLY BROAD MEDICAL INFORMATION

70. NYNEX, through its ABC center personnel, has required employees to submit information concerning their personal illnesses and their requests for leaves that is broader than the information required by the FMLA to determine whether a particular leave is or is not covered by the Act. In particular, employees have been required to obtain the following information from their health care providers which is not required by the FMLA: (a) the forms have sought information about an employee's medical conditions that are not involved in the specific request for leave; (b) the forms have not contained clear explanations of the employee's FMLA rights and obligations, or the fact that leave may be delayed, but not denied, if the form is not returned by the health care provider within 21 days of the employee's first day of absence; (c) the forms have sought information required by the NYNEX Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan which is more stringent than that required by the FMLA and have failed to advise the employee that such information is not required; (d) the information set forth on the forms has utilized terms applicable to the Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan and not necessarily to the FMLA. As a result, health care providers have been asked to respond to categories pertaining to an employee's disability rather than to an employee's serious health condition which frequently has resulted in the denial of FMLA leave and other rights and benefits to otherwise eligible employees. These overly broad medical certification requirements have been in violation of the FMLA and the Department of the Labor's implementing FMLA regulations, 29 C.F.R. Sections825.305 and 825.306.

USE OF IMPROPER FMLA FORMS AND DENIALS OF LEAVE BASED ON HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSES TO FORMS

71. The Medical Certification form used by NYNEX also has been structured in a manner which is confusing and makes it difficult for an employee's health care provider to respond appropriately. As a result, many otherwise eligible employees have been denied FMLA leave because the information provided by the health care provider did not fall precisely into the categories set forth on the form, was not repeated in every applicable location on the form, or was otherwise unclear because the questions posed by the form were not necessarily relevant to the employee's serious health condition or because complete information could not be provided fully in the limited space available. Rather than advise the affected employees that more information was needed or that the health care provider has not completed every applicable section of the medical certification form, NYNEX has improperly denied leave and taken other action in violation of the FMLA and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Sections825.305, 825.306, 825.307, 825.311 and 825.312.

72. The Medical Certification form used by NYNEX has contained a blanket consent authorizing communications between NYNEX and the employee's health care provider about the employee's health condition even where the Medical Certification form has contained no ambiguity requiring further inquiry, and which has allowed inquiry about medical and health matters which are beyond the scope of the leave request. Upon information and belief, NYNEX has denied FMLA leave to otherwise eligible employees based on information obtained during telephone calls and other communications undertaken as a result of the broad consent form. Such additional information is not required by and is inconsistent with the FMLA's medical certification requirements which allow an employer merely to clarify or confirm the medical status of an eligible employee or that of their parent, child or spouse. Due to Defendants' failure to provide employees with proper notice of their FMLA rights and obligations, as set forth above, employees have signed this consent form without understanding that it is not required by the FMLA.

73. The policies, procedures and practices of the ABC center have been implemented without affording to Defendants' employees a clear explanation of their entitlement to contest denials of leave or to obtain second health care provider opinions or to provide additional information to clarify that contained on the original medical certification form as required by the FMLA. As a result, many employees have been improperly advanced on the ACP and/or the Operator ACP, while others have been suspended and/or terminated from employment under the terms of those absence control plans.

FAILURE TO TREAT FMLA REQUESTS UNIFORMLY

74. Upon information and belief, Defendants' policies, procedures and practices applicable to FMLA leave requests are not uniformly applied to all employees. Thus, in some cases, employees are expected to specifically request FMLA leave and must request forms necessary to qualify for such leave, while in other cases forms are provided directly to the employee and in other cases forms are sent directly to the employee's health care provider. In addition, in work locations which do not have an ABC center, FMLA leave information is sent out on a sporadic basis by supervisors who may or may not understand FMLA obligations and requirements and who often cannot answer employee questions about their FMLA rights and obligations. Defendants' failure to follow uniform, consistent notice and leave approval procedures when individual leave requests are made is compounded by Defendants' wilful failure to post and distribute the FMLA notices required by the Act, as alleged above in Paragraphs 57 through 59.

PREMATURE DETERMINATIONS THAT CERTAIN MEDICAL CONDITIONS ARE NOT SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITIONS

75. The FMLA provides that leave is available to otherwise eligible employees who suffer from a serious health condition or who have a parent, child or spouse suffering from a serious health condition. The term serious health condition is intended to broadly cover various types of physical and mental conditions that affect an employee's health to the extent that he or she must be absent from work or otherwise unable to participate in regular daily activities on a recurring basis for more than a few days for treatment or recovery. The term also covers complications arising out of short-term illnesses or hospitalizations that turn into serious health conditions.

76. Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their designated agents and representatives at the ABC center or elsewhere have determined in advance that certain categories of illness or health conditions do not meet the FMLA's serious health condition requirement without ever receiving or carefully evaluating medical certification information from a particular employee's health care provider submitted in connection with a specific leave request. Upon information and belief, as a result of these improper advance determinations to exclude certain conditions from FMLA coverage, otherwise eligible employees suffering from asthma, bronchitis, muscular-skeletal conditions (such as carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive stress injuries and back injuries), depression and other mental conditions associated with stress, and gastroenteritis and related conditions have been and continue to be denied FMLA leave and other protections and benefits, and/or have been and continue to be required to provide additional medical information not required for other serious health conditions before their leave request is granted, even though their condition meets the requirements of the FMLA and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Sections825.114, 825.115 and 825.306.

77. Upon information and belief, otherwise eligible employees suffering from these medical conditions are being or have been improperly advanced on the ACP and/or the Operator ACP, and/or suspended or terminated from employment under the terms of those absence control plans.

78. Defendants' adoption and implementation of the ABC center policies described above constitutes a wilful violation of the FMLA.

ADVERSE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC HEALTH CONDITIONS

79. The FMLA provides that leave is available to otherwise eligible employees who suffer from a chronic or intermittent serious health condition or who have a parent, child or spouse suffering from a serious health condition which is chronic or recurs on an intermittent basis. Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their designated agents and representatives at the ABC center or elsewhere have determined in advance that chronic or intermittent serious health conditions do not meet the FMLA's serious health condition requirement without ever receiving or evaluating medical certification information from a particular employee's health care provider in connection with a specific leave request. Upon information and belief, as a result of these improper advance determinations concerning chronic serious health conditions, otherwise eligible employees have been and continue to be denied FMLA leave and other protections and benefits, and/or have been and continue to be required to provide additional medical information not required for other serious health conditions before their leave request is granted, even though their condition meets the requirements of the FMLA and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Sections825.114, 825.115, 825.117, 825.203 and 825.306.

