tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66845895317741899792024-03-13T12:36:12.247-04:00NJ Civil SettlementsA partial list of settlements paid by New Jersey government agencies and their insurers to those who have sued them.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comBlogger583125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-86447073674028609102020-02-13T15:11:00.004-05:002020-06-22T19:00:30.805-04:00Estate of South Woods inmate who was allegedly told "You might as well kill yourself" by a corrections officer prior to his 2009 suicide, settled lawsuit against State for $304,419.25. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jy1ssaReYU8/XkWrNQNkg9I/AAAAAAAAqYw/nmavkZ2ShW4aCJg9UbOL-7-pstOTnZ_uACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/download%2B%25285%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jy1ssaReYU8/XkWrNQNkg9I/AAAAAAAAqYw/nmavkZ2ShW4aCJg9UbOL-7-pstOTnZ_uACLcBGAsYHQ/s200/download%2B%25285%2529.png" width="200" /></a></div>
On September 4, 2019, the State of New Jersey agreed to pay $304,419.25 to the estate of an inmate at a Cumberland County state prison who claimed that corrections officers did not monitor him closely enough even though they knew he was a suicide risk. The lawsuit claimed that one of the officers, the day before the inmate hanged himself from a noose made of a bed sheet, told the inmate, who was begging to see a psychologist, to “Shut up. You might as well kill yourself” because “there was no psych available.”<br />
<br />
In her suit, Joan Mullin, mother of Robert Mullin, the deceased inmate, claimed that on January 15, 2009 her son was in a halfway house operated by the <a href="https://kintock.org/">Kintock Group</a> when he started exhibiting aggressive behavior and was under the influence of cocaine and opiates. As a result, Mullin was transferred to South Woods State Prison and was diagnosed as being "a potential suicide risk" by a Licensed Social Worker causing him to be placed on a "Special Needs Roster" and housed in a "Close Custody Unit." According to the lawsuit, the prison's rules required inmates in Mullin's state to be monitored by corrections officers through "constant observation" via a video monitor until a psychologist or psychiatrist conducts an initial assessment and makes some determinations, such as whether blankets or sheets should be allowed in the inmate's cell. <br />
<br />
Mullin's suit claims that Nicholas Dimler, Eric Large and Robert Russo, the three corrections officers on duty at the Close Custody Unit when her son was an inmate there, failed to properly monitor him. Dimler allegedly made only one round through the Unit during his entire shift and that Russo made what United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson regarded as "troubling statements" that he should just "go ahead and hang [him]self." At about 4:23 a.m. on January 17, 2009, Dimler found Robert Mullin unresponsive, hanging from a noose made of a bedsheet. An effort to revive him was unsuccessful.<br />
<br />
The Corrections Officers' supervisors, Chief Ralph Yansek, Lieutenant Dudich, and Sergeants B. Stern and Thomas Spence, along with Nurse Jane Byrd, were dismissed from the case. The Kintock Group also settled with Mullin for an undisclosed amount.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Joan Mullin, et al v. Jane Byrd, et al, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-00247 and Mullin's attorney was Shelley L. Stangler of Springfield. Case documents are on-line <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Uey8kVvxB1eLc-OzxqM0vyGc6qzeWGRS">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of Mullin's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Since the case settled, nothing in the record constitutes an admission of wrongdoing by the State or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Mullin $304,419.25 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-69083315050914328682020-01-28T14:22:00.002-05:002020-06-22T19:00:30.360-04:00Gloucester County Improvement Authority confidentially paid out $55,000 to settle kitchen worker's sexual harassment lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-udsqIUMcuqc/XjCIiR9uLaI/AAAAAAAApds/fOoqOUf3cR0s3rdbZO-9T71sKE5FBobwwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GCIA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="141" data-original-width="410" height="110" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-udsqIUMcuqc/XjCIiR9uLaI/AAAAAAAApds/fOoqOUf3cR0s3rdbZO-9T71sKE5FBobwwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/GCIA.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
On December 2, 2019, the Gloucester County Improvement Authority quietly agreed to pay $55,000 to a kitchen worker at the Authority's Shady Lane Child Development Center who had sued the Authority for sexual harassment and for maintaining a hostile work environment. The alleged harassment included a supervisor presenting her "with a sexually-suggestive plate of food, featuring a hot dog protruding from the plate sitting between two round mounds of food suggestive of male genitalia."<br />
<br />
In her lawsuit, Geraldine A. Miller, a food service worker at Shady Lane since October 2017, claimed that she was continually harassed by Robin Atkinson and other co-workers because she refused their invitations to go with them to bars and strip clubs after work. She also accused Atkinson of making sexually-suggestive gestures in her presence and reporting her to supervisor Anthony Pepe for "not joining in." Miller claimed that Pepe, in response to Atkinson's complaints, called her into his office once per week to tell her that "she needed to relax, fit in and have fun [and] that he wanted her to get along with her co-workers." Miller said that she "understood this to mean Pepe wanted her to fall in line with the workplace behaviors about which she complained."<br />
<br />
Miller claimed that she often complained to her supervisors about the harassment and that her complaints resulted in a mandate that all Shady Lane kitchen workers watch a sexual harassment video. She alleged that her co-workers made jokes during the video and retaliated against her afterwards. The lawsuit alleges that Atkinson "slammed down a 'slop bucket' on a pile of dishes [Miller] was washing, causing the slop to splash on [Miller's] person" and that other co-workers shouted "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." <br />
<br />
Miller claimed that on February 16, 2018, her supervisors told her that she was "paranoid and that she was being placed on paid administrative leave pending a mandatory mental health fitness-for-duty examination. <br />
<br />
Of the $55,000 settlement, $5,000 was for lost wages, $32,465 was for "alleged compensatory damages including alleged emotional injuries accompanied by medical treatment" and $17,535 was for attorney fees and costs. The settlement agreement also called for the Authority to give Miller back 83 hours of sick time and 91 hours of vacation time.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Geraldine A. Miller v. Gloucester County Improvement Authority, Gloucester County Superior Court Docket No. GLO-L-376-18 and the six officers' attorney was Jacqueline M. Vigilante of Mullica Hill. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=18wtBR0T0WflrWdjnZ_ZIP1jyoylCG-Ud">here</a>. A news story published when the lawsuit was filed is on-line <a href="https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2018/04/nursing_home_staffer_harassed_with_sexually_sugges.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The Settlement agreement states that the $55,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Pepe, Atkinson, the Authority or any of the Authority's officials and employees. All that is known for sure is that the Authority or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay $55,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-59629405322840984862020-01-24T17:57:00.000-05:002020-06-22T19:00:30.141-04:00New Hanover school district paid out $70,000 to settle lawsuit filed by student who said nothing was done to prevent her from being physically assaulted and called "whitey" by other students.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mjc7KKjkt0o/Xit1KF5290I/AAAAAAAApcI/9t5wPwvkjAMiYLJrY_Rmt3UV4SU4C-Y7QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fist-bump-1195446_640%2B%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="235" data-original-width="393" height="119" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mjc7KKjkt0o/Xit1KF5290I/AAAAAAAApcI/9t5wPwvkjAMiYLJrY_Rmt3UV4SU4C-Y7QCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/fist-bump-1195446_640%2B%25281%2529.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
On December 19, 2019, Burlington County Assignment Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder approved a $70,000 settlement to resolve a female student's lawsuit against the New Hanover School District (Burlington County). The girl, who enrolled in the school district as a third-grader in 2013 and is identified in the lawsuit only by her initials M.S., said that "she was forced to leave school and begin homeschooling in June of 2017" due to having endured years of physical assaults and being called "whitey," "white bitch" and "Lesbian" by her fellow students. According to the suit, other students called her names, kicked her in the stomach, hit her in the face with a water bottle and a ball and threatened to beat her up.<br />
<br />
M.S.'s mother, who joined her daughter as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, claimed that she notified Principal Scott Larkin several times about the abuse and even attended a meeting with Larkin and a State Trooper in February 2014 to no avail. She said that she followed up with then Superintendent Dr. Cassandra Brown and even addressed the Board of Education at a public meeting but "nothing was done to stop the harassment, and the harassment continued."<br />
<br />
According to the complaint, the abuse spilled over to the M.S.'s mother who claimed that she called the police in May 2017 when M.S., who then was a sixth-grader, was allegedly told by other students that the playground was "now a punching ground" and another student chased M.S. down the street. According to the lawsuit, the mother of the alleged attacker came to M.S.'s mother's home and called her a "white bitch" and "white trash." The alleged attacker then reportedly wrote a social media post that mocked M.S.'s mother for being afraid of her mother.<br />
<br />
The lawsuit claimed that a teacher, Ms. Peterla, told M.S.'s mother in June 2017 that "If your daughter would just keep her mouth shut, we could avoid all these problems." According to the lawsuit, M.S.'s mother took both M.S. and her younger sister out of school and homeschooled them.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned M.S. v. New Hanover Township School, Docket No. BUR-L-548-18 and girl's attorney was Drake P. Bearden, Jr. of Mount Laurel. Case documents are on-line <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jq8kM3cN6cCquQ__cu4NpSu2oBjGxQMs">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that the New Hanover school district or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay M.S. $70,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendant's decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-67565642354825561822020-01-20T15:49:00.001-05:002020-06-22T19:00:30.306-04:00New Lisbon Developmental Center paid out $150,000 to settle female worker's sexual harassment suit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pPTHGpPJReM/XiYRiLT2uUI/AAAAAAAApbI/d-SMYa724vcdJVe_2BVDdW3WdHYUKL4lgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/StateOfNJ.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="480" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pPTHGpPJReM/XiYRiLT2uUI/AAAAAAAApbI/d-SMYa724vcdJVe_2BVDdW3WdHYUKL4lgCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/StateOfNJ.webp" width="200" /></a></div>
