SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX --------------------------------------------------------------------X NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R.

PESQUERA, JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY, and SHENIKA R. SAPP, each individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Index No. 309380/09 SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

-against-

B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SERVICES, INC. Defendants, --------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiffs herein, each by their attorney Richard B. Ancowitz, complaining of the Defendants, alleges the following: 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. was a domestic Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York. 2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. was a foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York. 3. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. engaged in the business of selling camera, electronic, and computer equipment to the general public at a retail store located at 420 Ninth Avenue, County, City, and State of New York, and via internet and mail order. 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. engaged in the business of selling camera, electronic, and computer equipment to the general public via internet and mail order from a corporate headquarters/office located at 440 Ninth Avenue, County, City, and State of New York.

5.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant TUTTLE SPECIALTY

SERVICES, INC., was a domestic Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York. 6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant TUTTLE SPECIALTY

SERVICES, INC. was a foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York. 7. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC.,

was an employment agency as defined by Executive Law Section 292. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and subsequently to date, TUTTLE

SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., was an employment agency as defined by New York City Administrative Code Section 8-102 (b). 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant PRIORITY STAFFING

SOLUTIONS, INC. was a domestic Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York. 10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant PRIORITY STAFFING

SOLUTIONS, INC. was a foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York. 11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS,

INC., was an employment agency as defined by Executive Law Section 292. 12. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and subsequently to date, PRIORITY

STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., was an employment agency as defined by New York City Administrative Code Section 8-102 (b). 13. That all of the plaintiffs herein are of the female gender, and were caused to suffer

unlawful discrimination and disparate treatment by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., its agents, servants, employees, owners, and management, as a result. 14. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE was

an employee of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE was an employee

of TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC.

-2-

16.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE was an employee

of both B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. and TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. 17. That in April of 2009, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE was hired by TUTTLE

SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. to work as a cashier at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. at a pay rate of $9 per hour. 18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and since commencement of the business of

B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., other male sales employees, as well as numerous corporate and administrative employees, were paid at a rate of compensation far exceeding $9 per hour. 19. That at the time of the hiring of NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, and subsequently to date,

TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. has functioned as agent and servant of their principal, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., with the complete authority of said principal. 20. That at the time of said hiring, TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. was acting

pursuant to agreement and/or contract with B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. to hire and/or provide employees for B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 21. That subsequent to said hiring, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. was

responsible for all conditions and terms of employment of NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, including the setting of job responsibilities and hours of employment. 22. That in October of 2007, YESENIA R. PESQUERA was hired by B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. to work as a cashier at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. at a pay rate of $10 per hour. 23. That while so employed, YESENIA R. PESQUERA was subjected to repeated

instances of sexual harassment and a pervasive hostile, intimidating, disruptive, and/or uncomfortable work environment due to her gender. 24. That during the course of said employment, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS

CORP. was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was sufficiently severe and/or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiffs and create an abusive working environment.

-3-

25.

That said environment was created, fostered, encouraged, and/or allowed to exist by

defendants. 26. That while so employed, YESENIA R. PESQUERA was repeatedly sexually

harassed by a supervisor employed by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., one Marty Throup. 27. That during the term of Ms. Pesqueras employment, Marty Throup was employed as

a supervisor and/or manager at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 28. That pervasive sexual harassment by Mr. Throup included, but was not limited to,

crude and inflammatory verbal remarks and repeated staring for lengthy intervals at a certain portion of Ms. Pesqueras anatomy, namely her posterior, in a manner calculated to cause sexual arousal and/or other gratification to Mr. Throup, in addition to great consternation and/or upset to Ms. Pesquera. 29. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. is responsible for the herein-referred

to actions of Marty Throup. 30. That said actions of Mr. Throup were within the scope of his employment and were

expressly and/or implicitly ratified by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 31. That while so employed, YESENIA R. PESQUERA complained repeatedly to her

supervisors and to employees of the Human Resource Department therein about a pervasive atmosphere of sexual harassment and disparate treatment as between males and females by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., specifically including the above-referred to conduct by Marty Throup. 32. That despite these complaints, no actions were taken by B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. and said harassment did not abate. 33. That the actions of Mr. Throup and the inactions of B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP., taken both individually and collectively, altered the conditions of the plaintiffs employment, and created an abusive working environment. 34. That YESENIA R. PESQUERA was afforded no opportunity by her employer to

avoid said harassment or pervasive atmosphere of abuse and disparate treatment. 35. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. failed to exercise reasonable care to

prevent or correct promptly the discriminatory conduct engaged in by its supervisory employee. -4-