80. Upon information and belief, otherwise eligible employees suffering from chronic health conditions have been and are being improperly advanced on the ACP and/or the Operator ACP, and/or suspended or terminated from employment under the terms of those absence control plans.

81. In addition, employees suffering from chronic conditions are treated differently from other employees with serious health conditions insofar as Defendants fail or refuse to certify their leaves as FMLA-protected for the duration of the period indicated on the medical certification form. As a result, employees suffering from chronic conditions have been and continue to be required to obtain re-certification from their health care provider on each occasion that leave is required. Upon information and belief, this additional re-certification requirement has resulted in some otherwise eligible employees being denied FMLA leave and other protections and benefits and has resulted in their being improperly advanced on the ACP and/or the Operator ACP, and/or being suspended and/or terminated from employment under the terms of those absence control plans.

REFUSAL TO CORRECT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

82. The NYNEX policies, procedures and practices complained of herein, including those of the ABC center, have generated such concern about their adverse impact on the FMLA rights of NYNEX employees that the U.S. Department of Labor was required to conduct site visits and to give remedial FMLA training to ABC center employees in an effort to prevent the occurrence of further FMLA violations. Upon information and belief, despite these efforts by the Department of Labor, the ABC center continues to operate in a manner that impairs, interferes with and denies FMLA rights, benefits and protections to NYNEX employees.

83. Upon information and belief, NYNEX has been named in numerous FMLA complaints filed with the Department of Labor alleging leave denials, discriminatory application of policies, retaliation and other violations of the Act. Despite these complaints, some of which have been settled by NYNEX with an agreement to conform to the law, NYNEX continues to promulgate or endorse policies, procedures and practices that impair, interfere with and deny FMLA rights, benefits and protections to NYNEX employees and to authorize and ratify such policies, procedures and practices.

84. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, NYNEX employees, officers, agents and other representatives have been aware of the legal requirements imposed by the FMLA and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations, but have willfully chosen to disregard those requirements and/or acted in reckless disregard of those requirements.

COUNT ONE

CLASS-WIDE CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

85. Plaintiff CWA incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 84 above as if fully set forth herein.

86. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' policies, procedures and practices alleged herein, the rights of employees represented by CWA for collective bargaining purposes are being interfered with and denied in violation of the FMLA.

87. CWA has attempted on various occasions to convince Defendants to abide by their obligations under the FMLA and to cease their unlawful policies, practices and procedures described above. Despite CWA's efforts, Defendants have failed and refused to change these policies, practices and procedures and have continued to take actions toward CWA-represented employees that violate the FMLA.

88. CWA has also promulgated numerous grievances on behalf of NYNEX employees who have been denied FMLA leave and/or otherwise adversely affected by the NYNEX policies, procedures and practices set forth above in Paragraphs 57 through 84. NYNEX has denied many of these grievances and has failed and refused to change these policies, procedures and practices. The collective bargaining agreement between CWA and NYNEX does not permit CWA to arbitrate these grievance denials. Thus, CWA has been and will be unable to compel NYNEX to comply with its FMLA obligations through contractual dispute-resolution procedures.

89. An actual controversy exists between CWA, as representative of certain employees of Defendants, and the Defendants as to whether Defendants have complied with the obligations imposed by the FMLA and as to whether Defendants have improperly denied FMLA rights, protections and benefits to otherwise eligible employees. CWA seeks a judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the Defendants to comply with the requirements of the FMLA and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations.

90. CWA is entitled to declaratory judgement that the employment benefit, absence and leave policies, practices and procedures adopted and implemented by Defendants to apply to and govern employee requests for FMLA leave, as alleged herein, are unlawful and in violation of the FMLA.

91. CWA has made no previous application for the injunctive relief sought herein to this Court.

92. Unless injunctive relief is granted as sought herein, employees represented by CWA who are otherwise eligible for FMLA rights, benefits and protections will be irreparably harmed by Defendants' continued refusal to comply with its statutory obligations.

93. No plain, adequate or complete remedy at law is available to CWA to redress the violations of law alleged herein.

INDIVIDUAL CLAIMSCOUNT TWO - BONNIE BALLONE

94. Plaintiff Bonnie Ballone incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

95. Plaintiff Ballone was employed by NYNEX until November 16, 1995 and held the position of Operator.

96. Plaintiff Ballone suffers from Epstein-Barr syndrome and from asthma, fibromyalgia, various sleeping disorders and stress. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

97. Plaintiff Ballone's conditions qualified as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA because she was (a) unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

98. In or about January of 1995, Plaintiff was approved for FMLA leave for absences due to fibromyalgia, migraines, Epstein-Barr syndrome and carpal tunnel syndrome.

99. Plaintiff Ballone was absent from work from April 6, 1995 to April 10, 1995 due to the same chronic conditions that had previously been approved for FMLA leave in January. These conditions rendered Plaintiff unable to perform her usual job duties and required her to be under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider.

100. Plaintiff Ballone requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the medical certification form to her physician to be completed and returned to the company. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff provided sufficient information to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

101. In April, 1995 NYNEX denied Plaintiff Ballone's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that the medical certification forms were not received by the company. NYNEX continued to deny FMLA leave to Plaintiff even after her health care provider apologized for the tardy submission of the certification forms. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

102. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Ballone's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

103. Plaintiff Ballone was absent from work from April 28, 1995 to July 1, 1995 due to obstructive sleep apnea and fibromyalgia which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties and required her to be under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

104. Plaintiff Ballone requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

105. On June 16, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that the medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. NYNEX continued to deny FMLA leave to Plaintiff even after her health care provider apologized for the tardy submission of the certification forms. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

106. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Ballone's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

107. Plaintiff Ballone was absent from October 23, 1995 to October 28, 1995 work due to fibromyalgia, migraines, and obstructive sleep apnea, with complications of neck and back pain. As a result of these conditions, Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was required to be under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider.

108. Plaintiff Ballone requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the required medical certification form.

109. On November 1, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Ballone's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff had not worked the required number of hours to qualify for FMLA leave. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

110. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave for Plaintiff Ballone's previous absences due to her serious health conditions, Plaintiff Ballone was terminated from employment on November 16, 1995 under the provisions of the ACP.

COUNT THREE - MELISSA CARSON

111. Plaintiff Melissa Carson incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

112. Plaintiff Carson is an employee of Defendant NYNEX and holds the position of Operator.

113. Plaintiff Carson suffers from hemorrhoids and related bleeding problems. This is a chronic condition which qualifies as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff is periodically unable to work as a result of this condition and is under the continued care and treatment of her health care provider.

