1. The Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter are: Heather Metzger, an adult individual residing at 370 Broad Street, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Jamie Cagle, an adult individual residing at RR1 Box 110 Cogan Station, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Dorie Fox, an adult individual residing at 107 Harvest Moon, Linden, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Rachel Farr, an adult individual residing at RR2 Box 146, Linden, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Debra Stine, an adult individual residing at HC 31, Box 193A, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Cindy Jarrett, an adult individual residing at RR2 Box 542, Montgomery, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; and April Hart, an adult individual residing at RD2, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County.
2. The Defendants in the above captioned matter are: Stafford Ley, an adult individual residing at RD 4 Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Robert Overmoyer, an adult individual residing at address unknown, but employed at 1007 North Loyalsock Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Daniel Forrestal, an adult individual residing at RR1 Montgomery, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Theresa Forrestal, an adult individual residing at RR1 Montgomery, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Penn-Forrest Foods, Inc., a corporation doing business in Lycoming County with offices at 1007 North Loyalsock Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County; Wendy's Inc., a corporation doing business in Lycoming County with offices at 1007 North Loyalsock Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, Lycoming County.
3. At all times relevant to this cause of action, the Plaintiffs were employed by Wendy's Inc. during the following dates:
Heather Metzger From: August, 1993 To: September, 1994 Jamie Cagle From: December, 1993 To: June, 1994 Doria Fox From:October, 1993 To: December, 1994 Rachel Farr From: March, 1994 To: June, 1995 Debra Stine From: August, 1993 To: December, 1994 Cindy Jarrett From: September, 1993 To: February, 1995 April Hart From: August, 1993 To: August, 1994
4. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Ley was employed by Wendy's Inc. as the General Manager of the restaurant located at 1007 North Loyalsock Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant to this cause of action, his immediate supervisors were Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Ley was acting within the scope of his employment by Defendant Wendy's Inc.
5. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Overmoyer was employed by Wendy's Inc. as a supervisor of the restaurant located at 1007 North Loyalsock Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant to this cause of action, his immediate supervisors were Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal and Defendant Stafford Ley. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Overmoyer was acting within the scope of his employment by Defendant Wendy's Inc.
6. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal were the owners of the restaurant located at 1007 North Loyalsock Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania and employees, servants or agents of the defendant Wendy's Inc. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal were acting within the scope of their employment by Defendant Wendy's Inc.
COUNT I
ALL PLAINTIFFS VS. STAFFORD LEY
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
8. Defendant Ley, by his actions, as set forth below, intentionally inflicted severe and extreme emotional distress upon all the Plaintiffs in this matter.
9. Defendant Ley's actions which caused severe and extreme emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs occurred between August 1, 1993 and June 30, 1995 and were as follows:
A) On numerous occasions, he offered money to the Plaintiffs and requested that they perform oral sex on him;
B) On numerous occasions, he told the Plaintiffs that he could satisfy them sexually with his tongue;
C) On numerous occasions, he told the Plaintiffs that he wanted to have a sexual relationship with a young girl;
D) On numerous occasions, he grabbed his crotch in a sexually suggestive way in front of the Plaintiffs;
E) On numerous occasions, he showed an improper interest in whether the Plaintiffs were wearing bras by looking down their blouses, by rubbing their backs and by asking whether they were wearing bras;
F) On numerous occasions, he brushed against the Plaintiffs' breasts, legs and buttocks without the consent of the plaintiffs. Following such touching, Defendant Ley made comments such as, "It was good for me, was it good for you, too?" and "If your tits weren't so big, they wouldn't get in the way.";
G) On numerous occasions, he made comments to the Plaintiffs regarding female customers such as "look at the hooters on that broad" or "look at the boobs on that babe.";
H) On numerous occasions, he made gestures with his tongue in a sexually suggestive way in front of the Plaintiffs;
I) On numerous occasions, he patted the Plaintiffs' buttocks without their consent;
J) On numerous occasions, he described to the Plaintiffs his sexual relationship with his girl friend;
K) On numerous occasions, he told the Plaintiffs that he knew when a woman wanted sex because he "could see it in their eyes";
L) On numerous occasions, he made comments to the Plaintiffs about female customers who ordered a Frosty milkshake, such as "if she can suck a Frosty through a straw, I've got something she can suck on";
M) On numerous occasions, he told the Plaintiffs of the unsatisfactory sex life between himself and his wife;
N) On numerous occasions, he stood at the drive-in window at Wendy's restaurant and made comments such as "I'll have a hair pie";
O) On numerous occasions, when discovering a Plaintiff working in a kneeling position made comments such as "I'll give you a nickel if you'll stay on your knees";
P) On numerous occasions, told the Plaintiffs, "I could make your wildest dreams come true";
Q) On numerous occasions, when the Plaintiffs complained to him about the improper comments, gestures and touching, he responded with comments such as, "I know you like it" or "Oh, honey, you're not mad at me" or "It's not sexual harassment if you like it";
R) On numerous occasions, told Plaintiff Fox that he had sexual dreams about her;
S) Defendant Ley asked Plaintiff Metzger if she would wear a French maid's outfit at his house. When she told him no, he responded, "O.K. then you can just wear the apron";
T) Defendant Ley created a sign which stated Plaintiff Farr's bra size and posted the sign on a cash register at Wendy's restaurant. After Plaintiff Farr removed the sign, Ley asked if he could see and touch her chest because he "had never touched a chest that big before";
U) Defendant Ley told Plaintiff Cagle that he liked to watch her work so that he could "watch your butt";
V) In response to a fellow manager's question as to where he should put Plaintiff Fox, meaning where she should work, Defendant Ley responded "You can put her on my face";
W) When asked by Plaintiff Farr why she had not gotten a raise, he told her that if she wanted a raise, she would have to give him a raise;
X) In March, 1994, Plaintiff Jarrett ended a relationship with a male friend. Defendant Ley told Plaintiff Jarrett that he would be glad to take her home and he could satisfy her sexually, that she wouldn't miss her boyfriend. He told her that she was cute and had a nice body;
Y) On numerous occasions, told Plaintiff Hart that he would like to see her in a swimming suit;
Z) On numerous occasions, teased Plaintiff Hart about her remaining a virgin.