36.

YESENIA R. PESQUERA objected to the Human Resources Department of B & H

FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. concerning said failure to take steps to end their supervisors conduct. 37. That on or about February 2008, YESENIA R. PESQUERA applied for further

employment with B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. concerning promotion to a sales position, at an increased rate of compensation. 38. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. did not offer said employment to

YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and said failure to offer same represents an adverse employment action. 39. That in August of 2008, the employment of YESENIA R. PESQUERA was

terminated from her employment by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., and said termination represents an adverse employment action. 40. That in January of 2010, the plaintiff SHENIKA R. SAPP was hired by PRIORITY

STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. to work at the B & H store as a cashier. 41. That in January of 2010, the plaintiff SHENIKA R. SAPP was hired by B & H

FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. to work at the B & H store as a cashier. 42. That in August of 2010, the plaintiff SHENIKA R. SAPP was terminated from her

employment by PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. at the B & H store and said termination represents an adverse employment action. 43. That at all times mentioned above, PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. was

acting as an agent and servant of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 44. That on or about November 5, 2009, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE applied for

employment with B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. concerning promotion to a sales position, at an increased rate of compensation. 45. That during the term of their employment, YESENIA R. PESQUERA and

SHENIKA R. SAPP each applied for employment with B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. concerning promotion to a sales position, at an increased rate of compensation. 46. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. has not offered said employment to

NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA or SHENIKA R. SAPP, and said failure to offer same represents an adverse employment action.

-5-

47.

That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP

were each advised by duly authorized agents and/or employees of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. that no such promotion was available to them. 48. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE was further advised that sales positions were not open

to her because of her gender as a woman. 49. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE was further advised that these positions were not

open to her due to religious reasons. 50. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA and SHENIKA R. SAPP

were, at the time of hiring and subsequently to date, qualified to be employed in such sales positions and/or in comparable positions at a similar level of compensation and responsibility in either the store location at 420 Ninth Avenue, or the corporate headquarters at 440 Ninth Avenue. 51. That during the term of their employment by defendants, the plaintiffs NAKISHA G.

CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP were treated less well than male employees similarly situated. 52. That since commencement of the business of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS

CORP., and both prior to and subsequent to plaintiffs hiring, defendants have hired individuals of the male gender with qualifications equal to and/or less than the plaintiffs had for sales and other positions. 53. That since commencement of the business of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS

CORP., and both prior to and subsequent to plaintiffs hiring, defendants have hired individuals of the male gender for sales positions at the aforementioned 420 and/or 440 Ninth Avenue locations with minimal or no sales experience or background. 54. That since commencement of the business of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS

CORP., and both prior and subsequent to plaintiffs hiring, defendants have hired numerous individuals of the male gender to work in both the 420 and 440 Ninth Avenue locations. 55. 56. That many of those males so hired had limited or no experience in sales. That many of those males so hired had limited or no professional experience with

cameras, computers, or electronics. 57. That many of those males so hired had equal or less professional experience in sales

and/or with cameras, computers, or electronics than the plaintiffs NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, -6-

YESENIA R. PESQUERA, JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, NANCY B. FRAY and/or SHENIKA R. SAPP. 58. That many if not all of those males hired without such experience were given

training in these areas by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., after being hired. 59. That certain of those males hired had criminal records of having committed or

allegedly committed crimes. 60. That said males were hired with actual and/or constructive knowledge by B & H

FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. that said individuals had said criminal records. 61. That both prior to the aforementioned applications for employment, and continuing

to November 18, 2009 and beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. employed very few women in said sales positions at said B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. store location. 62. That both prior to the aforementioned applications for employment, and continuing

to November 18, 2009 and beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. employed no women in sales positions at said B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. store location. 63. That both prior to the aforementioned applications for employment, and continuing

to November 18, 2009 and beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. employed very few women in sales, corporate, or administrative positions at said B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. locations, and employed numerous men in said positions. 64. That both prior to the aforementioned applications for employment, and continuing

to November 18, 2009 and beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. employed no women in sales, corporate, or administrative positions at said B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. locations, and employed numerous men in said positions. 65. That both prior to time of the aforementioned applications for employment, and

continuing to November 18, 2009 and beyond, TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. did not employ any women in said positions at said B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. store location. 66. That since the commencement of business of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS

CORP. and continuing to November 18, 2009 and beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. had a corporate policy which unlawfully discriminated against

-7-

women as concerns the hiring or employing of women to sales, corporate, and/or administrative positions. 67. That from at least October of 2007 and continuing to November 18, 2009 and

beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. had a corporate policy which entailed not promoting females to sales or other comparable positions. 68. That from at least October of 2007 and continuing to November 18, 2009 and

beyond, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. had a corporate policy which entailed physically segregating the very few females from the male employees employed at both 420 and 440 Ninth Avenues. 69. That from at least October of 2007 and continuing to November 18, 2009 and

beyond, it was the corporate policy of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. to discourage cashiers and other female employees of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. and/or TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. from seeking promotion to higher paying positions at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., including but not limited to sales, administrative, corporate and/or managerial positions. 70. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, SHENIKA R. SAPP and

other persons of the female gender employed at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., have been paid for only a portion of their efforts at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 71. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, SHENIKA R. SAPP and

other cashiers at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., have not been paid for overtime earned at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in a manner consistent with State law. 72. That from at least October of 2007 through November 18, 2009 and beyond, female

cashiers at said store were paid at a lower rate of compensation than male cashiers. 73. That there was no non-discriminatory reason for women, including plaintiffs, to be

paid less than men at said location. 74. That female cashiers and male cashiers had essentially the same job duties and

responsibilities at said location. 75. That the female cashiers had additional responsibilities, including providing for

training of others, including male cashiers, yet were paid an amount to or less than the male cashiers. -8-

76.

That on or about August of 2009, JACQUELINE THURIK applied for a sales and/or

similar position at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 77. That on or about August of 2009, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE applied for a

sales and/or similar position at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 78. That on or about August of 2009, JUANNA LORA applied for a sales and/or similar

position at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 79. That on or about October of 2009, ANNE L. HOULE applied for a sales and/or

similar position at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 80. That on or about February of 2010, NANCY B. FRAY applied for a sales and/or

similar position at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 81. That at the time of her application, on the basis of her background and experience,

JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY each possessed qualifications which were equal to or greater than males hired for said sales or other comparable positions at 420 Ninth Avenue, or in positions at a similar level of compensation and responsibility in the corporate office at 440 Ninth Avenue. 82. That in September of 2009, JACQUELINE THURIK was advised by an agent,

representative, and/or servant of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. that she would not be hired for any such position, this representing an adverse employment action. 83. That since applying for employment, neither MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE,

JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, nor NANCY B. FRAY were advised that their applications for employment had been accepted by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., this representing an adverse employment action. 84. That JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA

LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY were not hired for said positions based upon their gender. 85. That there was no justification in law for said denial of employment by B & H

FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 86. That all plaintiffs herein were and are members of a protected class.

-9-

87.