114. On July 23, 1996, Plaintiff Carson was unable to perform her regular job duties due to her chronic serious health condition and was under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

115. Plaintiff Carson requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

116. In August, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Carson's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

117. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Carson's absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

118. As a result of Plaintiff Carson's Operator ACP record, which was calculated including this absence that should have qualified for FMLA protection, Plaintiff Carson was suspended and denied wages, salary, employment benefits, and/or other compensation from August 12, 1996 through August 16, 1996.

119. On September 25, 26 and 27, 1996, Plaintiff Carson was again unable to perform her regular job duties due to her chronic serious health condition and was under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

120. Plaintiff Carson requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

121. In October, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Carson's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

122. As a result of Plaintiff Carson's Operator ACP record, which was calculated including absences that should have qualified for FMLA protection, Plaintiff Carson was terminated from employment from October 15, 1996 until her reinstatement on April 29, 1997, and was denied wages, salary, employment benefits, and/or other compensation.

COUNT FOUR - LILLIAN CHRISTIAN

123. Plaintiff Lillian Christian incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

124. Plaintiff Christian is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Administrative Clerk.

125. Plaintiff Christian suffers from chronic sinus problems which require her to be under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

126. Plaintiff Christian became unable to perform her regular job duties due to this serious health condition from August 5, 1996 through August 9, 1996.

127. Plaintiff Christian requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the required medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

128. On September 3, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Christian's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition and that her health care provider failed to return the medical certification form in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

129. Plaintiff Christian again became unable to perform her regular job duties due to this serious health condition from August 12, 1996 through August 16, 1996.

130. Plaintiff Christian requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the required medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

131. On September 3, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Christian's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

132. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Christian's absences were counted against her under the ACP.

133. Plaintiff Christian was unable to perform her regular job duties on June 11, 1997 and again on July 9, 1997 due to gynecological problems. These medical problems qualify as a serious health condition covered by FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

134. Plaintiff Christian requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA. NYNEX medical department informed Plaintiff Christian that she could submit both dates on one form.

135. On September 5, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Christian's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

136. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Christian's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT FIVE - GERTRUDE DEVLIN

137. Plaintiff Gertrude Devlin incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

138. Plaintiff Devlin is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Customer Service Representative.

139. Plaintiff Devlin suffers from chronic asthma. This condition qualifies as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA.

140. Plaintiff Devlin was absent from work from December 12, 1995 through December 15, 1995 due to her chronic asthma. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

141. Plaintiff Devlin requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA. In addition, NYNEX had approved FMLA leave for Plaintiff's asthma-related absence in March, 1995 and on at least one other occasion.

142. On December 29, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Devlin's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

143. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Devlin's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT SIX - MAUREEN EVANS

144. Plaintiff Maureen Evans incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

145. Plaintiff Evans is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Directory Assistance Operator.

146. Plaintiff Evans was unable to perform her regular job duties from September 9, 1995 to September 15, 1995 due to an attack of gastroenteritis. This condition is a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

147. Plaintiff Evans requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

148. On September 26, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Evans' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

149. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Evans' absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

150. Plaintiff Evans was unable to perform her regular job duties from October 17, 1995 to October 31, 1995 due to throat surgery and related recovery needs. This condition is a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

151. Plaintiff Evans requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

152. On November 13, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Evans' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

153. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Evans' absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

154. Plaintiff Evans was unable to perform her regular job duties from June 25, 1996 to July 7, 1996 due to acute torticollis, a neck condition related to Plaintiff's chronic condition of carpal tunnel syndrome which was known to NYNEX at all relevant times. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

155. Plaintiff Evans requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

156. On July 15, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Evans' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff had not worked the required number of hours to qualify for FMLA leave. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

157. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Evans' absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

158. Plaintiff Evans was unable to perform her regular job duties from October 3, 1996 to October 7, 1996 due to oral surgery. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

159. Plaintiff Evans requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

160. On October 18, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Evans' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

161. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Evans' absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

162. As a result of Plaintiff Evans' Operator ACP record, which was calculated including absences that should have qualified for FMLA protection, she was denied an opportunity to transfer into the NYNEX Customer Service Department in June 1996, a position for which she was otherwise qualified.

163. As a result of Plaintiff Evans' Operator ACP record, which was calculated including absences that should have qualified for FMLA protection, Plaintiff Evans was terminated from employment from October 18, 1996 until her reinstatement on November 10, 1997, and was denied wages, salary, employment benefits, and/or other compensation.

COUNT SEVEN - DONALD FERNBACKER

164. Plaintiff Donald Fernbacker incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

165. Plaintiff Fernbacker is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Service Technician.

166. Plaintiff Fernbacker suffers from chronic bronchitis which is a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff requires continuing care and treatment by a health care provider.

167. Plaintiff Fernbacker was unable to perform his regular job duties from December 12, 1995 to December 22, 1995 due to chronic bronchitis and was under the continued care and treatment of a health care provider.

168. Plaintiff Fernbacker requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

169. In January, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Fernbacker's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Fernbacker with an explanation for this denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

170. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Fernbacker's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT EIGHT - THERESA FLAHERTY

171. Plaintiff Theresa Flaherty incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

172. Plaintiff Flaherty is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Facilities Assistant.

173. Plaintiff Flaherty was unable to perform her regular job duties from August 20, 1996 to September 20, 1996 due to a herniated disc and cervical spasms. This chronic condition qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was periodically unable to work and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

174. Plaintiff Flaherty requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

175. On September 6, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Flaherty's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition, a determination apparently based in part on the health care provider's failure to check every applicable section of the medical certification form. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

176. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Flaherty's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT NINE - CHRISTINE FLINT

177. Plaintiff Christine Flint incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

178. Plaintiff Flint is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Call Completion Operator.

179. Plaintiff Flint was unable to perform her regular job duties from February 24, 1996 to February 27, 1996 due to cervical strain, possible nerve compingement and possible carpal tunnel. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff a) was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) was suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

180. Plaintiff Flint requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

181. On March 8, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Flint's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

182. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Flint's absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

183. In June 1996, Plaintiff was approved for FMLA leave for May 23, 1996 and May 24, 1996 due to cervical strain and possible nerve impingement, the same condition for which her February 1996 leave was denied.

COUNT TEN - PATRICIA FORD

184. Plaintiff Patricia Ford incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

185. Plaintiff Ford is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Directory Assistance Operator.

186. Plaintiff Ford suffers from chronic asthma and related conditions such as pharyngitis, laryngitis, and otitis. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA insofar as they require continued care and treatment by a health care provider and cause a periodic inability to work.

187. Plaintiff Ford was unable to perform her regular job duties from November 3, 1995 to November 13, 1995 due to her chronic asthma, pharyngitis, and laryngitis, with complications of a cough and otitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

188. Plaintiff Ford requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

189. On November 17, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Ford's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that NYNEX had approved a previous absence for these conditions in March, 1995.