On October 14, 2019, the New Lisbon Developmental Center (NLDC), a State-operated facility in Burlington County treating women and men with intellectual and developmental disabilities, agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a female Cottage Training Technician who claimed that she was sexually harassed by a male coworker despite his reputation as a sexual harasser.<br /><br />In her lawsuit, Shontrell Coleman, who had worked at NLDC since 2001, said that her problems began when Ralph Kardio, also a Cottage Training Technician, was assigned to Coleman's building in December 2016. Coleman claimed that Kardio "almost immediately" subjected her to "unwelcomed sexual comments, advances and gestures." For example, Kardio allegedly took her phone to put his phone number in it, said that he "liked her (romantically)" and told her that "she can use him anyway she wants."<br /><br />Coleman said that she complained about Kardio's behavior several times to Michael Scott, her night supervisor. In February 2017, after her report to Scott, Kardio allegedly "cornered [Coleman] in the women's break room and told her that the only way she could leave was if she gave him a kiss." Another worker reportedly walked in allowing Coleman to free herself. When she again complained to Scott, Scott told her to take her complaint to his boss, Andrew Davis. Davis, who Coleman alleged knew of Kardio's reputation, told her to report the matter to Hope Cheeks, who was Davis' boss. Upon receipt of the complaint, Cheeks allegedly acknowledged that "this is his [Mr. Kardio's] reputation" and said that she would speak with him.<br /><br />According to the lawsuit, Cheeks eventually called Coleman and told her that Kardio admitted to sexually harassing her but that she couldn't do anything more than "make Mr. Kardio work up front while Plaintiff was working or change his shift." Cheeks, however, allegedly did not change Kardio's shift.<br /><br />Coleman said that she then filed a complaint with New Jersey's internal Equal Employment Opportunity department. Kardio was then moved to a building across the street from Coleman's. <br /><br />Coleman claimed that despite Kardio's move to another building, she still had to endure three months of sexual harassment from Kardio, who she said "had a lengthy reputation of sexually harassing women in the workplace and has sexually harassed women more than once while working with the State of New Jersey." She said that instead of taking appropriate action, the State merely "shifted Mr. Kardio around from building to building so that he can sexually harass his next victim."<br /><br />Of the $150,000 settlement amount, Coleman received $85,519.78 and her attorney received $64,480.22.<br /><br />The case is captioned Coleman v. Buena Regional School District, et al, Federal Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-11773 and Coleman's attorney was Jeremy M. Cerutti of Bensalem, PA. Case documents are on-line <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l2XxgjC_QK-JYSahBd5tNhlojlkQ5ZLc/view?usp=sharing">here</a>.<br /><br />None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Kardio or any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that the State of New Jersey, NLDC or their insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Coleman $150,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-69724497179484185702019-11-22T14:53:00.000-05:002020-06-22T19:00:30.416-04:00Buena Regional paid out $185,000 to settle secretary's hostile work environment lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-maaJ0QRBzCk/Xdg60-VnL0I/AAAAAAAAo2o/J1tJvEVvjsg0GD6WsZNpu5N-64LBjw_CQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/silhouette-2402991_640%2B%25281%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="200" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-maaJ0QRBzCk/Xdg60-VnL0I/AAAAAAAAo2o/J1tJvEVvjsg0GD6WsZNpu5N-64LBjw_CQCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/silhouette-2402991_640%2B%25281%2529.png" width="200" /></a></div>
On May 6, 2019, the Buena Regional Board of Education (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $185,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a confidential secretary who claimed that the school district's business administrator gave a female employee in whom he had a sexual interest a $10,000 raise to be his secretary. According to the suit, the business administrator took the employee to the Tropicana in Atlantic City to have sex with her and also had sex with her in his office during school time. It was further alleged that both the business administrator and the female employee bragged to the secretary about the intensity of their sexual encounters.<br />
<br />
In her lawsuit, Phyllis Boehm, a secretary for Buena Regional, claimed that Business Administrator Pasquale Yacovelli gave a $10,000 raise to a secretary who worked "on a different side of the building" so that she would become his secretary and ultimately his lover. Boehm claimed that the secretary, who is referred to in the lawsuit as "Jane Doe," was her friend and that Yacovelli asked her talk to Jane Doe about his interest in her.<br />
<br />
According to Boehm, Yacovelli would say things to her such as "Hook a brother up" and make comments about Jane Doe's body "and say that he wanted her sexually." Jane Doe was apparently not averse to Yacovelli's interest because, according to the complaint, when Yacovelli allegedly asked whether "it's a red light, green light or yellow light," Jane responded "Perhaps yellow light."<br />
<br />
When Yacovelli asked Jane if she wanted to be his secretary, she reportedly "laughed and said, 'If you get me a $10,000 raise, I'll be your secretary.'" According to the lawsuit, Jane became Yacovelli's secretary in September 2015 and Yacovelli "used his influence as Business Administrator to get Jane the ten thousand dollar raise she wanted."<br />
<br />
Thereafter, according to the complaint, Yacovelli and Jane Doe would regularly "steal school time" to have sex in Yacovelli's office. After one sexual encounter, Yacovelli allegedly "lifted one arm and pumped his fist" in Boehm's presence and said "I wrecked it, Philly." The pair also reportedly went to the Tropicana in Atlantic City and the Holiday Inn Express on Route 322 to have sex. According to the suit, Jane Doe told Boehm that Yacovelli was "a machine" and "would make comments about [his] sexual performance."<br />
<br />
Boehm said that she "was very uncomfortable with the whole situation" and that Yacovelli's and Jane Doe's sexual activity and comments created "an environment that was hostile for women to work in [and] was in violation of [the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination]."<br />
<br />
Before working for Buena Regional, Yacovelli served as business administrator for the Ocean City Board of Education until <a href="https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/currents_gazettes/ocean_city/yacovelli-resigns-as-ocean-city-school-business-administrator/article_280afb5f-1d43-5948-964a-1e9f35fa74af.html">his October 7, 2014 resignation</a>. Yacovelli also previously <a href="http://www.njpen.com/meet-the-candidates-audubon-boe-2017/">served as a member of the Audubon Board of Education</a>.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Boehm v. Buena Regional School District, et al, Superior Court Docket No. ATL-L-496-17 and Boehm's attorney was Leo B. Dubler of Mount Laurel. Case documents are on-line <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xmahI60kr-x480SFKz7q8NJ6MKI7uXkh/view?usp=sharing">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Buena Regional or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Boehm $185,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendant's decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<br />John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-26334386966316757482019-01-04T17:27:00.000-05:002020-06-22T19:00:29.499-04:00Belleville paid out $235,000 to settle former court administrator's harassment and retaliation lawsuit.<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JXdMxGWdN48/XC_dKsXgI4I/AAAAAAAAjcA/ShZXoKPJzio4TabiAH2ikeT6LLe2xCanwCLcBGAs/s1600/website-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="156" data-original-width="156" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JXdMxGWdN48/XC_dKsXgI4I/AAAAAAAAjcA/ShZXoKPJzio4TabiAH2ikeT6LLe2xCanwCLcBGAs/s1600/website-logo.png" /></a>On August 21, 2018, the Township of Belleville (Essex County) agreed to pay $235,000 and provide lifetime health benefits to settle a lawsuit filed by the Township's former court administrator who claimed that her co-workers created a sexually hostile workplace and that one of them "intentionally expose[d] her breast to [her] and excreted breast milk on her."<br />
<br />
In her lawsuit, Cheryl Jeannette, a 30-year Township employee, said that Court Administrator Yara Acosta (Belleville's current court administrator is Yara Bossolt who may or may not be the same person) and Deputy Court Administrator Roberta Almeida "openly dated Belleville police officers" and "eagerly flaunted the intimate details of their sexual relationships" during work hours. Jeannette claimed that Acosta's and Almeida's alleged relationships caused the Township to reward them with "preferential treatment, including selective enforcement of policies and promotions." <br />
<br />
After Almeida allegedly squirted her with breast milk in 2009, Jeannette claimed that Almeida was "hardly disciplined" for the act and was permitted "to serve her discipline at her convenience and, upon returning from her short suspension, transferred to the Code Enforcement Department and subsequently transferred back to the Municipal Court and promoted to Acting Deputy Court Administrator." Similarly, Jeannette claimed that Acosta was afforded "special favoritism" when she was disciplined for allegedly conducting an improper background check on a co-worker. According to the lawsuit, Acosta was "allowed . . . to serve this suspension with pay during her maternity leave in 2011, and promoted to Deputy Court Administrator upon her return."<br />
<br />
Jeanette claimed that the Township administration retaliated against her for assisting in the investigations of Almeida and Acosta by reducing her salary. When she complained about the "groundless salary reduction," then Township Manager Victor Canning told her that "if she were to continue voicing grievances to anyone, she would never be promoted to Municipal Court Administrator on a permanent basis." Jeannette claimed that she kept her mouth shut and was later made the permanent Court Administrator.<br />
<br />
Jeannette claimed that Almeida and Acosta refused to take direction from her, despite her supervisory role, and conducted a "campaign of hostility" toward her. They called her a "'puta' which loosely translates to 'slut' or 'whore' in Spanish" and Almeida allegedly told Jeannette repeatedly that she was going to perform sexual acts on Jeanette's young son.<br />
<br />
Jeannette claimed that on February 15, 2013, Almeida "filed a bogus complaint of racial discrimination and harassment against [her]" which resulted in then Township Manager Kevin M. Esposito filing formal charges against her after "he conducted a shoddy, one-sided, cursory investigation," according to the lawsuit. Jeannette alleged that she was immediately suspended without pay. Jeannette said that after a three-day hearing in February and March 2014, the Township's hearing officer sustained a charge of "conduct unbecoming" against her and recommended a 180-day suspension and a demotion. The Township accepted the recommendation but increased her demotion to four levels below court administrator, according to the lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Jeannette claimed that she resigned on September 2, 2014 "as she could not continue to work in the hostile environment created by Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta." <br />
<br />
The case is captioned Jeannette v. Township of Belleville, et al, Superior Court Docket No. ESX-L-1245-15 and Jeannette's attorney was Gina Mendola Langarzo of Chatham. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2QkBXtX">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Belleville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Jeannette $235,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-76674670595562327572018-12-12T13:42:00.001-05:002020-06-22T19:00:30.600-04:00Bedminster paid out $450,000 to suspended police officer and reinstated him retroactive to October 2, 2017 to settle his whistleblower lawsuit. For his part, the cop agreed to retire effective December 31, 2018.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vC-TCekG0Nc/XBFVM7vyjgI/AAAAAAAAjS0/QFaTEONXPAA-3-K_ovfgfwa1oyvFLYzoQCEwYBhgL/s1600/BedPD1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="244" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vC-TCekG0Nc/XBFVM7vyjgI/AAAAAAAAjS0/QFaTEONXPAA-3-K_ovfgfwa1oyvFLYzoQCEwYBhgL/s200/BedPD1.jpg" width="162" /></a></div>