That each of the plaintiffs herein were qualified to be employed at B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. in a sales and/or comparable position. 88. That each of the plaintiffs suffered from an adverse employment action rendered by

defendants, directly resulting from the acts and omissions of the defendants, from which a reasonable inference of discrimination may be found. 89. No legitimate, independent or non-discriminatory reasons exist which can support

the adverse employment actions taken by the defendants. 90. Any such reasons claimed by defendants in support of said actions are instead false

and pre-textual reasons for illegal discrimination. 91. That discriminatory motives played a substantial and/or motivating role in the

defendants adverse employment decisions as to the plaintiffs. 92. That the knowing and willful actions of the defendants in all of the aforementioned

actions and omissions concerning plaintiffs evince a high degree moral culpability activated by an knowing, evil, illegal, and reprehensible motive to flagrantly disregard the basic human rights of the plaintiff.

As and for a FIRST Cause of Action by NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. Gender Discrimination/Disparate Treatment/Unequal Compensation Failure to Promote and/or Hire - New York State Law 93. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC. and/or PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices as defined in Executive Law Section 296 in failing to promote NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA and SHENIKA R. SAPP. 94. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC. and/or PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have failed to hire women for sales positions, and other comparable positions, violating said State law. 95. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC. and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have failed to promote women to

- 10 -

sales and/or other comparable positions from other positions under their control, violating State law. 96. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC. and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have illegally discriminated against NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP in failing, without justification, to promote each to a sales and/or other comparable position. 97. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP

were unlawfully, willfully, and wrongly discriminated against in the determination(s) made by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. not to promote and/or hire them, on the basis of their gender. 98. That from at least October of 2007 and continuing to November 18, 2009 and

beyond, males engaged in the sales of camera, electronic, and computer equipment earned a wage substantially greater, without justification, than those of females employed at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 99. That due to the illegal failure of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE

SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. to promote and/or hire NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP at such a position, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP have sustained economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, and front pay. 100. That by reason of the above, plaintiffs NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R.

PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP have each been damaged by defendants in a sum of money having a present value of up to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), said sum representing compensatory damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, and front pay.

As and for a SECOND Cause of Action by NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING

- 11 -

SOLUTIONS, INC. Gender Discrimination - Failure to Promote and/or Hire New York City Law 101. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First Cause of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein 102. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice as defined in the New York City Administrative Code 8-107. 103. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have failed to hire women for sales and comparable other positions, violating, inter alia, New York City Administrative Code sections 8-101, et seq. 104. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have failed to promote women to sales and other comparable positions from other positions under their control, violating New York City law. 105. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES,

INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. have illegally discriminated against NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP in failing, without justification, to promote them to a sales or comparable position. 106. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP

were unlawfully, willfully, and wrongly discriminated against in the determination(s) made by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. not to promote and/or hire them, on the basis of their gender, in violation of New York City law. 107. That due to the illegal failure of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE

SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. to promote and/or hire NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP at such a position, said plaintiffs have sustained economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, back pay, and front pay.

- 12 -

108.

That from at least October of 2007 and continuing to November 18, 2009 and

beyond, males engaged in the sales of camera, electronic, and computer equipment earned a wage substantially greater, without justification, than those of females employed at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 109. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, plaintiffs NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA

R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP have each been damaged by defendants in a sum of money having a present value of up to Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), said sum representing compensatory and punitive damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, front pay and attorneys fees.

As and for a THIRD Cause of Action by NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. Violation of New York State Labor Laws 110. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First and Second Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein 111. That at all times subsequent to their hiring, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R.

PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP were paid for less hours than they actually worked as cashiers at the B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. retail store location. 112. That at all times subsequent to their hiring, and continuing to date, NAKISHA G.

CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP were paid for less hours than they was required to work by B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. 113. That at all times subsequent to their hiring, and continuing to date B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. engaged in improper rounding down of the hours actually worked by plaintiffs NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP. 114. That at all times subsequent to their hiring, and continuing to date, NAKISHA G.

CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP were required to work 44 hours per work, but were paid for 40 hours of work per week. - 13 -

115.

That at all times subsequent to their hiring, and continuing to date, NAKISHA G.

CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP were not properly compensated for overtime hours worked, in contravention of applicable law. 116. That said failure to properly compensate NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R.

PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP was in violation of New York State Law (including but not limited to Labor Law Section 194, as well as Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, and 12 NYCRR 142-2.2). 117. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, plaintiffs NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA

R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP have been damaged by defendants in a sum of money having a present value of up to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) said sum representing compensatory and punitive damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, and front pay.

As and for a FOURTH Cause of Action by NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, SHENIKA R. SAPP and others similarly situated against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. Violation of New York State Labor Laws Class Action 118. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First, Second and Third Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 119. That other persons similarly employed and/or situated to NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE,

YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and SHENIKA R. SAPP were similarly treated as concerns wages, due to improper rounding, failure to pay overtime, and failure to compensate for hours actually worked, as described herein. 120. That the class of persons treated similarly, comprising present and former employees

of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. both male and female, is so numerous as to render joinder of all individuals in this action to be impracticable. 121. That common questions of fact and/or law predominate over questions effecting

individual members of the class, as concerns the rights of said members as against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., AND PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. - 14 -

122.

That the claims of NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE,YESENIA R. PESQUERA and/or

SHENIKA R. SAPP are typical of the members of the class. 123. That NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA R. PESQUERA, and/or SHENIKA R.

SAPP will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 124. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties. 125. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, plaintiffs NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE, YESENIA

R. PESQUERA, SHENIKA R. SAPP and others similarly situated have been damaged by defendants in a sum of money having a present value of up to Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), said sum representing compensatory damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, front pay, and attorneys fees.

As and for a FIFTH Cause of Action by JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. Gender Discrimination Failure to Hire - New York State Law 126. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 127. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. has engaged in unlawful

discriminatory practices as defined in Executive Law Section 296 in failing to employ JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY based upon their gender. 128. That at said time and continuing to November 18, 2009 and beyond, B & H FOTO &

ELECTRONICS CORP. has failed to hire women for sales positions, violating said State law. 129. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, plaintiffs JACQUELINE THURIK,

MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY have each been damaged by defendant B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in a sum of money having a present value of up to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) said sum representing compensatory damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, and front pay. - 15 -

As and for a SIXTH Cause of Action by JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. Gender Discrimination Failure to Hire - New York City Law 130. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 131. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. has engaged in unlawful

discriminatory practices as defined in New York City Administrative Code 8-107 in failing to employ JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY due to their gender. 132. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. has failed to hire women for sales

and/or comparable positions, violating, inter alia, New York City Administrative Code sections 8-101, et seq. 133. That due to the illegal failure of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. to hire

JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY at such a position, each plaintiff has sustained economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, and front pay. 134. That the determination of B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. not to hire

JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY is impermissibly based, in whole or in significant part, upon gender, in violation of New York City law. 135. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, plaintiffs JACQUELINE THURIK,

MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANNA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE, and NANCY B. FRAY has each been damaged by defendant B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in a sum of money having a present value of up to Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) said sum representing compensatory and punitive damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, front pay, and attorneys fees.

- 16 -

As and for an SEVENTH Cause of Action by JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE and NANCY B. FRAY and others similarly situated against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. Class Action Failure to Hire Gender Discrimination 136. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 137. That other persons similarly situated to JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET

DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE and NANCY B. FRAY were similarly unlawfully, willfully, and wrongly discriminated against as a result of their having sought employment from the defendants and having not been employed by them because of their gender. 138. That each of the plaintiffs so named in the preceding paragraph is qualified and

capable of representing a class of persons wrongfully discriminated against by the defendants because of their gender, in violation of the aforementioned New York State and New York City laws. 139. That the class of persons so discriminated against, comprising present and former

employees, prospective employees, and applicants for employment at B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. is so numerous as to render joinder of all individuals in this action to be impracticable. 140. That common questions of fact and/or law predominate over questions effecting

individual members of the class, as concerns the rights of said members as against B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. 141. That the claims of each of the plaintiffs JACQUELINE THURIK, MARGARET

DIAZ MACKENZIE, JUANA LORA, ANNE L. HOULE and NANCY B. FRAY are typical of the members of the class. 142. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties. 143. That plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of Five Million Dollars

($5,000,000) as a result of the unlawful and illegal gender discrimination visited upon them

- 17 -

by defendants, including but not limited mental anguish suffered, plus back pay, front pay and attorneys fees.