190. Plaintiff Ford was again unable to perform her regular job duties from November 16, 1995 to November 22, 1995 due to the same chronic medical condition. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

191. Plaintiff Ford requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

192. On December 7, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Ford's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

193. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Ford's absences were counted against her under the Operator ACP.

194. NYNEX approved an FMLA leave for Plaintiff Ford from January 8, 1997 to January 20, 1997, for the same conditions for which FMLA leave was denied for November, 1995.

COUNT ELEVEN - BARBARA JEAN GRAY

195. Plaintiff Barbara Jean Gray incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

196. Plaintiff Gray is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Administrative Assistant.

197. Plaintiff Gray suffers from the chronic medical condition of colitis which qualifies as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff is periodically unable to work as a result of this condition and is under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

198. Plaintiff Gray was unable to perform her regular job duties from October 10, 1995 to October 24, 1995 due to her chronic colitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

199. Plaintiff Gray requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

200. On November 15, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Gray's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff's health care provider did not return the medical certification forms in a timely manner and that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

201. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Gray's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

202. Plaintiff Gray was unable to perform her regular job duties from November 30, 1995 to December 3, 1995 due to her chronic colitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

203. Plaintiff Gray requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

204. In December, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Gray's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Gray with an explanation for this denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

205. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Gray's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

206. Plaintiff Gray was again unable to perform her regular job duties from January 3, 1996 to January 9, 1996 due to gynecological problems. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

207. Plaintiff Gray requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

208. On January 26, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Gray's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

209. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Gray's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

210. Plaintiff Gray was again unable to perform her regular job duties from February 7, 1996 to February 11, 1996 due to her chronic colitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

211. Plaintiff Gray requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

212. On February 13, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Gray's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

213. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Gray's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

214. Plaintiff Gray was again unable to perform her regular job duties from April 21, 1997 to April 27, 1997 due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

215. Plaintiff Gray requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

216. On April 28, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Gray's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

217. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Gray's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT TWELVE - TERESA HOROWITZ

218. Plaintiff Teresa Horowitz incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

219. Plaintiff Horowitz is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Facilities Assistant.

220. Plaintiff Horowitz was unable to perform her regular job duties from June 9, 1997 to June 13, 1997 due to severe abdominal pain resulting from a urinary tract infection and a uterine infection. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

221. Plaintiff Horowitz requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

222. In June, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Horowitz's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Horowitz with an explanation for this denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

223. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Horowitz's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT THIRTEEN - DESMOND JENKINS

224. Plaintiff Desmond Jenkins incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

225. Plaintiff Jenkins was employed by NYNEX until May 29, 1996 and held the position of Billing Representative.

226. Plaintiff Jenkins was absent from work from June 21, 1995 through July 8, 1995 due to treatment for substance abuse. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

227. Plaintiff Jenkins requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

228. In June, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Jenkins' request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Jenkins with an explanation for this denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

229. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Jenkins' absence was counted against him under the ACP.

230. Plaintiff Jenkins was absent from work from August 23, 1995 through September 1, 1995 due to treatment for substance abuse. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

231. Plaintiff Jenkins requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

232. In September, 1995, NYNEX granted Plaintiff Jenkins' request for FMLA leave.

233. Plaintiff Jenkins' absence was counted against him under the ACP, despite the approval for FMLA leave.

234. Plaintiff Jenkins was absent from work on May 7, 1996 due to treatment for substance abuse. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

235. Plaintiff Jenkins requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

236. In May, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Jenkins' request for FMLA leave. The reason for denial was that the Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

237. As a result of denial of FMLA leave for Plaintiff Jenkins' absences due to his serious health condition, Plaintiff Jenkins was terminated from employment on May 29, 1996 under the provisions of the ACP.

COUNT FOURTEEN - SHERRY KOMUDA

238. Plaintiff Sherry Komuda incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

239. Plaintiff Komuda is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Facilities Specialist.

240. Plaintiff Komuda suffers from a chronic condition of heel and knee spurs. This condition qualifies as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA because Plaintiff is periodically unable to work as a result of this condition and is under the continued care and treatment of a health care provider.

241. Plaintiff Komuda was unable to perform her regular job duties from April 24, 1997 to April 30, 1997 due to her heel spurs. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

242. Plaintiff Komuda requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

243. On July 14, 1997, NYNEX notified Plaintiff Komuda that her request for FMLA leave was denied. The reason given for the denial was that the medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

244. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Komuda's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

245. Plaintiff Komuda was unable to perform her regular job duties from September 24, 1997 to October 4, 1997 due to her knee spurs. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

246. Plaintiff Komuda requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

247. On October 14, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Komuda's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

248. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Komuda's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT FIFTEEN - ALFRED LEONE

249. Plaintiff Alfred Leone incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

250. Plaintiff Leone is an employee of NYNEX and holds the position of Cable Technician.

251. Plaintiff Leone suffers from the chronic conditions of depression and anxiety. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA insofar as they periodically render Plaintiff unable to work and require the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

252. Plaintiff Leone was unable to perform his regular job duties from November 20, 1996 through November 22, 1996 due to these chronic conditions. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider. In addition, NYNEX had previously granted Plaintiff FMLA leave in December, 1994 for the same chronic condition.

253. Plaintiff Leone requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

254. On December 3, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Leone's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff's health care provider had failed to complete every applicable section of the medical certification form. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

255. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Leone's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT SIXTEEN - MILDRED LIBURD

256. Plaintiff Mildred Liburd incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

257. Plaintiff Liburd is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Operator.

258. Plaintiff Liburd was absent from work from May 13, 1995 to May 19, 1995 due to gastroenteritis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her regular job duties for more than three days and was under the care and treatment of a health care provider.

259. Plaintiff Liburd requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

260. On June 14, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Liburd's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition and that Plaintiff's health care provider did not return the medical certification forms in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

261. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Liburd's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

262. Plaintiff Liburd was unable to perform her regular job duties from December 22, 1995 to January 11, 1996 due to stress and laryngitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

263. Plaintiff Liburd requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

264. On January 10, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Liburd's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

265. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Liburd's absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

266. Plaintiff Liburd was unable to perform her regular job duties from January 16, 1996 to January 22, 1996 due to complications from a foot injury suffered as the result of a fall. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days, was hospitalized overnight and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

267. Plaintiff Liburd requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

268. On January 31, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Liburd's' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

269. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Liburd's absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

270. Plaintiff Liburd was unable to perform her regular job duties from June 3, 1996 to June 10, 1996 due to problems resulting from her chronic condition of degenerative joint disease. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

271. Plaintiff Liburd requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

272. On June 17, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Liburd's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

273. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Liburd's absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

COUNT SEVENTEEN - RICHARD LOPEZ, SR.