10. All of the behavior of Defendant Ley, as described above was done with the intention of causing extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiffs or in reckless disregard of whether it would cause extreme emotional distress.
11. The behavior of Defendant Ley, as described above, did cause extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiffs.
12. The behavior of Defendant Ley, as described above, was outrageous, extreme and in disregard of the interests of the Plaintiffs so as to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages
13. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Ley, as described above, the Plaintiffs have suffered physical and mental pain and distress, fear, emotional suffering, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Fox, Farr, Stine, Jarrett and Hart each respectfully request judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Stafford Ley in an amount in excess of $ 10,000, together with interest, costs and punitive damages.
COUNT II
ALL PLAINTIFFS VS. STAFFORD LEY
BATTERY
14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein
15. Defendant Ley, by his actions as set forth below, committed the tort of battery upon all the Plaintiffs in this matter.
16. Defendant Ley's actions which constituted the tort of battery occurred between August 1, 1993 and June 30, 1995 and were as follows:
A) Defendant Ley, on numerous occasions, touched Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Farr, Jarrett and Hart, without their consent and despite repeated requests to refrain from doing so, specifically by rubbing their backs in an attempt to determine whether or not they were wearing bras;
B) Defendant Ley, on numerous occasions, brushed against Plaintiffs Metzger, Fox, Farr, Stine and Jarrett, without their consent and despite repeated requests to refrain from doing so. These unconsented to touchings by Defendant Ley were to the breasts, legs and buttocks of the named Plaintiffs;
C) Defendant Ley, on numerous occasions, patted the buttocks of Plaintiffs Metzger, Farr and Jarrett. These touchings were unconsented to and done despite repeated requests that Defendant Ley refrain from doing so;
D) On October 13, 1995, Defendant Ley grabbed Plaintiff Jarrett by the arm and shoved her. This action was unconsented to;
E) Defendant Ley grabbed Plaintiff Metzger from behind and squeezed her in a bear hug. This action was unconsented to.
17. All of the actions of Defendant Ley were done during normal working hours at Defendant Wendy's Inc.
18. When Defendant Ley made the unconsented to touchings, as set forth above, he did so with the intent or knowledge that such actions would cause injuries and damage to Plaintiffs, as set forth below.
19. When Defendant Ley made the unconsented to touchings, as set forth above, he did so with reckless disregard as to whether such actions would cause injuries and damage to Plaintiffs, as set forth below.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Ley, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have suffered physical and mental pain and distress, fear, emotional suffering, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment.
21. Defendant Ley's conduct as set forth above, was outrageous, extreme, and in disregard of the interests of Plaintiffs so as to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Fox, Farr, Stine, Jarrett and Hart each respectfully request judgment in her favor and against Defendant Stafford Ley, in an amount in excess of $10,000, together with interest, costs and punitive damages.
COUNT III
ALL PLAINTIFFS VS. ROBERT OVERMOYER
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
23. Defendant Overmoyer, by his actions as set forth below, intentionally inflicted severe and extreme emotional distress upon all the Plaintiffs in this matter.