As and for a EIGHTH Cause of Action by YESENIA R. PESQUERA Sexual Harassment/ Hostile Work Environment New York State & New York City Law

144.

That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as

contained in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 145. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., acting through its agents, servants,

and employees, created and allowed to continue to exist a hostile, intimidating, disruptive, and/or uncomfortable work environment at 420 Ninth Avenue as concerned YESENIA R. PESQUERA and other female employees. 146. That B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., through its agents, servants, and

employees, had actual and constructive knowledge of said hostile, intimidating, disruptive, and/or uncomfortable work environment. 147. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, the plaintiff YESENIA R. PESQUERA has

been damaged by defendant B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in a sum of money having a present value of up to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) said sum representing compensatory damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, front pay, back pay, as well as punitive damages as may be warranted pursuant to New York City Law, and attorneys fees.

As and for a NINTH Cause of Action by NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE and YESENIA R. PESQUERA Wrongful Retaliation/Wrongful Termination New York State & New York City Law 148. That plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as contained

in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action of the within Complaint, with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 149. As a result of her complaints to her supervisors, to the Human Resource Department

and others, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE and YESENIA R. PESQUERA were unlawfully - 18 -

retaliated against by her employer, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., and/or their agents, servants, employees, contractors, including said co-defendants herein, in violation of the aforementioned New York State and New York City laws. 150. In particular, the plaintiff CUSHNIE was retaliated against after causing a complaint

to be served in the instant action. 151. That said the making of the above-referred to complaints by plaintiffs were a

protected activity under law. 152. NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE and YESENIA R. PESQUERA were caused to be

wrongfully terminated from her employment by her employer, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in violation of the aforementioned New York State and New York City laws. 153. That the termination of plaintiffs was reasonably likely to deter others from engaging

in similar protected activity, i.e. making a complaint of unequal, improper, and/or illegal treatment and/or gender discrimination. 154. As a result of gender, NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE and YESENIA R. PESQUERA were

caused to be wrongfully terminated from her employment by her employer, B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in violation of the aforementioned New York State and New York City laws. 155. That said termination was effected in retaliation for complaints made concerning said

sexual harassment and hostile, intimidating, disruptive, and/or uncomfortable work environment. 156. That the actions of defendant in terminating plaintiffs employment was calculated to

be reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity, including but not limited to complaining about disparate treatment between the genders, a hostile, intimidating, disruptive, and/or uncomfortable work environment, and/or sexual harassment. 157. That their existed a direct causal relationship between said complaints and said

termination of the plaintiffs by defendant. 158. That by reason of the facts aforesaid, the plaintiff NAKISHA G. CUSHNIE and

YESENIA R. PESQUERA has been damaged by defendant B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. in a sum of money having a present value of up to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), said sum representing compensatory damages, including but not - 19 -

limited to mental anguish, psychological distress, back pay, front pay, back pay, as well as punitive damages as may be warranted by New York City Law, and attorneys fees.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, as indicated above, demand judgment against the defendants B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP., TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. in the amounts set forth above, for compensatory and for punitive damages as warranted, together with attorneys fees, costs, disbursements, and interest as allowed by law.

Dated: Albany, New York November , 2010

Yours, etc.,

RICHARD B. ANCOWITZ, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiffs 21 Everett Road Extension Albany, New York 12205 (518) 489-1098 To: Matthew Steinberg, Esq. Attorney for Defendant B & H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP. Jackson Lewis LLP 59 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 (212) 545-4000 Robert F. DEmilia, Esq. Attorney For Defendant TUTTLE SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. 295 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10017 (212) 634-3110 PRIORITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. 15 West 39th Street Rm 500 New York, New York 10018 - 20 -