274. Plaintiff Richard Lopez, Sr. incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

275. Plaintiff Lopez is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Mail Courier.

276. Plaintiff Lopez suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis, cardiac-related medical problems and anxiety due to stress. These conditions, separately, and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

277. Plaintiff Lopez was absent from work from January 3, 1996 through February 4, 1996 for medical problems relating to carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. He was unable to perform his regular job duties during this period and was under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

278. Plaintiff Lopez requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the required medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

279. On February 8, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Lopez' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff's health care provider had failed to return the medical certification form in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

280. As a result of the denial of this FMLA leave, Plaintiff Lopez' absence was counted against him under the ACP.

281. Plaintiff Lopez was absent from work from March 4, 1996 through March 8, 1996 due chest pains resulting from Plaintiff's cardiac condition. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties for three days or more and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider. In addition, NYNEX had previously granted FMLA leave for Plaintiff's absence for a comparable medical condition in June, 1995.

282. Plaintiff Lopez requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

283. On March 14, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Lopez' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

284. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Lopez' absence was counted against him under the ACP.

285. Plaintiff Lopez was absent from work from July 8, 1997 through July 11, 1997 due to cardiac problems and anxiety due to stress. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

286. Plaintiff Lopez requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

287. In July, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Lopez' leave request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Lopez with an explanation for this denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

288. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Lopez' absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT EIGHTEEN - CHAUNDOLYNE MACK

289. Plaintiff Chaundolyne Mack incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

290. Plaintiff Mack is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Business Representative.

291. Plaintiff Mack was absent from work from January 9, 1995 through January 13, 1995 due to an abscess. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

292. Plaintiff Mack requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

293. On January 19, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Mack's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

294. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Mack's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

295. Plaintiff Mack suffers from chronic medical problems due to a back injury. These medical problems qualify as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff is periodically unable to work and is under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

296. Plaintiff Mack was absent from work from January 8, 1996 through January 15, 1996 due to her chronic back injury problems. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

297. Plaintiff Mack requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

298. On January 17, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Mack's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that Plaintiff's chronic back injury was known to NYNEX which had previously approved back-injury-related absences for FMLA leave taken in March, 1995 and October, 1995.

299. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Mack's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

300. On May 16, 1996, NYNEX approved an FMLA leave for Plaintiff Mack taken from April 5, 1996 to April 18, 1996, for the same serious health condition for which leave was previously denied in January.

301. Plaintiff Mack was absent from work from May 29, 1996 to June 5, 1996 due to otitis media. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

302. Plaintiff Mack requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

303. On September 3, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Mack's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

304. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Mack's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

305. Plaintiff Mack was again absent from work from February 24, 1997 through March 3, 1997 due to her chronic back injury problems. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

306. Plaintiff Mack requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

307. In March, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Mack's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Mack with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that Plaintiff's chronic back injury was known to NYNEX which had previously approved back-injury-related absences for FMLA leave taken in March, 1995, October, 1995, and April, 1996.

308. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Mack's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

309. Plaintiff Mack was absent from work from June 25, 1997 through July 2, 1997 due to chronic nosebleeds. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

310. Plaintiff Mack requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

311. In July, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Mack's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Mack with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

312. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Mack's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT NINETEEN - JOSEPH McCABE

313. Plaintiff Joseph McCabe incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

314. Plaintiff McCabe is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Outside Field Technician.

315. Plaintiff McCabe was absent from work from December 9, 1996 through December 13, 1996 due to back problems related to his degenerative arthritis, aggravated by an on-the-job injury in July, 1996. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

316. Plaintiff McCabe requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

317. On December 19, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff McCabe's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

318. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff McCabe's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY - JOSEPH McCARTHY

319. Plaintiff Joseph McCarthy incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

320. Plaintiff McCarthy is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Maintenance Splicer.

321. Plaintiff McCarthy was absent from work from September 23, 1996 through September 27, 1996 due to medical problems resulting from chronic asthma and related medical problems. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

322. Plaintiff McCarthy requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

323. On October 8, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff McCarthy's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition, a determination apparently based in part on the health care provider's failure to check every applicable section of the medical certification form. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

324. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff McCarthy's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

325. Plaintiff McCarthy was again absent from work from December 6, 1996 through December 11, 1996 due to his chronic asthma and related medical problems. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

326. Plaintiff McCarthy requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

327. On March 12, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff McCarthy's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely matter by the company. NYNEX continued to deny FMLA leave to Plaintiff even after his health care provider apologized for the tardy submission of the certification forms. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

328. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff McCarthy's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-ONE - RICHARD PAUL MEYER

329. Plaintiff Richard Paul Meyer incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

330. Plaintiff Meyer is an employee of NYNEX and holds the position of Desk Test Technician.

331. Plaintiff Meyer suffers from the chronic condition of diabetes which causes and/or aggravates various infections or other medical problems. Such complications from diabetes qualify as serious health conditions under the FMLA.

332. Plaintiff Meyer was absent from work from August 28, 1996 through September 10, 1996 due to a sinus infection and inner ear problems which were diabetes-related complications. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

333. Plaintiff Meyer requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

334. On September 16, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Meyer's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition, a determination apparently based in part on the health care provider's failure to check every applicable section of the medical certification form. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that Plaintiff's chronic diabetes was known to NYNEX which had previously approved at least one diabetes-related absence for FMLA leave in January, 1995.

335. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Meyer's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-TWO - IVAN MILLIAN

336. Plaintiff Ivan Millian incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

337. Plaintiff Millian is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Service Technician.

338. Plaintiff Millian was absent from work from February 10, 1997 through February 14, 1997 due to medical problems resulting from bronchitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

339. Plaintiff Millian requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

340. On March 10, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Millian's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

341. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Millian's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-THREE - GLADYS OWENS

342. Plaintiff Gladys Owens incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

343. Plaintiff Owens is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Splicer.

344. Plaintiff Owens suffers from chronic medical problems resulting from herniated discs and other back problems and from mental health problems stemming from those conditions. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

345. Plaintiff Owens was absent from work from January 2, 1996 through March 20, 1996 due to these chronic medical conditions. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

346. Plaintiff Owens requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

347. On February 1, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Owens' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition and that her health care provider had failed to complete the medical certification form in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

348. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Owens' absence was counted against her under the ACP.