24. Defendant Overmoyer's actions which caused severe and extreme emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs occurred between August 1, 1993 and June 30, 1995 and were as follows:
A) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, told the Plaintiffs that he was "ten inches of all man";
B) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, told the Plaintiffs that if they had sex with him, they would never go back to their boyfriends;
C) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, called his wife from the office telephone, in the presence of the Plaintiffs and placed the telephone on "speaker phone' so that the Plaintiffs could hear both sides of the conversation, and asked his wife to perform oral sex on him when he got home;
D) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, told the Plaintiffs that his wife had performed oral sex on him on the way to work;
E) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, told the Plaintiffs that he dreamed about them while he was having sex with his wife;
F) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, made comments to the Plaintiffs about the size of the female customers' breasts;
G) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, told the Plaintiffs that he had to give his wife sex two times per day, or she would cry;
H) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, brushed against the Plaintiffs' breasts, legs and buttocks, without their permission;
I) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, made comments to the Plaintiffs about female customers who ordered a Frosty milkshake such as "if she can suck a Frosty through a straw, I've got something for them to suck on";
J) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, told Plaintiff Cagle that the only reason she was hired was because she had a nice "butt";
K) Defendant Overmoyer, struck Plaintiff Cagle in the buttocks with a serving trey[sic];
I) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions, made comments about how girls who were pregnant had large breasts;
J) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions teased Plaintiff Hart about the size of her breasts and the fact that she remained a virgin;
K) Defendant Overmoyer, on numerous occasions told Plaintiff Hart that he would like to see her in a swimming suit;
L) Defendant Overmoyer, made comments to Plaintiff Hart her weight, specifically that her "butt is getting a little chunky".
M) Defendant told Plaintiff Cagle that he gave her tasks to do that required her to bend over so he could "watch your butt",
25. The above described behavior of the Defendant Overmoyer occurred on a daily basis while he worked with the Plaintiffs.
26. All of the behavior of Defendant Overmoyer, as described above was done with the intention of causing extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiffs or in reckless disregard of whether it would cause extreme emotional distress.
27. The behavior of Defendant Overmoyer, as described above, did cause extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiffs.
28. The behavior of Defendant Overmoyer, as described above, was outrageous, extreme and in disregard of the interests of the Plaintiffs so as to entitle Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages
29. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Overmoyer, as described above, the Plaintiffs have suffered physical and mental pain and distress, fear, emotional suffering, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Fox, Farr, Stine, Jarrett and Hart each respectfully request judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Robert Overmoyer in an amount in excess of $ 10, 000, together with interest, costs and punitive damages.
COUNT IV
ALL PLAINTIFFS VS. DANIEL AND THERESA FORRESTAL
30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 of this complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
31. As set forth above, Defendants Stafford Ley and Robert Overmoyer were agents of and employed by Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal and had full supervisory authority over all Plaintiffs.
32. The willful and voluntary actions of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer as set forth above were within the course and scope of their employment with Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal.
33. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth above were the direct and proximate result of the intentional actions of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer, acting as the agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal
34. As set forth above, the conduct of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer, as set forth above was outrageous, extreme, and in disregard of the interests of Plaintiffs so as to entitle them to an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Fox, Farr, Stine, Jarrett and Hart each respectfully request judgment in her favor and against Defendants Daniel and Theresa Forrestal in an amount in excess of $10,000, together with interest, costs and punitive damages.
COUNT V
ALL PLAINTIFFS VS. PENN-FORREST FOODS. INC.
35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 of this complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
36. As set forth above, Defendants Stafford Ley and Robert Overmoyer were agents of and employed by Defendant Penn-Forrest Foods, Inc. and had full supervisory authority over all Plaintiffs.
37. The willful and voluntary actions of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer as set forth above were within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant Penn-Forrest Foods, Inc.
38. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth above were the direct and proximate result of the intentional actions of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer, acting as the agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendant Penn-Forrest Foods, Inc.
39. As set forth above, the conduct of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer, as set forth above was outrageous, extreme, and in disregard of the interests of Plaintiffs so as to entitle them to an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Fox, Farr, Stine, Jarrett and Hart each respectfully request judgment in her favor and against Defendant Penn-Forrest Foods, Inc. in an amount in excess of $ 10,000, together with interest, costs and punitive damages.
COUNT VI
ALL PLAINTIFFS VS. WENDY'S INC.
40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
41. As set forth above, Defendants Stafford Ley and Robert Overmoyer were agents of and employed by Defendant Wendy's Inc. and had full supervisory authority over all Plaintiffs.
42. The willful and voluntary actions of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer as set forth above were within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant Wendy's Inc.
43. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth above were the direct and proximate result of the intentional actions of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer, acting as the agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendant Wendy's Inc.
44. As set forth above, the conduct of Defendants Ley and Overmoyer, as set forth above was outrageous, extreme, and in disregard of the interests of Plaintiffs so as to entitle them to an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Metzger, Cagle, Fox, Farr, Stine, Jarrett and Hart each respectfully request judgment in her favor and against Defendant Wendy's Inc. in an amount in excess of $10,000, together with interest, costs and punitive damages.
