Reed
vs. McGraw-Hill / Standard & Poor's
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
IAN REED
vs.
THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES INC.
COMPLAINT Index No.: 601311/05
To: JACKSON LEWIS LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
59 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
(1) 212-545-4000
The complaint of the plaintiff, Ian Reed, shows that:
1. The plaintiff herein, Ian Reed, is a resident of
the state of New York
2. The defendant herein, The McGraw-Hill Companies
Inc. (henceforward referred to as "McGraw-Hill"),
is headquartered at 1221, Ave. of the Americas, New
York, NY 10020-1095.
3. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. is the parent company
of Standard & Poor's (henceforward referred to as
"S&P.")
4. Mr. Reed came on staff with S&P on July 15,
2002 in the position of Senior Features Editor.
5. Mr. Reed's duties were to write commentary articles
and press releases for S&P. These were published
on S&P's own publication platforms, in newspapers,
magazines, and news wires.
6. Mr. Reed was based at S&P's offices at 55, Water
St., New York, New York 10041.
7. In his capacity as Senior Features Editor, Mr. Reed
consistently produced work of the highest quality, earned
frequent accolades both within S&P and from without,
and never missed a deadline.
8. Prior to coming on staff, Mr. Reed had worked at
S&P as a freelance editor since September 1999.
9. Mr. Reed is an actor and voiceover performer, with
long-standing memberships in Actors' Equity Association
(AEA), American Federation of TV and Radio Artists (AFTRA),
and Screen Actors Guild (SAG). He is a signed client
of one of New York's leading commercial talent agents.
10. Mr. Reed suffers debilitating symptoms from heavy-metal
toxicity, incurred following the terrorist attacks in
New York City of 2001.
11. When offered the position of Senior Features Editor
in 2002, Mr. Reed predicated his acceptance on the explicit
condition he would continue to work a flexible schedule,
as he had done in his former freelance capacity. He
pointed out his need to be available for auditions and
bookings at all times, often at minimal notice.
12. Supervisory management understood Mr. Reed's need
for a flexible schedule and readily agreed to this.
This arrangement was frequently reiterated and understood
throughout Mr. Reed's tenure.
13. During Mr. Reed's tenure at S&P, he was frequently
presented with last-minute overnight deadlines to produce
commentary articles up to several thousand words in
length. These required Mr. Reed to work through the
night at short notice, yet on all such occasions, he
never failed to produce the required product by the
next business morning and to the highest standards.
14. Mr. Reed's flexibility and willingness to work
through the night proved enormously valuable to S&P
in its efforts to produce prompt and newsworthy coverage
and commentary.
15. In October 2004, Mr. Reed learned from medical
testing that heavy-metal toxicity was the reason for
severe health problems he had been experiencing since
2002. From this point on, he had to undergo numerous
visits to physicians.
16. In October 2004, supervisory management unilaterally
imposed new working conditions demanding Mr. Reed work
an inflexible schedule.
17. Supervisory management imposed these inflexible
working conditions without regard neither for Mr. Reed's
medical condition nor his acting commitments, yet there
was no accompanying reduction in the requirement to
complete overnight assignments.
18. Having attempted to comply with management demands,
the toll on Mr. Reed's health proved too great, and
he went on short-term disability, commencing Nov. 9,
2004.
19. McGraw-Hill delegates determination of employees'
eligibility for coverage to a short-term-disability
insurance carrier, even though the company "self-insures."
20. While the insurance company was undergoing its
evaluation, and well before its predetermined date to
reach a decision, McGraw-Hill ceased paying Mr. Reed's
salary, leaving him with no income. Mr. Reed's enquiries
on this matter were met with conflicting and contradictory
statements and reversals, from McGraw-Hill Human Resources
representatives, as well as indifference. To date, his
salary for the period remains unpaid.
21. Mr. Reed returned to work on December 28, 2004.
22. On January 3, 2005, Mr. Reed met with supervisory
management and Human Resources, at which meeting the
issue of work scheduling was raised.
23. At the January 3, 2005 meeting, S&P refused
to stand by its original and ongoing promises to Mr.
Reed regarding work scheduling, and the company terminated
his employment on January 7, 2005.
24. Shortly after his termination, a Human Resources
representative told Mr. Reed he was not eligible for
health insurance coverage to the end of the month (January
2005), contradicting provisions set out in the Employee
Handbook issued to company employees. This prevented
Mr. Reed from seeking out much needed medical help during
the month.
25. In January 2005, Mr. Reed applied for unemployment
insurance benefits with the New York State Department
of Labor.
26. McGraw-Hill contested Mr. Reed's claim for unemployment
insurance benefits on the grounds that Mr. Reed had
engaged in misconduct. However, the Department of Labor
ruled against McGraw-Hill. The department told Mr. Reed
on Feb. 15, 2005 that McGraw-Hill conceded they had
changed the terms of his employment and, in the department's
words, "it's not misconduct to refuse it."
27. At a hearing on March 28, 2005, which included
review of Mr. Reed's medical information, the New York
State Workers' Compensation Board determined Mr. Reed
was entitled to disability benefits for his time on
short-term disability (from November 9, 2004, up to
and including December 27, 2004).
28. In March 2004, and again in June 2004, Mr. Reed
sent letters to New Water St. Corporation, S&P's
landlord at 55 Water St., enquiring about possible contamination
of the building's ventilation system as a source of
the heavy-metal toxicity that had affected him. To date,
he has received no response.
29. In summary, McGraw-Hill has, both individually
and through its S&P subsidiary, terminated an exemplary
employee on grounds overruled by the New York State
Department of Labor.
30. McGraw-Hill has also, both individually and through
its S&P subsidiary, withheld salary, benefits, and
health insurance coverage from Mr. Reed, not only in
pre-emption of review, not only in defiance of its own
contractual obligations, but also in contravention of
the New York State Workers' Compensation Board ruling.
31. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated
above, McGraw-Hill has, both individually and through
its S&P subsidiary, broken faith and contract with
Mr. Reed, despite Mr. Reed's best efforts and considerable
achievements in serving the company diligently, reliably,
and faithfully over a number of years. Indeed, McGraw-Hill
has seized on every opportunity to undermine Mr. Reed's
standing -- financially, professionally, and medically.
32. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant
for Breach of Contract.
Dated: June 15, 2005