349. Plaintiff Owens was again absent from work from September 3, 1996 through November 11, 1996 due to her chronic back injury problems, complicated by mental health problems. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

350. Plaintiff Owens requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

351. On September 18, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Owens' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

352. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Owens' absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNTY TWENTY- FOUR - PATRICIA PASTORE

353. Plaintiff Patricia Pastore incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

354. Plaintiff Pastore is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Translation Administrator.

355. Plaintiff Pastore was absent from work from March 26, 1996 through April 5, 1996 due to various medical problems and complications including conjunctivitis, bronchitis, sinusitis, an ear infection and the flu. Taken in combination, these various medical problems qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

356. Plaintiff Pastore requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

357. On April 10, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Pastore's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

358. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Pastore's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE - GEORGE PATERNO

359. Plaintiff George Paterno incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

360. Plaintiff Paterno is an employee of NYNEX and at the time relevant herein held the position of Frame Administrator.

361. Plaintiff Paterno was absent from work from October 2, 1995 through October 8, 1995 due to medical problems resulting from bronchitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

362. Plaintiff Paterno requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

363. On December 4, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Paterno's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition and that his health care provider did not return the medical certification forms in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

364. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Paterno's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

365. Plaintiff Paterno was absent from work from October 30, 1995 through November 10, 1995 due to medical problems resulting from a relapse of bronchitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

366. Plaintiff Paterno requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

367. On November 22, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Paterno's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition and that his health care provider did not return the medical certification forms in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

368. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Paterno's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

369. Plaintiff Paterno was absent from work from November 28, 1995 through December 1, 1995 due to medical problems resulting from shingles and chicken pox. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

370. Plaintiff Paterno requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

371. On January 18, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Paterno's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

372. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Paterno's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

373. On November 4, 1996, NYNEX reversed its denial and approved FMLA leave for Plaintiff Paterno's absence leave from October 30, 1995 to November 10, 1995. Despite this reversal, NYNEX failed to adjust Plaintiff Paterno's ACP records accordingly, and his absence still counted against him.

COUNT TWENTY-SIX - CARL PETRI

374. Plaintiff Carl Petri incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

375. Plaintiff Petri is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Central Office Technician.

376. Plaintiff Petri suffers from chronic medical problems due to a crushed tibial plateau, missing cartilage, and stretched ligaments in his left knee. These medical problems, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

377. Plaintiff Petri was absent from work from September 30, 1996 through October 28, 1996 due to medical problems resulting from his chronic medical conditions. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

378. Plaintiff Petri requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

379. On November 1, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Petri's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff's health care provider failed to return the medical certification forms in a timely manner. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

380. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Petri's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

381. Plaintiff Petri was absent from work from May 5, 1997 through May 9, 1997 due to medical problems resulting his chronic medical conditions. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

382. Plaintiff Petri requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

383. In May, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Petri's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide the Plaintiff with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

384. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Petri's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

385. Plaintiff Petri was absent from work from September 2, 1997 through September 12, 1997 due to medical problems resulting from his chronic medical conditions. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform his usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

386. Plaintiff Petri requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

387. In September, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Petri's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms were not received by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

388. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Petri's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN - ELIZABETH RIVERA

389. Plaintiff Elizabeth Rivera incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

390. Plaintiff Rivera is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Customer Service Representative.

391. Plaintiff Rivera was absent from work from May 6, 1996 through May 17, 1996 due to complications from a back injury. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

392. Plaintiff Rivera requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

393. On May 15, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Rivera's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for denial was that the Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. 394. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Rivera's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT - HENRY SAMON

395. Plaintiff Henry Samon incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

396. Plaintiff Samon is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Maintenance Splicer.

397. Plaintiff Samon was unable to perform his regular job duties from December 13, 1995 through December 20, 1995 due to an attack of the flu. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

398. Plaintiff Samon requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

399. On December 21, 1995 NYNEX denied Plaintiff Samon's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

400. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Samon's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

401. Plaintiff Samon was unable to perform his regular job duties from March 24, 1997 to March 28, 1997 due to a recurrence of bronchitis and strep throat. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

402. Plaintiff Samon requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that his leave was covered by the FMLA.

403. In April, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Samon's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Samon with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that NYNEX had previously approved an absence for these conditions on March 6, 1997.

404. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Samon's absence was counted against him under the ACP.

COUNT TWENTY-NINE - HATTIE SANTOS

405. Plaintiff Hattie Santos incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

406. Plaintiff Santos is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Administrative Assistant.

407. Plaintiff Santos was unable to perform her regular job duties from May 26, 1995 to June 2, 1995 due to a severe vaginal bleeding and related pains, a condition for which she underwent surgery. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to work for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

408. Plaintiff Santos requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

409. In July, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Santos' request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Santos with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

410. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Santos' absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT THIRTY - GAIL SEMINARO-FAMOLARO

411. Plaintiff Gail Seminaro-Famolaro incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

412. Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Operator.

413. Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro suffers from recurring pneumonia and from asthma. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

414. Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro's conditions qualified as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA because she was (a) unable to work for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

415. Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro was absent from work from December 14, 1995 to December 18, 1995, and again from December 29, 1995 to January 13, 1996 due to her serious health conditions, which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties during this period and required her to be under the continued care and treatment of her health care provider.

416. Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

417. In January, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

418. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Seminaro-Famolaro's absence was counted against her under the Operator ACP.

COUNT THIRTY-ONE - MARY SWAYHOOVER

419. Plaintiff Mary Swayhoover incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

420. Plaintiff Swayhoover is an employee of NYNEX and holds the position of Directory Assistance Operator.

421. Plaintiff Swayhoover suffers from the chronic condition of diabetes which causes and/or aggravates various infections or other medical problems. Such complications from diabetes qualify as serious health conditions under the FMLA.

422. Plaintiff Swayhoover was absent from work from November 16, 1994 to November 22, 1994 due to sinusitis which was a diabetes-related complication. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

423. Plaintiff Swayhoover requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

424. On December 2, 1994, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Swayhoover's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

425. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Swayhoover's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT THIRTY-TWO - CYNTHIA TAYLOR

426. Plaintiff Cynthia Taylor incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

427. Plaintiff Taylor is an employee of NYNEX and holds the position of Dispatcher.

428. Plaintiff Taylor suffers from allergic rhinitis and hypersomnia. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

429. Plaintiff Taylor's conditions qualified as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA because she was (a) unable to work for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

430. Plaintiff Taylor was absent from work from September 5, 1995 to September 12, 1995 due to excessive daytime sleepiness and rhinitis which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties during this period and required her to be under the continued care and treatment of her health care provider.

