|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PAUL ZAREMBKA, Individually, on behalf of all academic and all professional employees with permanent or continuing State University of New York individual contract(s) who are now, or will be forty (40) years of age or older while the State/UUP 1995-1999 Agreement and the successor agreement thereto are in effect, and all other similarly situated persons, and as a Representative Plaintiff under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Plaintiff, |
AFFIDAVIT IN Civil No. 99-CV-0032C |
| vs. | |
STATE OF NEW YORK, GOVERNOR GEORGE E. PATAKI, LINDA ANGELLO, MICHAEL P. ROWAN, ALLEN C. DeMARCO, WALTER J. PELLEGRINI, UNITED UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONS, INC., and WILLIAM E. SCHEUERMAN Defendants. |
|
|
STATE OF NEW YORK )
SS.:
COUNTY OF ERIE )
PAUL ZAREMBKA, being duly sworn deposes and says:
1. I am the named plaintiff in this action and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. I make this affidavit in opposition to the state defendants' and union defendants' respective motions (Docket #54 and 56) to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended Class action Complaint (Docket #51) through class counsel as ordered by the Court on September 20, 2000 (Docket #47).
2. The state defendants' memorandum of law argues that the §1983 claims against the individual defendant Governor George Pataki must be dismissed for lack of personal involvement by the Governor. As fully set forth in plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss, it is adequately alleged in the Second Amended Complaint that the Governor did have personal involvement in this matter so as to warrant him being listed as an individual defendant. In further support of this, I can attest to the facts that, upon information and belief, Governor Pataki met in his office with United University Professionals (UUP) President Scheuerman and a representative of the New York State United Teachers at least once on the Spring of 1997 specifically about the unresolved contract negotiations for the 1995-1999 contract and specifically about the contested Article 36. Governor Pataki was directly and personally involved with the contract and therefore is an appropriate individual defendant.
3. The state defendants allege in Point I of its Memorandum of Law a lack of jurisdiction over the individual state defendants due to plaintiff allegedly not fulfilling his EEOC requirements. The union defendants allege in Point III of its Memorandum of Law that failure to properly file with the EEOC should invalidate the plaintiff’s cause of action omitting the fact that I wrote UUP President William E. Scheuerman on December 5, 1998, regarding the issues now in court.
4. Plaintiff's argument and history regarding the EEOC process is fully set forth in the Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss and in the amended class action complaint (Docket #2). More importantly, plaintiff's efforts and diligence in trying to ensure that the EEOC and Division of Human Rights did their jobs properly is fully documented in correspondence between plaintiff and these agencies. This correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is fully explained in plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law. I did everything in my power to make sure that the proper respondents were named in the EEOC process and I cannot be penalized for the EEOC and Division’s failures to heed my communications.
5. The rest of plaintiff's arguments are fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. The respective defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be denied.
_______________________________
Paul Zarembka
Sworn to before me
this ___ day of September 2001
_________________________
Notary Public