On December 3, 2018, the Township of Bedminster (Somerset County) agreed to pay $450,000 to a police officer the Township Committee voted to suspend with pay on October 2, 2017. Of the $450,000, $150,000 was paid by the Township and the other $300,000 was paid by the Township's insurance carrier.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, John A. Dapkins, Jr., a 16-year veteran of the Bedminster Police Department, brought a litany of claims against the Township's police department and Sergeants Nanci Arraial and Chief Karl Rock. According to his lawsuit, Dapkins, who said that he had extensive firearms training, claimed that he resigned his Firearms Instructor position after being "forced" to certify Arraial and two other officers as being proficient in Use of Force and Self-Defense "even though they were not capable of completing the standard." Arraial allegedly became the Firearms Instructor in 2014, even though the then police chief knew "that she wasn't qualified to assume such duties," according to the lawsuit. Dapkins claimed that "Arraial was teaching the wrong instruction courses and was not qualified to do so."<br />
<br />
Dapkins claimed that after his complaints to his supervisor, Chief Karl Rock, were ignored, he brought his complaints that "Arraial did fraudulently qualify multiple members of the Bedminster Police Department from 2014 to the Fall of 2016" to the Internal Affairs unit which referred them to the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office. He said that the Prosecutor's Office validated his complaints by requiring the Police Department to requalify everyone. According to Dapkins' lawsuit, "Arraial [received] overtime monies to complete the qualifications she improperly performed in the first place."<br />
<br />
Dapkins also claimed that Rock told him "to go no further" pursuing the Department's alleged failure to complete the correct radar training "since it could void summonses, open the town to civil suits and bad press." Dapkins further accused Arraial of slandering him by "describing untrue homosexual acts between [Dapkins] and Detective Sergeant Smith of the Bernardsville Police Department." He claimed that Arraial repeatedly acted in a sexually hostile manner and once made "sexually explicit comments about [another officer's] penis" and replicated "a sexual act to Officer Greenstein in the presence of children from the Bedminster elementary school on a school-sponsored trip to Dorney Park, PA."<br />
<br />
Dapkins claimed that after his repeated complaints were ignored by the chain of command, he went in mid-2016 to Township Administrator Judith Sullivan. Going to Sullivan, he claimed, resulted in Rock issuing a retaliatory directive. Many more allegations are recited in the lengthy lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Also named in the lawsuit were Rock, Sergeant Francesco Bernardo and Robert Verry. Verry, a former South Bound Brook Police Chief, was hired by the Township to conduct an investigation regarding internal affairs complaints filed against Dapkins. Dapkins claimed that Verry "is a known friend of" Rock and that his report, which caused Dapkins' suspension, was "replete with innuendo, false statements, unsupported allegations, misrepresentations of fact, and . . . flagrant omissions" and "can be concluded to be the result of a conspiracy between" Verry and Township officials. Verry filed <a href="http://bit.ly/2RVmrpK">a cross-claim</a> against the Township and is <a href="http://bit.ly/2Evlqlk">presently seeking to recover his legal fees</a> because "the Township wrongfully refused to defend" him from Dapkins' lawsuit.<br />
<br />
As part of the settlement, Dapkins agreed not to disparage Bedminster or any of its officials and not to "seek any publicity or make any statement to the media" regarding this lawsuit except to say that "The matter was resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned." The Township agreed to dismiss "any and all pending disciplinary charges against Dapkins."<br />
<br />
According to a December 10, 2018 e-mail from Bedminster Clerk Judith A. Sullivan, Dapkins, who was hired by the Township on April 16, 2002, earned a 2018 salary of $114,002.38.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Dapkins v. Township of Bedminster et al, Somerset County Superior Court Docket No. SOM-L-1298-16 and Dapkins was represented by Robert B. Woodruff of Scotch Plains. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2GfhSp0">here</a>. <br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Bedminster and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay $450,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-49830388045332186282018-10-30T15:52:00.005-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.909-04:00Roseland confidentially paid out $325,000, made two promotions to settle police officers' whistleblower lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AxY1aNCcaag/W9i1-YgnWkI/AAAAAAAAjE4/el2Tpai1R3gEJSdeTYZNfUF9nokzVPSpACLcBGAs/s1600/RoselandPD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="303" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AxY1aNCcaag/W9i1-YgnWkI/AAAAAAAAjE4/el2Tpai1R3gEJSdeTYZNfUF9nokzVPSpACLcBGAs/s200/RoselandPD.jpg" width="198" /></a></div>
On September 12, 2018, the Borough of Roseland (Essex County) quietly agreed to pay $110,000 to three of six officers who sued the Borough's police chief in 2014, to promote to lieutenant two sergeants who had sued and to pay the officers' attorney $215,000. As part of the settlement deal, the two newly promoted lieutenants agreed to resign one year after their promotions. One of the officers who sued, however, appears to have received no benefit from the settlement.<br />
<br />
In their lawsuit, Sergeants Terry West and Charles Ribaudo, Officers Joseph LaPosta and Glenn Carnevale, retired officer Kevin Donaldson and former officer Freddie L. Mitchell, Jr. claimed that they suffered under Chief Richard McDonough and Captain Kevin Kitchin. They claim that McDonough managed the police department through "fear and intimidation," showered favors upon officers "who obey[ed] his every whim" and continuously harassed and retaliated against those who questioned or disagreed with him.<br />
<br />
Specifically, the six officers claimed that McDonough used on-duty police officers and vehicles to run personal errands for him, smoked cigarettes in the building in violation of state law, "engaged in a very questionable relationship with his administrative assistant [who] supposedly works from home and has been given a Department computer," allowed his friends to use Borough generators during Hurricane Sandy, fixed traffic and parking tickets, misled the public about the Borough's crime statistics, stopped or hindered investigations into alleged crimes committed by family members of political allies, registered his daughter's car in Florida even though she resided in New Jersey and housed his own personal dog on Borough property.<br />
<br />
McDonough and Kitchin allegedly "utilize[d] Internal Affairs as a tool of terror, and to create paper trails of specious disciplinary claims against officers they do not like." The six officers claimed that McDonough and Kitchin "subjected [them] to a continuing pattern of retaliation and discriminatory practices." Mitchell, who claimed to have been wrongfully terminated from the police department, further claimed that he was discriminated against "on the basis of race."<br />
<br />
In their lawsuit, the six officers referred to McDonough as a "megalomaniacal despot" and to Kitchin as McDonough's "submissive minion [who] follows McDonough like a 'trained puppy.'"<br />
<br />
As part of the settlement, the Borough agreed to promote West and Ribaudo to the rank of lieutenant provided that they both resign one year after the date they are promoted and to work the afternoon and overnight shifts. The Borough also agreed to pay $325,000 in settlement funds apportioned as follows: $215,000 to the officers' attorney, $50,000 to Carnevale and $30,000 each to Donaldson and LaPosta.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Terry West, et al v. Borough of Roseland et al, Essex County Superior Court Docket No. ESX-L-7620-14 and the six officers' attorney was Patrick P. Toscano, Jr. of Caldwell. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2Q5Y7k9">here</a>. A news story published when the lawsuit was filed is on-line <a href="https://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/11/cops_sue_roseland_police_chief_claim_hes_a_megalomaniacal_despot_who_uses_internal_affairs_as_tool_o.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Roseland or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay $325,000 and promote the two sergeants than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-5728321107700906122018-10-25T13:34:00.002-04:002020-06-22T19:00:30.068-04:00Absecon confidentially paid out $85,000 to settle motel manager's police excessive force lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yb1yDce29t8/W9H-LI0P1wI/AAAAAAAAjBE/pRwyw7xh_CcbstsW05PKSZKrrNHGJ6FcgCLcBGAs/s1600/Absecon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="596" data-original-width="600" height="198" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yb1yDce29t8/W9H-LI0P1wI/AAAAAAAAjBE/pRwyw7xh_CcbstsW05PKSZKrrNHGJ6FcgCLcBGAs/s200/Absecon.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
On June 29, 2018, the City of Absecon (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $85,000 to the manager of a Whitehorse Pike motel who claimed that police pepper sprayed him and broke his shoulder when he told them that they weren't doing their jobs.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Rohit B. Surti, manager of the Budget Inn 4 U motel, expressed dissatisfaction with Absecon Police Officer Kevin Craig's decision to not take any action against a motel guest that Surti had called police to complain about. When Craig told Surti that Absecon Police are often dispatched to the Budget Inn and were "tired" of going there, Surti told Craig that he should "do [his] job," according to the complaint.<br />
<br />
Surti's comment allegedly infuriated Craig who, according to the lawsuit, "sprayed Mr. Surti with pepper spray in the eyes [and] moved the canister back and forth horizontally several times across Mr. Surti's eyes." Officer Laura Winkel, who had been standing behind Surti while he was being pepper sprayed, allegedly "grabbed Mr. Surti's arms and forcefully pulled them behind his back [and] forced Mr. Surti from a standing position to the prone position, without buffering, onto the asphalt parking lot of the motel . . . causing a dislocation and fracture of Mr. Surti's left shoulder and left arm." The incident occurred on June 18, 2013.<br />
<br />
When Surti complained of severe pain in his arm while at the police station, Craig allegedly told him "not to be dramatic."<br />
<br />
According to a February 16, 2018 opinion by United States District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler, Winkel had given Surti a summons about an hour prior to the alleged excessive force incident for having stolen shopping carts from the Dollar Store on his motel premises. Craig and Winkel then returned to the motel in response to a call about a disturbance between Surti and a six-week resident at the motel. Winkel wrote in her report that Surti, who Craig alleged had the odor of alcohol on his breath, was yelling at the guest from across the parking lot and was repeatedly told to lower his voice because the commotion was causing other motel residents to come out of their rooms.<br />
<br />
According to Judge Kugler's opinion, Surti pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and resisting arrest and harassment charges against him were dismissed. Surti was joined in the lawsuit by his wife Jayshri R. Surti.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Surti v. Absecon Police Department, et al, Federal Case No. 1:15-cv-03949 and Surti's attorney was Robert D. Herman of Linwood. Case documents and Judge Kugler's opinion are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2PVZxh5">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Absecon or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Surti $85,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-14095149844915142782018-10-03T11:26:00.003-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.203-04:00Perth Amboy confidentially paid out $125,000 to settle former police officer's racial harassment lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qDN0Zkp52V0/VyeV_MMyroI/AAAAAAAADjw/y8KlOBeqTGgn32-9XHVD9qa6qy6vS5HRwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/download%2B%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="91" data-original-width="67" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qDN0Zkp52V0/VyeV_MMyroI/AAAAAAAADjw/y8KlOBeqTGgn32-9XHVD9qa6qy6vS5HRwCPcBGAYYCw/s200/download%2B%25281%2529.jpg" width="146" /></a></div>