431. Plaintiff Taylor requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

432. On September 28, 1995, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Taylor's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff's condition was not a serious health condition covered by the Act. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident, and without any effort to seek clarification or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that NYNEX had approved a previous absence for these conditions on June, 1995.

433. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Taylor's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

434. Plaintiff Taylor was absent from work from March 1, 1996 to April 21, 1996 due to severe allergies, chronic fatigue, and coronary artery disease with an abnormal electrocardiogram. Plaintiff Taylor had a relapse and was absent from work from April 23, 1996 to April 30, 1996 accompanied by hypertension and stress with depression. These conditions rendered Plaintiff unable to perform her usual job duties and required her to be under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider.

435. Plaintiff Taylor requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the medical certification form to her physician to be completed and returned to the company. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff provided sufficient information to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

436. On March 18, 1996 and April 30, 1996 NYNEX denied Plaintiff Taylor's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denials was that the Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

437. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Taylor's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT THIRTY-THREE - SHARENE UTTER

438. Plaintiff Sharene Utter incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

439. Plaintiff Utter is an employee of NYNEX and holds the position of Directory Assistance Operator.

440. Plaintiff Utter suffers from bilateral upper extremity tendonitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and related stress. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

441. Plaintiff Utter's conditions qualified as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA because she was (a) unable to work for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

442. Plaintiff Utter was unable to perform her regular job duties from April 14, 1995 to April 18, 1995, from April 20, 1995 to April 21, 1995, from April 24, 1995 to April 25, 1995, from May 5, 1995 to June 2, 1995, from June 22, 1995 to July 31, 1995, and on August 15, 1995 due to her chronic health conditions which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties during this period and required her to be under the continued care and treatment of her health care provider.

443. At various points during Plaintiff Utter's absence from work, she asked NYNEX to treat her leave as FMLA leave and submitted the required medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

444. On June 30, 1995 NYNEX denied Plaintiff Utter's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Utter with an explanation for the denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

445. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Utter's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

446. On July 27, 1995, NYNEX again denied Plaintiff Utter's request for FMLA leave. NYNEX has failed to provide Plaintiff Utter with an explanation for this denial. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

447. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Utter's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

448. As a result of Plaintiff Utter's Operator ACP record, which was calculated including this absence that should have qualified for FMLA protection, Plaintiff Utter was suspended and denied wages, salary, employment benefits, and/or other compensation from March 12, 1996 through March 14, 1996.

COUNT THIRTY-FOUR - LOUISE WASHINGTON

449. Plaintiff Louise Washington incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

450. Plaintiff Washington is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Customer Service Attendant.

451. Plaintiff Washington suffers from severe back, wrist, and hand pain caused by carpal tunnel and a herniated disc in her spine. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff is periodically unable to work for three days or more and is under the continuing care and treatment of a health care provider.

452. Plaintiff Washington's conditions qualified as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA because she was (a) unable to work for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

453. Plaintiff Washington was absent from work from October 16, 1996 through November 4, 1996 due to her serious health condition. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

454. Plaintiff Washington requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

455. On October 25, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Washington's request for FMLA leave. The reason for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

456. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Washington's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

457. Plaintiff Washington was again absent from work from December 23, 1996 to January 5, 1997 due to her serious health condition. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

458. Plaintiff Washington requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

459. On January 29, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Washington's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that medical certification forms had not been received in a timely manner by the company. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

460. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Washington's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

461. Plaintiff Washington was approved for FMLA leave for an absence from September 10, 1997 through September 26, 1997 due to the same serious health condition for which she was twice previously denied.

COUNT THIRTY-FIVE - MARGARET WHITTEMORE

462. Plaintiff Margaret Whittemore incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

463. Plaintiff Whittemore is an employee of NYNEX holds the position of Central Office Technician.

464. Plaintiff Whittemore was absent from work from January 2, 1996 through January 12, 1996 due to medical problems resulting from chronic bronchitis. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

465. Plaintiff Whittemore requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

466. On January 16, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Whittemore's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA. In addition, this determination was made despite the fact that NYNEX had previously approved two absences for the same condition in December, 1994 and April, 1995.

467. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Whittemore's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT THIRTY-SIX - ELLEN WINTERS

468. Plaintiff Ellen Winters incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

469. Plaintiff Winters is employed by NYNEX and holds the position of Facilities Assistant.

470. Plaintiff Winters was absent from work from October 7, 1996 through October 11, 1996 due to sciatica. This absence qualified as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA insofar as Plaintiff was unable to perform her usual job duties for more than three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of a health care provider.

471. Plaintiff Winters requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that her leave was covered by the FMLA.

472. On October 29, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Winters' request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

473. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Winters' absence was counted against her under the ACP.

COUNT THIRTY-SEVEN - PENNY WORTZ

474. Plaintiff Penny Wortz incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein.

475. Plaintiff Wortz is an employee of NYNEX and holds the position of Office Assistant.

476. Plaintiff Wortz suffers from cervical disc and lumbar problems. These conditions, separately and in combination, qualify as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA.

477. Plaintiff Wortz's conditions qualified as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA because she was (a) unable to work for three days and was under the care and continuing treatment of her health care provider and (b) suffering from chronic conditions that were under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

478. Plaintiff Wortz was absent from work from February 15, 1996 to February 21, 1996 due to cervical and lumbar disc herniation which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties during this period and required her to be under the continued care and treatment of her health care provider.

479. Plaintiff Wortz requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

480. On February 23, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Wortz's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that Plaintiff's condition was not a serious health condition covered by the Act. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident, and without any effort to seek clarification or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

481. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Wortz's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

482. Plaintiff Wortz was absent from work on September 3, 1996 and September 4, 1996 due to oral surgery, and from September 5, 1996 through September 20, 1996 due to her herniated lumbar disc which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties during this period and required her to be under the continued care and treatment of her health care provider.

483. Plaintiff Wortz requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted the medical certification form to her physician to be completed and returned to the company. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff provided sufficient information to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

484. On September 18, 1996, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Wortz's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that the Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

485. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Wortz's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

486. Plaintiff Wortz was absent from work from February 18, 1997 to February 21, 1997 due to acute cervical disc herniation which rendered her unable to perform her usual job duties and required her to be under the continuing care and treatment of her health care provider.

487. Plaintiff Wortz requested FMLA leave from NYNEX and submitted medical certification information which, upon information and belief, was sufficient to indicate that Plaintiff's leave was covered by the FMLA.

488. On March 11, 1997, NYNEX denied Plaintiff Wortz's request for FMLA leave. The reason given for the denial was that the Plaintiff was not suffering from a serious health condition. Upon information and belief, this determination was made by personnel employed by NYNEX even though Plaintiff's entitlement to leave was evident and without any effort to seek clarification and/or to obtain a second opinion as required by the FMLA.