On August 8, 2018, the Perth Amboy (Middlesex County) City Council <a href="http://bit.ly/2Rmn2B9">resolved to pay $125,000</a> to a now retired police officer who said that he was subjected to racial slurs and racial discrimination.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Stephen Petrosino, who described himself as being "of African-American and Caucasian decent [sic]," claimed that other Perth Amboy police officers called him "half-breed" at least once a week since he started working as a City police officer in 1992. Petrosino alleged that "Sgt. Montalvo" (presumably Sergeant Andy Montalvo) would call him a "thumbprint" during roll call and "blacky black" on other occasions. Other officers, who were overwhelmingly Caucasian, according to the lawsuit, would join in when Montalvo would call Petrosino derogatory names during roll call.<br />
<br />
"Lt. Killane" (presumably Lieutenant Steve Killane) allegedly told Petrosino, in response to his complaints about Montalvo's comments, that "one day [Petrosino] was white and that the next day [Petrosino] was black."<br />
<br />
Petrosino claimed that other officers placed "pictures of two of the Little Rascals, specifically Buckwheat and Stymie, . . . with captions stating that it was Officer Petrosino and Officer Rogers, an officer of African-American decent [sic]."<br />
<br />
Petrosino retired in 2017 and <a href="http://bit.ly/2RnaQA4">collects a $64,279 "special" pension annually</a>, according to <a href="http://php.app.com/agent/">DataUniverse</a>. His final salary for the City was $107,880.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Petrosino v. Perth Amboy Police Department, et al, Docket No. MID-L-442-16 and Petrosino's attorney was Kevin M. Costello of Mount Laurel. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2NkkKit">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Perth Amboy or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Petrosino $125,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-3761108769069028842018-08-29T13:03:00.000-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.653-04:00Vineland quietly paid out $425,000 to settle detective's whistleblower lawsuit.<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aostZliFMLw/V7jV77crU3I/AAAAAAAAErs/VUJVOnA7TzMElJZA68gtjb4buwVqE-fggCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/12249670_982868165101706_4639123315435896911_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="160" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aostZliFMLw/V7jV77crU3I/AAAAAAAAErs/VUJVOnA7TzMElJZA68gtjb4buwVqE-fggCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/12249670_982868165101706_4639123315435896911_n.jpg" /></a>On August 20, 2018, the City of Vineland (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $425,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a police detective who claimed that he was retaliated against for reporting another detective's alleged act of warning a fugitive that undercover police officers were going to search his residence.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Richard Burke said he discovered evidence that Detective Shane Harris "hindered a fugitive investigation by warning the fugitives that Vineland police officers were outside [the fugitive's] residence and described their undercover cars to the fugitive as well as providing advice to the fugitive to refuse a search of his residence." Burke claimed that he later learned that "Harris' daughter was dating one of the fugitives involved in the investigation and that her vehicle was used to flee from Vineland Police Officers [and that one of the fugitives attempted] to strike Sergeant Steven Triantos with Detective Harris' daughter's vehicle." He also claimed that Harris' mother hid the fugitive in her home.<br />
<br />
Despite reporting his findings to his superiors, including Captain Rudolph Beu, Captain Thomas Ulrich, Sergeant Steven Triantos and Sergeant Leonard Wolf, Burke claimed that no action was taken against Harris. Rather, Uhrich "threatened to suspend [Burke] if he continued to complain about Harris' conduct," according to the lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Burke said that his efforts to hold Harris accountable led to a "steady barrage of retaliation" from his superiors including being demoted, being denied sick time and personal days, having his car taken away and being called "a rat."<br />
<br />
As part of the settlement, Burke agreed to "retire his position as an officer with the City of Vineland Police Department effective August 31, 2018 due to work related disability injury."<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Burke v. City of Vineland, Cumberland County Superior Court Docket No. CUM-L-649-15 and Burke's attorney was Louis Barbone of Atlantic City. The complaint and settlement agreement are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2C77DkK">here</a>. <br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Vineland or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Burke $425,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-42420676703155140922018-08-26T14:21:00.000-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.728-04:00Tuckerton paid out $65,000 to settle female volunteer firefighter's sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U6uzDN5xTUI/VxZlK4D5QRI/AAAAAAAADb0/JwQ14kCDHqAGuzoTO9_d18wVvbnjpZStACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/tuck.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="388" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U6uzDN5xTUI/VxZlK4D5QRI/AAAAAAAADb0/JwQ14kCDHqAGuzoTO9_d18wVvbnjpZStACPcBGAYYCw/s320/tuck.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
On April 6, 2016, the Borough of Tuckerton (Ocean County) agreed to pay $65,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former female volunteer firefighter who claimed that senior fire company officials retaliated against her after a Fire Captain, who was the Fire Chief's son, broke off an "intimate relationship" with her.<br />
<br />
According to her lawsuit, Janette Dominski, who became a probationary member of the Tuckerton Volunteer Fire Company in the Fall of 2012, began an "intimate relationship" in December 2012 with Lewis E. Eggert, Jr. who was a Fire Captain and son of Fire Chief Lewis E. Eggert, Sr. "Despite their agreement to keep their intimate relationship separate from their positions with [the] Fire Company, on or about December 30, 2012, Captain Eggert kissed [Dominski] while at the fire house where he pushed Plaintiff against the fire truck," according to the lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Dominski claimed that Captain Eggert "became distant" with her in January 2013 and told her "that they should end their relationship because he did not want to put [Dominski] through what his family put his ex-girlfriend Hannah through." According to the civil complaint, Hannah was a former member of the fire company "and was forced out . . very similar to the way [Dominski] was ultimately forced to leave." Captain Eggert, who lived with his parents at the time, told Dominski that he had a conversation with his father about the "Hannah situation" and wanted to "spare her," according to the complaint.<br />
<br />
Shortly after their relationship ended, Dominski claimed that Captain Eggert "clearly threatened" her position and that photographs that she had taken of a fire scene and shared with her Facebook friends "became an issue." The photos were of a December 18, 2012 fire at Mystic Island. Fire Company President Charles Uhl told her at the time that she could not take pictures because they "were at a potential crime scene" but that Dale Eggert, who was senior to Dominski, "shrugged it off" when Dominski told him about the photos, according to the lawsuit. Dominski claimed that she did remove the photos from her Facebook account after speaking with Dale Eggert. Dominski alleged that on January 18, 2013, Chief Eggert sent her an e-mail telling her that her photo-taking was "a dead issue. Nothing was done wrong."<br />
<br />
On January 31, 2013, Dominski said that she was accused by Captain Eggert, President Uhl and others of attending a Fire Academy graduation when she was actually standing by at the fire station studying for her classes. When she denied that she attended the graduation, Captain Eggert, President Uhl and the others "continued to bully and humiliate" her. Eggert allegedly told her that she "had become quiet and secretive" and was "going to be out."<br />
<br />
According to the lawsuit, Dominski was relieved of her duties by Chief Eggert after his son, Captain Eggert, told him that she "had symptoms of asthma in cold weather in the past and that this information was not noted on her member application." Dominski claimed that she did indeed have such symptoms as a child but hadn't suffered from them in years and that her doctor, who knew about her past asthma, didn't list those symptoms on her membership application because it was so long ago.<br />
<br />
Dominski claimed that she was required to undergo a second medical examination at her own expense. She alleged that no other member was required to undergo a second exam except for Hannah, who allegedly also had an intimate relationship with Captain Eggert and left the department because of harassment she suffered.<br />
<br />
When she complained about the harassment to Chief Eggert, he summoned her to a February 3, 2013 meeting and told her that "he was upset with his son and found it dishonest that he did not learn about [his son's] relationship [with Dominski] sooner." Because he was upset, Chief Eggert allegedly said that he "had changed his mind about the" fire scene photos that Dominski had taken in December and threatened to bring charges against her. Eggert allegedly told Dominski that she would be "bounced" at the next firehouse meeting.<br />
<br />
According to the lawsuit, Uhl conducted a hearing regarding disciplinary charges brought against Dominski at the March 5, 2013 meeting. The hearing, which Dominski described as a "kangaroo court," resulted in the continuance of Dominski's suspension and a one-year extension of her probationary period.<br />
<br />
In June 2013, Dominski claimed that there was a notice taped to her gear locker that read "JANETTE DOMINSKI LEAVE THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY AND DO NOT RETURN UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. Lee Eggert, Chief." After seeing the notice and returning home, Dominski claimed that a police officer was at her house who informed her that she may have violated the law by possessing a prescription inhaler that Dominski had claimed belonged to her son. Chief Eggert had called police after he "saw an inhaler in [her] equipment bag . . . that had an old expiration date and had no prescription label," according to the lawsuit. In a letter, Chief Eggert allegedly informed Dominski that she was "terminated from membership in the Tuckerton Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 effective immediately."<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Dominski v. Borough of Tuckerton, et al, Ocean County Superior Court Docket No. OCN-L-2952-14 and Dominski's attorney was Sebastian B. Ionno of Pitman. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2LrY5QC"><span id="goog_374649811"></span>here<span id="goog_374649812"></span></a>.<br />
<br />
Of the $65,000 settlement, Dominski received $38,324.56 and her attorney received the remaining $26,675.44. Tuckerton also agreed to pay an undetermined amount of mediation costs.<br />
<br />
Dominski also agreed to "simply state that the matter is resolved and dismissed and that she has no further comment" if "she is contacted by any member of the news media or any third party seeking comment on the status of the litigation and the settlement herein." She also agreed to not "seek in any way to be reinstated, re-employed or hired by the Defendants in the future."<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Tuckerton or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Dominski $65,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<br />
(Note: Dominski's lawsuit was mentioned in another lawsuit filed against the Tuckerton Fire Company that is reported on <a href="https://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2018/08/tuckerton-paid-out-50000-to-settle.html">here</a>.)John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-20826425744450716512018-08-14T13:03:00.001-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.278-04:00Lavallette zoning/code enforcement official quietly resigns in exchange for three month's pay plus pay for accrued vacation and personal days.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FRmnk0hhUDA/W3MK8YaGleI/AAAAAAAAiZw/z2ulZTnHYCcOPL9xHLPZ3Coao7YBumkKQCLcBGAs/s1600/Lavallette.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="474" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FRmnk0hhUDA/W3MK8YaGleI/AAAAAAAAiZw/z2ulZTnHYCcOPL9xHLPZ3Coao7YBumkKQCLcBGAs/s200/Lavallette.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
In a July 16, 2018 "<a href="http://bit.ly/2vKJrPl">Full and Final Release Agreement</a>," the Borough of Lavallette (Ocean County) agreed to pay its Zoning Official and Code Enforcement Officer $9,396.00 (which is "three (3) months of regular hours of work as salary"), less tax deductions, plus an additional $2,958.50 for accrued vacation and personal days in order to resolve "all disputed claims involving certain disciplinary charges" against the official. The agreement does not specify the nature of the allegations upon which the charges were based and specifically states that the payment "is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing."<br />
<br />
As his part of the agreement, Gary Royer, the former Borough official who received the settlement payments, agreed to submit an irrevocable letter of resignation, effective June 28, 2018, from his Lavallette positions of Zoning Official and Code Enforcement Officer as well as other positions he held in the Borough of Seaside Park.<br />
<br />
Both Royer and the Borough agreed to "not discuss this settlement with anyone except to say that it has been resolved to the satisfaction" of both parties. The Borough also agreed to tell prospective employers only that Royer had "resigned in good standing."John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-68155978882189610532018-08-07T14:47:00.003-04:002020-06-22T19:00:30.324-04:00Tuckerton paid out $50,000 to settle volunteer firefighter's retaliation lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U6uzDN5xTUI/VxZlK4D5QRI/AAAAAAAADb0/JwQ14kCDHqAGuzoTO9_d18wVvbnjpZStACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/tuck.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="388" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U6uzDN5xTUI/VxZlK4D5QRI/AAAAAAAADb0/JwQ14kCDHqAGuzoTO9_d18wVvbnjpZStACPcBGAYYCw/s320/tuck.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
On January 31, 2017, the Borough of Tuckerton (Ocean County) agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former volunteer firefighter who claimed that senior fire company officials retaliated against him after he refused a demand to stop speaking with a female firefighter who had been previously terminated from the fire company.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit,Matthew Puzio said that he chaired the fire company's Parade Committee in 2013 which endeavored to hold a holiday parade in December of that year. Puzio said that Fire Chief Lewis Eggert, Sr., Assistant Chief Lewis Eggert, Jr. and President Charles Uhl were supportive of the idea of a parade and repeatedly told him to "run with it" until Uhl saw Puzio speaking with Janette Dominski, a former fire company member, who Puzio claimed had been "wrongfully terminated" from the fire company. According to the lawsuit, "Uhl told [Puzio} in unambiguous terms that he was not to associate with Ms. Dominski because she was going to sue the fire company."<br />
<br />
Puzio claimed that soon after he refused Uhl's demand to stop associating with Dominski, Eggert, Sr., Eggert, Jr. and Uhl began to harass and retaliate against him. He claimed that the trio began to question every decision he made regarding the parade and that Uhl removed him from the Parade Committee two weeks before the parade's scheduled date. When Puzio decided to run against Uhl for the position of fire company president, the trio of senior officers allegedly "falsely and publicly accused [Puzio] of intending to charge children to see Santa Claus at a parade related event and falsely and publicly accused [Puzio] of unilaterally deciding to include beer sales in the event all in an attempt to paint [Puzio] in a bad light to the Tuckerton Community."<br />
<br />
Puzio also claimed that Chief Eggert entered onto Puzio's fenced property, stuck his head in Puzio's kitchen window and "began hollering" at him. The senior Eggert also allegedly enlisted Puzio's neighbor to participate in the harassment by telling him that Puzio "badmouthed" him. The neighbor allegedly retaliated by "gutting a deer in his front yard very close to [Puzio's] property line and allowing it to bleed out frightening [Puzio's] young son with the grotesque display."<br />
<br />
When Puzio complained to Uhl and the Borough Council, Uhl allegedly responded by suspending him for "tak[ing] his complaints outside the Fire Company." Uhl allegedly told Puzio that the suspension would continue until Puzio agreed to handle the matter within the company and without being represented by a lawyer. Puzio said that he was suspended at a fire company meeting and that no notice had been given that his suspension was going to be discussed. Several months later, Puzio received an e-mail advising him that "he had been terminated from the fire company by a vote of the members of the company, again without notice or any opportunity to be heard," according to the lawsuit.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Puzio v. Borough of Tuckerton, et al, Ocean County Superior Court Docket No. OCN-L-582-15 and Puzio' attorney was Sebastian B. Ionno of Pitman. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2OlxEOu">here</a>.<br />
<br />
According to the release, Puzio received $29,000 of the settlement amount with the remainder going to his attorney. According to the Borough Council's <a href="http://bit.ly/2OOPNVL">February 6, 2017 resolution</a>, the $50,000 was paid by the Ocean County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Tuckerton or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Puzio $50,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-20518645520460878732018-08-06T15:55:00.003-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.261-04:00Female inmate's sex assault lawsuit against Edna Mahan women's prison settles for $35,000.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-He52YiFw9iY/W2immpUY9sI/AAAAAAAAiUo/oOqFVX3mfLUNViBG7OykQGyWfHzJ5tE8gCLcBGAs/s1600/9218783-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="226" data-original-width="380" height="118" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-He52YiFw9iY/W2immpUY9sI/AAAAAAAAiUo/oOqFVX3mfLUNViBG7OykQGyWfHzJ5tE8gCLcBGAs/s200/9218783-large.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
On June 1, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Corrections agreed to pay $35,000 to a female inmate who said that she was groped and sexually assaulted by male prison guards.<br />
<br />
In her suit, Christine Bernat, an inmate at the Hunterdon County-based Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, claimed that Senior Corrections Officer Erick Melgar "sexually assaulted" her by "groping her, pinching her nipples, kissing her, having her position herself in a sexual way, having her perform oral sex, and having her engage in unprotected intercourse." He also allegedly threw ice at her and hit her with a ruler.<br />
<br />
Bernat also claimed that Melgar was assisted by fellow Corrections Officer Janette Bennett who acted as a look-out when Melgar was in an inmate's cell. According to Bernat's <a href="http://bit.ly/2M3R1Oh">summary judgment opposition brief</a>, Bennett "would laugh when assisting Melgar and would comment 'this is great, we get paid for this.'"<br />
<br />
Bernat said that Edna Mahon Administrator William Hauck and other officials knew that Melgar was having sexual contact with female inmates prior to Bernat's 2009 arrival at the facility but failed to take preventative action. Hauck <a href="http://bit.ly/2OhFbNV">vehemently denied</a> this and claimed that the first he knew of any alleged sexual assaults was when he was notified by a staff psychologist. He said that upon notification he immediately reassigned Melgar to another unit and began <a href="http://bit.ly/2M0Z7Yf">termination proceedings</a> that ultimately resulted in Melgar's and Bennett's firing.<br />
<br />
After Melgar was reassigned, Sergeant Jeffrey S. Ellis allegedly transmitted Melgar's messages to Bernat and Bennett allegedly convinced other inmates to make positive statements about Melgar in order to interfere with an investigation into Melgar's alleged conduct<br />
<br />
Bernat claimed that her reporting of the incidents caused prison officials, including Sergeant Lance Johnson, to retaliate against her. She alleged that Johnson told her that she would have to "take Officer Melgar's [censored word] out of her mouth" if she wanted the harassment to stop.<br />
<br />
Also during Melgar's reassignment, Senior Corrections Officer Alfred E. Smalls allegedly "sexually assaulted" Bernat by kissing her and grabbing her breasts in a private bathroom reserved for correction officers. Smalls then allegedly bribed Bernat "with prison perks and contraband."<br />
<br />
Document filed with Bernat's lawsuit include a <a href="http://bit.ly/2OgCnAJ">July 2013 Appellate Division decision</a> that upheld Smalls' December 30, 2010 termination from Edna Mahan. According to the decision, the main witness against Smalls was a female inmate identified only by her initials "C.B." C.B. said that she kissed Smalls in an "officer's bathroom . . . where Smalls grabbed her breast." She said that there were four incidents where the pair kissed and that she "made a joke out of" smelling like Smalls' cologne after one of the kissing incidents. She said that Smalls gave her tobacco products that she sold to other inmates.<br />
<br />
Smalls denied C.B.'s allegations and pointed to "a prior false allegations" that C.B. had made, but Administrative Law Judge Laura Sanders found it "to have little probative weight." Ultimately, Judge Sanders found C.B.'s credibility to be greater than Small's and recommended his removal. The Civil Service Commission, over Small's objections, agreed and terminated Small's employment.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Bernat v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al, Federal Case No. 3:12-cv-02649 and Bernat's attorney was Jeffrey S. Mandel of Morristown. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2Ky0oRB">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of Bernat's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that the $35,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Department of Corrections or any of its officials. (Note: According to the release, Melgar, Bennett and Smalls, in their individual capacities, were not released from Bernat's lawsuit.) All that is known for sure is that Ocean or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Bernat $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-21443976674186177422018-07-19T10:28:00.001-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.314-04:00Buena confidentially paid out $125,000 to settle police excessive force lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kZs84St8V8Q/W1Cfd_Z3KKI/AAAAAAAAiIY/6Cu98UXzxgUpb8aUZRzJkAhXXz7rfu2VQCLcBGAs/s1600/download%2B%252815%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="702" data-original-width="677" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kZs84St8V8Q/W1Cfd_Z3KKI/AAAAAAAAiIY/6Cu98UXzxgUpb8aUZRzJkAhXXz7rfu2VQCLcBGAs/s200/download%2B%252815%2529.jpg" width="192" /></a>On July 27, 2017, the Borough of Buena (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a Buena Vista Township man who claimed that two Borough officers roughed him up during a traffic stop and were laughing when he lay bleeding on the ground.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Warren J. Morris said that he was driving his car through Buena Vista Township on June 20, 2014 when he was stopped by Buena Borough police officers Sean Griffith and Jacob Apostle. Morris said that he was fearful when the officers approached his car "because he did not know who these individuals were, they at no time identified themselves." According to Morris, when he asked the officers to identify themselves, Griffin replied "It doesn't matter who we are." Morris claimed that upon being told this, he demanded that a State Trooper be called to the scene.<br />
<br />
Morris claimed that he was arrested for "obstruction" because he rolled his passenger window down only half way when Griffith demanded that it be rolled down all the way. According to the lawsuit, Apostle punched Morris in the eye when he exited the vehicle in accordance with Griffith's order even though he did nothing to resist or provoke the officers. Morris said that the punch caused him to lose consciousness and that he was dragged across the ground and pepper sprayed by Griffith. He said that both officers were "standing behind their SUV type police vehicle laughing while working on something inside" while Morris was lying on the ground "with a good deal of blood on his right arm."<br />