489. As a result of the denial of FMLA leave, Plaintiff Wortz's absence was counted against her under the ACP.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

A. That the Court issue an order certifying, under Rules 23(b)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class consisting of current and former employees of Defendants who at any time in the three years preceding the filing of this complaint have been or are being denied FMLA rights, protections and benefits, or who have been or are being discriminated against for exercising or attempting to exercise FMLA rights, and/or whose FMLA rights, protections and benefits are being or have been impaired or interfered with as a result of NYNEX' wilful conduct in implementing and ratifying unlawful employment benefit and leave policies, procedures and practices in violation of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor.

B. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 in favor of Plaintiff CWA and the class of CWA-represented employees and against Defendants that Defendants' employment benefit, absence and leave policies, practices, procedures adopted and implemented to apply to and govern employees request for FMLA leave, as alleged herein, are in violation of the FMLA.

C. That the Court issue an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and their employees, officers, agents, representatives, successor and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in, allowing, permitting, approving, authorizing, acquiescing in or ratifying employment policies, procedures and practices with respect to CWA represented employees that are in violation of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor, including but not limited to the following:

(1) Failing to post notices of FMLA leave entitlements and benefits and failing to include such notice in benefits handbooks and other publications distributed to CWA-represented employees;

(2) Counting FMLA-protected absences in any way under the Absence Control Plan, including but not limited to "stepping" employees under that plan, refusing to "retrogress" employees under that plan, or discharging employees under that plan as a result of their absences from work that are covered under and protected by the FMLA, and/or taking any adverse action of any kind against CWA-represented employees who have taken FMLA-protected leaves;

(3) Counting FMLA-protected absences in any way under the Operator Absence Control Plan, including but not limited to "stepping" employees under that plan, refusing to "retrogress" employees under that plan, suspending employees under that plan, or discharging employees under that plan as a result of their absences from work that are covered under and protected by the FMLA, and/or taking any adverse action of any kind against CWA-represented employees in the Operator Services Department who have taken FMLA-protected leaves;

(4) Using NYNEX health care or medical employees, whether employed by the Absence Benefit Center or otherwise, to evaluate FMLA leave requests made by CWA-represented employees, rather than seeking clarifying information from the employee and/or seeking a second medical opinion as provided by the Act and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(5) Requiring CWA-represented employees requesting FMLA leave to conform to the more stringent notice and eligibility requirements set forth in the NYNEX Sickness and Disability Benefit Plan rather than those set forth in the FMLA and in the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(6) Requiring CWA-represented employees to submit information concerning their requests for leave that is broader than the information required by the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(7) Using Medical Certification Forms that do not conform to the requirements of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(8) Denying FMLA leaves to otherwise eligible CWA-represented employees on the basis of the health care provider's failure to fully complete the Medical Certification Form, in violation of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(9) Denying FMLA leaves to otherwise eligible CWA-represented employees on the basis of the health care provider's failure to complete the Medical Certification Form within certain time limits, in violation of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(10) Requiring CWA-represented employees to sign blanket medical authorization forms in connection with FMLA leave requests, in violation of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(11) Failing to provide CWA-represented employees with adequate notice of and explanation for the denial of FMLA leave requests;

(12) Failing to establish and implement uniform policies, procedures and practices that conform to the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(13) Refusing to certify certain predetermined medical conditions or illnesses, including chronic health conditions, as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA and/or requiring CWA-represented employees suffering from such conditions to provide health care provider certification information that is not required by the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

(14) Creating and implementing the Operator Absence Control Plan for employees in the Operator Services Department which penalizes non-FMLA related absences more harshly than does the Absence Control Plan covering employees of other Defendants in retaliation for the aggressive pursuance of FMLA benefits by Operator Services employees;

(15) Retaliating against any employee for exercising rights guaranteed by the FMLA.

D. That the Court issue an order directing Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and procedures that comply with the FMLA, and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful policies, practices and procedures.

E. That the Court issue an order directing Defendants to pay the costs of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other expenses.

F. With respect to the individual claims of Plaintiffs Bonnie Ballone, Melissa Carson, Lillian Christian, Gertrude Devlin, Maureen Evans, Donald Fernbacker, Theresa Flaherty, Christine Flint, Patricia Ford, Barbara Jean Gray, Teresa Horowitz, Desmond Jenkins, Sherry Komuda, Alfred Leone, Mildred Liburd, Richard Lopez, Sr., Chaundolyne Mack, Joseph McCabe, Joseph McCarthy, Richard Paul Meyer, Ivan Millian, Gladys Owens, Patricia Pastore, George Paterno, Carl Petri, Elizabeth Rivera, Henry Samon, Hattie Santos, Gail Seminaro-Famolaro, Mary Swayhoover, Cynthia Taylor, Sharene Utter, Louise Washington, Margaret Whittemore, Ellen Winters, and Penny Wortz, that the Court issue an order directing Defendants to provide the following relief:

(1) Removing and expunging from their records any adverse action taken against them under the Absence Control Plan or the Operator Absence Control Plan, including but not limited to counting FMLA-protected absences against them in any way under the Absence Control Plan or the Operator Absence Control Plan, "stepping" them, refusing to "retrogress" them, suspending them or terminating them under the terms of the applicable plan;

(2) Paying any medical or other out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the failure to grant FMLA leave for absences which qualified for such leave, in amounts to be proven at trial;

(3) Paying an additional amount as liquidated damages by reason of Defendants' wilful violation of the FMLA, in amounts to be proven at trial;

(4) Paying Plaintiffs' wages, salary, employment benefits or other compensation denied or lost to them by reason or Defendants' wilful violation of the FMLA, in amounts to be proven at trial;

(5) Reinstating Plaintiff Bonnie Ballone to her previous position at NYNEX and paying her wages, salary, employment benefits or other compensation denied or lost to her by reason of defendants wilful violation of the FMLA, in an amount to be proven at trial.

(6) Reinstating Plaintiff Desmond Jenkins to his previous position at NYNEX and paying his wages, salary, employment benefits or other compensation denied or lost to him by reason of defendants wilful violation of the FMLA, in an amount to be proven at trial.

G. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper and just under the circumstances. JURY DEMAND
A jury is demanded for all causes of action.

Dated: New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,
November 14, 1997
Gabrielle Semel (GS 0048)
218 West 40th St., 12th Fl.
New York, NY 10018
(212) 869-0498

Mary K. O'Melveny (MKO'M 4050)
501 3rd St., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001-2979
(202) 434-1213
Attorneys for Plaintiffs