<br />
Morris was taken to the hospital where he was allegedly treated for "facial contusion, facial lacerations, subconjunctival hemorrhage to the eye, chemical conjunctivitis and a chemical burns." He said that he was taken to the police station and given several motor vehicle moving and document-based summonses "all of which were issued without basis in fact." Morris said that all of the charges were later dismissed by a Municipal Court Judge.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Morris v. Borough of Buena, et al, Atlantic County Superior Court Docket No. ATL-L-1281-16 and Morris' attorney was David R. Castellani of Northfield. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2zTxFXm">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Buena or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Morris $125,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-69389909354890772312018-07-05T11:44:00.003-04:002020-06-22T19:00:30.397-04:00Perth Amboy school board confidentially paid $174,000 to settle Security Director's racial discrimination lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zB_iVK6KDi8/VzTy8-TodNI/AAAAAAAADs0/J06V2pJQjxk53gwRwtpuzG5f3GzqIpB3QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/paps-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="94" data-original-width="294" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zB_iVK6KDi8/VzTy8-TodNI/AAAAAAAADs0/J06V2pJQjxk53gwRwtpuzG5f3GzqIpB3QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/paps-logo.png" /></a></div>
On September 17, 2017, the Perth Amboy Board of Education (Middlesex County) quietly paid $174,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by its former Director of Security that claimed that the school board replaced him because he refused to hire Hispanic applicants who were less qualified than non-Hispanic applicants.<br />
<br />
James Ferriter, who was described in the lawsuit as "a white male," said that he "was criticized by Hispanic [school board] members for hiring non-Hispanic individuals for security positions instead of Hispanic individuals even though the persons hired were more qualified for the positions." He claimed that then Board member Israel Varela told another, Hispanic employee that the school district should "get our own kind" in here. He claimed that after being informed that his contract was being renewed for the 2011-12 school year, former Superintendent Janine Caffrey recommended that his position be abolished causing his employment to end on August 31, 2011. Ferriter claimed that his position was later filled by someone who he believed was "willing to recommend for hire individuals in accordance with the [school board's] discriminatory practices."<br />
<br />
Ferriter's racial discrimination claims were mentioned in <a href="https://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/10/perth_amboy_schools_discrimination_suits.html">an October 9, 2014 newspaper article</a> entitled "School workers say they were fired because they weren't Hispanic." Bernice Marshall, whose similar claims were featured in the article, <a href="https://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2016/05/perth-amboy-school-board-confidentially.html">settled her lawsuit in 2015 for $170,000</a>.<br />
<br />
In addition to Caffrey and Varela, former Board member Kenneth Gonzalez and present member Obdulia Gonzalez were also individually named in the lawsuit.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Ferriter v. Perth Amboy Board of Education, et al, New Jersey Superior Court Docket No. MID-L-4554-13 and Ferriter's attorney was Phillip B. Linder of Edison. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2IVOwb6">here</a>. On October 3, 2017, Robert B. Woodruff of Scotch Plains, who apparently replaced Linder as Ferriter's attorney, filed <a href="http://bit.ly/2u9iS4C">a motion to compel</a> the school board to pay the $174,000 settlement amount.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of Ferriter's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that the Perth Amboy school district or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ferriter $174,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-43549836004206081622018-07-05T10:39:00.000-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.800-04:00Turnpike Authority paid out $500,000 to settle excessive force lawsuit against six State Troopers.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PGvldwzEZWs/Wz4s1iWG50I/AAAAAAAAgjk/nUe9HKR-Ph4EAFVycUXpXXOPB7BM89ypQCLcBGAs/s1600/use-new-jersey-turnpike-800X800.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="409" data-original-width="400" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PGvldwzEZWs/Wz4s1iWG50I/AAAAAAAAgjk/nUe9HKR-Ph4EAFVycUXpXXOPB7BM89ypQCLcBGAs/s200/use-new-jersey-turnpike-800X800.jpg" width="195" /></a></div>
On April 13, 2018, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority paid $500,000 to settle a Piscataway couple's excessive force lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police.<br />
<br />
In their complaint, Jermaine Rudd and his wife Louise Rudd claimed that on December 24, 2014, Mr. Rudd was arrested by Trooper Nitesh Patel who was assisted by other Troopers including Thomas Gamaro, Joe Villa, Oczkos Blazeg, Julio Mota and Gerrad Vega. During the arrest, the Troopers allegedly "used excessive force, assaulted, battered and otherwise violently attacked Rudd while he was in police custody." Unfortunately, the complaint does not provide any details regarding the nature of the alleged application of excessive force.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://bit.ly/2Kzou3i">minutes of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority's March 27, 2018 meeting</a>, however, disclose that Mr. Rudd's claim arose out of a DWI motor vehicle stop on the Garden State Parkway and that Rudd claimed that Troopers used excessive force against him while he was in the back of a patrol vehicle. Rudd also claimed that he fell in his cell at the old Bloomfield Barracks and then outside after he was released. He claimed to have suffered a fractured left kneecap and several torn knee ligaments.<br />
<br />
The Authority's minutes also disclose that the video of the alleged incident in the patrol vehicle was preserved while the video from the barracks was not, leading to a potential spoliation (i.e. the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding) claim. According to the minutes, Troopers Gamaro, Villa and Vega were dismissed from the lawsuit but claims were still pending against Troopers Patel, Mota and Oczkos when the settlement decision was made.<br />
<br />
Mrs. Rudd's claim is based on her "loss of services, companionship and society of her husband." Patel is also accused in the lawsuit of filing a false police report.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Jermaine Rudd et al, v. State of New Jersey, et al, Middlesex County Superior Court Docket No. MID-L-5884-15 and the Rudds' attorney was Brian Schiller of Westfield. The complaint and the release are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2MOYRIk">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of the the Rudds' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Rudds $500,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-52399195850969150922018-06-25T19:03:00.001-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.948-04:00Mansfield Ambulance Corps confidentially paid out $195,000 to female EMT who claimed that supervisor grabbed her crotch.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NlBHVY6otI8/WzFzHNRnwHI/AAAAAAAAgfI/noNBoAhxVNA4hpXW70Q-TwFiWTyjcqQogCLcBGAs/s1600/ambulance-1501264_640.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="112" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NlBHVY6otI8/WzFzHNRnwHI/AAAAAAAAgfI/noNBoAhxVNA4hpXW70Q-TwFiWTyjcqQogCLcBGAs/s200/ambulance-1501264_640.png" width="200" /></a></div>
On February 26, 2018, the Mansfield Township Ambulance Corps (Burlington County) agreed to pay $195,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former employee who claimed that her boss grabbed her vaginal area during an employee social event.<br />
<br />
In her lawsuit, Michele Drangula, an Emergency Medical Technician with the ambulance corps, claimed that during a March 2015 employee social event at Nooks Pourhouse in Florence, Ryan Lewis, the corps' overall supervisor, came over to her table and "physically grabbed [her] vaginal area." Drangula's lawsuit claimed that even after she protested this "unwanted and horribly inappropriate" conduct, "Lewis continued to attempt to grab [her] vaginal area." Drangula claimed that she did not report Lewis because of fear of retaliation.<br />
<br />
She claimed that after this alleged incident, Lewis began to harass her in the workplace by making lewd and sexually charged comments. On October 27, 2016, there was another staff social event at O'Connor's American Bar and Grille in Eastampton at which Lewis, according to the lawsuit, demanded that Drangula give him a ride home. She alleged that she "felt powerless to refuse the supervisor a ride home." When they arrived at Lewis' home, Drangula claimed that he said "I want you to pull out of the driveway so I can f**k you." After Drangula protested and tried to get Lewis out of the vehicle, he allegedly said "I remember what your pu**y felt like and wanted to play with it again." When she shouted "GET OUT!," Lewis allegedly responded "So, you're not cool with this?" Drangula said that her shouting worked to get Lewis to leave the vehicle "likely [because he] feared awakening his wife and children in his home."<br />
<br />
Drangula claimed that Lewis' pervasive harassment forced her to resign on January 14, 2017.<br />
<br />
Of the $195,000, Drangula received $128,666.67 and her attorney received the remainder.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Drangula v. Mansfield Township Ambulance Corps, et al, Docket No, BUR-L-1096-17 and Drangula's attorney was Patrick F. Carrigg of Lawrenceville. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2KkdJ3X">here</a>.<br />
<br />
In her response to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the settlement agreement, Mansfield Township Clerk Linda Semus wrote that "although the Ambulance Corp is a not-for-profit organization, the Township's Joint Insurance Fund provided coverage."<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that the Mansfield Ambulance Corps or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Drangula $195,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-56088567778323154912018-06-19T18:16:00.004-04:002020-06-22T19:00:30.005-04:00Union school board confidentially paid out $132,500 to former teacher who posted on Facebook that homosexuality is a sin.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RpVCWVJ4JcY/WymATwH9FII/AAAAAAAAgc4/d_RsJ-WHLNYep4_YZY2V6vfVFfTq2yVywCLcBGAs/s1600/logo%2B%25285%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="160" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RpVCWVJ4JcY/WymATwH9FII/AAAAAAAAgc4/d_RsJ-WHLNYep4_YZY2V6vfVFfTq2yVywCLcBGAs/s1600/logo%2B%25285%2529.jpg" /></a></div>
On June 5, 2018, the Union Township Board of Education (Union County) agreed to pay $132,500 to a tenured special education teacher who said that she was forced to resign after she posted on her personal Facebook page <a href="http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2012/10/union_high_school_teacher_who.html">that homosexuality is a "perverted spirit" and "unnatural immoral behavior." </a><br />
<br />
In her suit, Jenye Viki Knox, a tenured special education teacher, claimed that in September 2011 she publicly posted on Facebook about a billboard at Union High School that promoted "alternative lifestyles contrary to her private religious beliefs." She claimed that she responded to attacks to her posting by expressing her belief, based on biblical text, of "homosexuality as a sin and disobedience to God." Her lawsuit claimed that her posts were made during non-working hours without the use of school computers.<br />
<br />
Knox, who had been employed by the Union school district as a special education teacher since 2000 and who also is an ordained minister, said that after school officials became aware of her posts on October 11, 2011 she "was removed from her classroom publicly without any advance notice in front of her students and in front of other teachers during school hours" and escorted to a small room where school board attorney James Damato, Assistant Superintendent Greg Tatum, and Union Township Education Association Vice President Jim Gross were waiting for her. She claimed that the men "interrogated [her] about her Facebook posts and conversation" and that she was "pressured by these individuals to say that her religious beliefs were wrong." She claimed to have "felt extremely intimidated."<br />
<br />
Knox said that she was again removed from her classroom on October 13, 2011 and taken to a room where Superintendent Dr. Patrick Martin, Union High School Principal Ed Gibbons and Union Education Association President Ann Margaret Shannon were waiting for her. At that meeting, Dr. Martin allegedly told Knox that she was suspended with pay because of her Facebook posts. She claimed that she was not afforded any pre-suspension legal process and that after the meeting she was taken back to her classroom and told to gather her personal belongings and leave the property.<br />
<br />
On October 18, 2011, the Board of Education held a public meeting at which Knox claimed her religious beliefs were criticized openly and publicly. According to the lawsuit, Damato told Knox on December 23, 2011 that she was suspended without pay and that tenure charges were filed against her. She claimed that school officials forced her to repay all the salary she received after her initial October 13, 2011 suspension.<br />
<br />
On June 2012, Knox submitted her letter of resignation. She claimed that the Board's actions caused her health to deteriorate "to the point where she could not longer work from the stress of the intimidation, harassment, and emotional distress that resulted from the investigation and the [school officials'] actions."<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2018/01/teacher_who_wrote_anti-gay_facebook_posts_has_cert.html">a news story</a>, Knox agreed earlier this year to a three-year suspension of her teaching certificates.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Knox v. Union Township Board of Education, et al, Federal Case No. 2:13-cv-0587 and Knox's attorney was Demetrios K. Stratis of Fair Lawn. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2JTVYsL">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement prescribed that the $132,500 was to be apportioned as follows: $24,500 for Knox's back wages, $63,833.33 for Knox's claims of emotional distress and $44,166.67 for Knox's attorney's fees and costs.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from disclosing the settlement's terms to others, including the media. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of Knox's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. All that is known for sure is that the Union school district or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Knox $132,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-47005242891852119992018-06-18T14:57:00.004-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.854-04:00Belleville confidentially paid out $90,000 to settle police excessive force lawsuit.<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VUgol4XtKYI/WygAJMmKhWI/AAAAAAAAgcc/X3-6_rHJ3s83lSPWlR4K_AGN6GKeXxSbACLcBGAs/s1600/bpd-shield-e1426230449387.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="172" data-original-width="178" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VUgol4XtKYI/WygAJMmKhWI/AAAAAAAAgcc/X3-6_rHJ3s83lSPWlR4K_AGN6GKeXxSbACLcBGAs/s1600/bpd-shield-e1426230449387.jpg" /></a>On December 5, 2017, the Township of Belleville (Essex County) agreed to pay $90,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a man, now deceased, who claimed that Township police falsely arrested and used excessive force against him in September 2010.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Nicholas H. Quartuccio, Sr. said that he was cooperative when police arrived at his home on September 2, 2010 in response to a call regarding a dispute between Quartuccio, his daughter and her boyfriend. According to the lawsuit, the dispute was over whether the daughter's boyfriend was allowed to stay at the premises. According to Quartuccio, officers kept asking him the same questions and kept responding "wrong answer" when he answered them. He claimed that police, without cause, surrounded him and "hit him on the back of the head and slammed him to the ground." Thereafter, the officers allegedly "kicked, punched and beat [him] outside his home, jumping and pummeling him and hitting him in the head." <br />
<br />
Quartuccio claimed that police falsely charged him with aggravated assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, criminal mischief and throwing bodily fluids at a law enforcement officer. He said that he spent about a week in jail and, on advice of his lawyer, pled guilty to simple assault and a disorderly persons charge.<br />
<br />
According to media reports, Quartuccio <a href="http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/02/belleville_man_found_dead_in_bremond_street_home_a.html">died in a house fire</a> in early February 2015. The settlement agreement was made with his estate.<br />
<br />
Belleville police officers Matthew Dox, John Andino, Anthony Abate, Joseph Werner, Charles Mollineux, William Knoth and Franchino Pigantaro were named as defendants in the lawsuit. Also named was then Chief Joseph P. Rotonda.<br />
<br />
The case is captioned Quartuccio v. Township of Belleville, et al, Federal Case No. 2:12-cv-05464 and Quartuccio's estate's attorney was Shelley L. Stangler of Springfield. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2thydQb">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.<br />
<br />
None of lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Belleville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Quartuccio $90,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<br />John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-11607604674025882132018-06-10T15:18:00.004-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.108-04:00State Trooper's lawsuit, filed in 2005, settled for $1.4 million.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TvWdiQlmbJE/WZ3D5qYAbkI/AAAAAAAAHKw/ndD8K-uPhvsP0epwv1zucb2vLh02pV2YwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/e407a432f1bff12eb0c8f1e4216ee377.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="143" data-original-width="150" height="190" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TvWdiQlmbJE/WZ3D5qYAbkI/AAAAAAAAHKw/ndD8K-uPhvsP0epwv1zucb2vLh02pV2YwCPcBGAYYCw/s200/e407a432f1bff12eb0c8f1e4216ee377.png" width="200" /></a></div>
On December 20, 2017, a former State Trooper, who sued the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) in 2005, finally settled his whistleblower and retaliation lawsuit for $1.4 million.<br />
<br />
Brian Royster's lawsuit, which has taken a circuitous route through the court system, was extensively covered by the media. Royster, who is black, claimed <a href="http://bit.ly/2y0xmJf">in his lawsuit</a> that the NJSP denied him a promotion and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by transferring him from an office job to conduct surveillance in an automobile. Royster claimed that NJSP officials knew that the transfer did not accommodate his ulcerative colitis which requires him to be close to a restroom. His lawsuit also claimed that he suffered retaliation when he reported that the NJSP did not properly investigate racial discrimination claims and that troopers accused of wrongdoing were allowed to retire instead of being disciplined. He further claimed retaliation for reporting that white troopers were disciplined less severely than black troopers.<br />
<br />
An Essex County jury <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/essex_county_jury_awards_state.html">awarded Royster $1.06 million</a> in 2012 but this verdict was <a href="http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_troopers_1m_verdict_for_discrimination_retaliat.html">reversed and remanded by the Appellate Division</a> on March 10, 2015. In <a href="http://bit.ly/2JyTgVB">its opinion</a>, the three-judge panel found that the state was immune from Royster's ADA claims and that several trial court errors required reversal of his Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA or Whistleblower) claims. In <a href="http://bit.ly/2l2lPjy">a January 17, 2017 opinion</a>, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that "the interests of justice" required that Royster be allowed to reinstate his Law Against Disability (LAD) claim which had been waived before the trial court. The Supreme Court ultimately <a href="http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/nj_supreme_court_awards_trooper_500k_in_state_poli.html">"molded" the jury's verdict</a> and directed the trial court to enter <a href="http://bit.ly/2y5H118">a $500,000 judgment</a> (plus $97,083.33 in interest) in Royster's favor on his LAD claim.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://bit.ly/2HBPVDb">$1.4 million settlement agreement</a> appears to be in exchange for Royster's dismissal of his CEPA claims which were not directly considered by the Supreme Court's ruling. A <a href="http://bit.ly/2sKYWW6">stipulation of settlement</a> which was filed on April 11, 2018 specifies that the $500,000 judgment is also resolved by the $1.4 million settlement. While it is not entirely clear, it appears that the $1.4 million amount is intended to replace the $500,000 judgement and not supplement it.<br />
<br />
The lawsuit is is captioned Royster v. New Jersey State Police, et al, Docket No. ESX-L-7033-05 and Royster's attorney is Michael J. Reimer of South Orange.<br />
<br />
None of the the lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that the NJSP or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Royster $1,400,00 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-22160331249328163002018-06-06T14:54:00.002-04:002020-06-22T19:00:29.350-04:00Manasquan school board paid out $75,000 to settle a high schooler's claim that he was incessantly bullied.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jdTPpo0ExbA/WxgtiNhhEWI/AAAAAAAAgYM/NmVCn8NtLdMm2QsJ8HNQsXWTP5WN5NSEwCLcBGAs/s1600/download%2B%25282%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jdTPpo0ExbA/WxgtiNhhEWI/AAAAAAAAgYM/NmVCn8NtLdMm2QsJ8HNQsXWTP5WN5NSEwCLcBGAs/s1600/download%2B%25282%2529.png" /></a></div>
On August 4, 2016, the Manasquan (Monmouth County) Board of Education agreed to pay a high school student and his parents $75,000 to settle the family's claim that school officials did not do enough to protect him from harassment and bullying inflicted by other students.<br />
<br />
According to the lawsuit, the student attended private school until his sophomore year and enrolled in Manasquan High School in the summer of 2014. Despite a medical condition that entitled to boy to a "504 Plan," school officials did not provide an adequate 504 Plan, according to court filings. Also, the boy's parents claimed that they specifically asked school officials not to put their son in the same classes with students who bullied him while he was in private school.<br />
<br />
The student claimed that he "experienced substantial phycological and behavioral distress" on the first day of school "due to the relentless bulling and harassment about his medical condition by the same perpetrators who had harassed him in private school and were then attending Manasquan High School."<br />
<br />
Despite their finding that the student had been the victim of two harassment, intimidation and bullying incidents, school officials allegedly "took no action to minimize [the boy's] contact with those classmates or to prevent harassment, intimidation and/or bullying from taking place.<br />
<br />
The student and his parent claim that the bullying was so severe that the boy had to withdraw from Manasquan High School in October 2014 and complete his high school education in several schools, some of which charged tuition. According to the suit, the boy continued to suffer emotional issues as a result of the bullying as of March 2016, when the lawsuit was filed.<br />
<br />
Before releasing the lawsuit and settlement agreement, Manasquan School District's records custodian, Tara Hudson, redacted the boy's and his parents' names from both documents. But, if one looks up the docket number on the New Jersey Superior Court's <a href="https://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-jersey-courts-put-civil-index-on.html">Civil Case Public Access System</a>, the full names of both parents and the student are available.<br />
<br />
The case bears New Jersey Superior Court Docket No. MON-L-1675-15 and the family's attorney was Teresa L. Moore of Morristown. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2Jy2hkF">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of the family's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. All that is known for sure is that the Manasquan school district or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the family $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-76927343479873228382018-06-03T12:03:00.000-04:002020-06-22T19:00:30.618-04:00Raritan Township paid out $200,000 to settle police excessive force lawsuit.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q1yjX3r1m5c/WxQQf2jT2fI/AAAAAAAAgXk/a04XOIXpF9UuIaGdIUEWXa95EQJJddfrgCLcBGAs/s1600/images%2B%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="212" data-original-width="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q1yjX3r1m5c/WxQQf2jT2fI/AAAAAAAAgXk/a04XOIXpF9UuIaGdIUEWXa95EQJJddfrgCLcBGAs/s1600/images%2B%25281%2529.jpg" /></a></div>
On May 3, 2017, Raritan Township (Hunterdon County) agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a Florida man who said police attacked him after he drove to the scene where officers had pulled over and harassed his daughter.<br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Dennis Shuman claimed that on August 5, 2012, after he came to the scene of his daugther Alexa's traffic stop, Officer David Carson "threw him with great force against the hood of his patrol car" when Shuman tried to call the police chief about Raritan Police allegedly harassing and intimidating Alexa. He said that Carson then "threw him to the ground and continued to beat and attack him" while other officers joined in or failed to intervene. Shuman claimed that he was falsely arrested for Obstruction of the Administration of Justice and Resisting Arrest and that Chief Glenn Tabasko and Lieutenant Nicklas Buck conducted an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter that was "a sham and a farce."<br />
<br />
Shuman claimed that he came to his daughter's aid because she had been continuously harassed and intimidated by Officers Carson and Aaron Roth. He said that between June and August 2012, Carson, Roth and other Raritan officers would "make U-turns and follow Alexa Shuman without stopping her and that on six occasions the officers "passed the driveway of Alexa Shuman's home with flashing lights and sirens activated after which they were deactivated." He said that officers would pull over his daughter for offenses including making a "too quick right turn," "touch[ing] the white line" and "turning without the appropriate turn signal."<br />
<br />
According to the lawsuit, one of the traffic stops resulted in a drug possession arrest of one of Alexa's companions. According to an <a href="https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/hunterdon-county/2014/08/10/raritan-township-shuman-police-brutality-lawsuit/13805819/">August 10, 2014 Courier News article</a> on the matter, Alexa, two months prior to the August 2012 stop, "was charged twice in one week for possession of marijuana under 50 grams." The Courier News article contains a video of the traffic stop and the altercation between officers and Shuman.<br />
<br />
Shuman said that after his daughter called him from the scene of the August 5, 2012 traffic stop he "travelled by car several minutes to the scene" because he was concerned for his daughter's safety. Upon arrival, he started crossing the street to speak with Carson when the officer ordered him back to his car because was "in an active roadway." Shuman claimed that when he "began to obey and was walking back across the street" he was at the same time calling Chief Tabasko on his cell phone. It was at this point that Carson allegedly grabbed Shuman by the arm and threw him against the hood of the patrol car and then to the ground while shouting "stop resisting!" When Alexa exited her car to aid her father, Carson reportedly told her to "get back in the car or you're next." A short while later, Roth and Sergeant Scott Lessig arrived at the scene and pinned Shuman to the ground.<br />
<br />
Shuman said that Lessig applied the handcuffs too tightly and refused to loosen them, causing injury. He also said that his encounter with police caused several tears in the left retina, a chipped fracture of the left elbow and nerve damage to his left hand and arm.<br />
<br />
Shuman said that on the advice of his attorney he pled guilty to the obstruction charge in municipal court but obtained a "civil reservation" that prevented the civil court from using his plea against him.<br />
<br />
The lawsuit is is captioned Shuman v. Raritan Township, et al, Federal Case No. 3:14-cv-03658 and Shuman's attorney is Shelley L. Stangler of Springfield. Case documents are on-line <a href="http://bit.ly/2kIantc">here</a>.<br />
<br />
None of the the lawsuit's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. All that is known for sure is that Raritan or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Shuman $200,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684589531774189979.post-79496510047995397242018-06-02T12:47:00.002-04:002020-06-22T19:00:30.711-04:00NJ Department of Corrections appeals $1.6 million whistleblower verdict.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w-SgLsjmEQ4/WxLHvyKKL-I/AAAAAAAAgXQ/Upi8pBBEfKADhT6-jhS3fRIiEixgTudogCLcBGAs/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="134" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w-SgLsjmEQ4/WxLHvyKKL-I/AAAAAAAAgXQ/Upi8pBBEfKADhT6-jhS3fRIiEixgTudogCLcBGAs/s1600/download.jpg" /></a></div>
On January 12, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) filed a <a href="http://bit.ly/2xymgLv">Notice of Appeal</a> contesting a $1,630,423.02 judgment that was entered against the agency in favor of a former NJDOC administrator who a jury found had been retaliated against for engaging in protected whistleblower activities. According to Camden County Superior Court Judge Anthony M. Pugliese's <a href="http://bit.ly/2xxFbWG">December 15, 2017 Order</a>, the $1,630,423.02 total award is broken down as follows: $1,022.840.00 in damages, $8,020.07 in pre-judgment interest, $530,832.05 in attorney fees and $68,730.94 in costs. According to the jury's October 6, 2017 <a href="http://bit.ly/2sAjHCW">verdict sheet</a>, the $1,022.840 in damages was further broken down into $692,500 for "emotional distress" and $330,340.00 in "economic loss."<br />
<br />
The plaintiff in the matter is Meg Yatauro who began her employment with the NJDOC in April 1984 and later served as Administrator of the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) and the Albert C. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility (Wagner).<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://bit.ly/2sHgQbx">her lawsuit</a>, Yatauro said that her problems at the NJDOC started when a search team, headed by Deputy Commissioner Mark Farsi, performed a routine search of the ADTC and found a pair of children's scissors in an inmate's cell. According to Yatauro, the discovery of the scissors led to her being asked by Commissioner Gary M. Lanigan at an October 11, 2011 Challenge Historical Assumptions and Nobly Generate Efficiencies (CHANGE) meeting how the inmate came to possess the scissors. Yatauro explained that the NJDOC had instituted a "Hobby Program" and that possession of the scissors by inmates was allowed by that program.<br />
<br />
According to Yatauro's suit, Lanigan was "astonished to learn of the existence of the 'Hobby Program'" and ordered that hundreds of scissors be confiscated from all ADTC inmates. On November 3, 2011, despite Yatauro's assurances that all of the scissors had been confiscated, NJDOC officials sent a search team into ADTC to search for any scissors that may not have been confiscated. This search resulted in about two dozen inmate complaints of verbal and physical abuse. Specifically, four inmates complained that they were ordered to stand naked up against one another so that one inmate's penis would be touching the next inmate's buttocks" and that corrections officers called them "fags."<br />
<br />
Yatauro said that she found the complaints "credible" and forwarded them to Special Investigations Division (SID) for investigation. She claimed that, Erica Madden, one of the SID investigators, only interviewed one of the four inmates who complained and refused to interview the other three because she didn't want to work overtime. Yatauro said that she reported Madden's refusal to SID Chief Kevin Bolden who said that he wouldn't authorize overtime unless "the inmates' eyes were hanging out of their sockets." After receiving about a hundred complaints from inmates about the search, Yatauro said that she took her complaint up the chain of command. She said that she was surprised when, during a meeting about Yatauro's request for investigation, Deputy Commissioner Mark Farsi threatened her by telling her that Madden would not be working overtime and if "anything comes out of this investigation, it will be on you." In a subsequent conversation with Divisions of Operations Director Michelle Ricci, Yatauro claimed that she was told she would be held accountable if the SID investigation revealed any wrongdoing regarding the search.<br />
<br />
Yatauro claimed that she suffered retaliation for pushing for the investigation. She claimed that Farsi told her that if she ever spoke to Commissioner Lanigan again, he would "bite off her fingers." She also said that Madden screamed at her in January 2012 and that her complaints about Madden's tirade were not satisfactorily addressed. She said that she objected when Bolden told her the SID would investigate the Madden incident because "it had been widely rumored that Madden was romantically involved with Bolden." In a subsequent meeting with Bolden, Yatauro claimed that he told her he was "very angry with her for pursuing the complaint against Madden." The lawsuit alleged that Madden filed complaints against Yatauro for racially discriminating against her because she (Madden) was black.<br />
<br />
In June 2012, Yatauro said that she was transferred to Wagner--the "worst jail" which was widely known as "the rat hole" by NJDOC employees. She said that the transfer was a calculated attempt by NJDOC officials to make "her employment so intolerable that she would be forced to resign." She said that the Wagner facility was very filthy due to years of neglect and that she bought cleaning supplies and developed a plan to clean it up. She claimed that Lanigan toured the Wagner facility in August 2012 and was "furious with her" about the filthy conditions at Wagner even though those conditions had existed for years prior to her transfer.<br />
<br />
In another incident, Yatauro said that Bolden went outside the chain of command when he had Adrian Ellison, an SID investigator at Wagner, purchase some sage green paint for his office even though his request for the paint had already been denied by Ricci. Yatauro confronted Ellison, according to the lawsuit, and told him that "she knew what they did was against the rules." Later, Ellison was assigned to investigate an anonymous letter claiming that tools were being stolen at Wagner and that employees were doing personal tasks during work hours. According to Yatauro, Ellison's main focus was not to determine the truth of the anonymous letter's allegations but rather to find out who wrote it. According to the suit, Ellison attempted to have Sergeant Richard Nappa, who Ellison believed was the letter's author, criminally prosecuted for having written the letter. Yatauro claimed that Ricci rebuffed her complaints about the manner in which Ellison conducted the investigation.<br />
<br />
In still another alleged incident, Yatauro said that she received a complaint that Ellison had visited a Wagner sergeant's wife's place of employment--a nail salon--and asked her for the sergeant's work schedule while Ellison was having his nails done. The sergeant's wife allegedly reported that Ellison's actions were "creepy" and made her feel uncomfortable. She said that her complaints to NJDOC officials regarding Ellison's conduct at the nail salon were disregarded but that her persistence in pursing the complaint as well as "additional complaints of sexual harassment that had come to light" ultimately resulted in Ellison being disciplined. According to the lawsuit, Bolden, who allegedly belonged to the same Masonic Lodge as Ellison, was "displeased" that Ellison was disciplined.<br />
<br />
In December 2012, Christopher Holmes, who Yatauro said has "a close personal relationship" with Bolden, became her direct supervisor. Holmes allegedly undermined Yatauro during meetings and "required her to constantly re-write reports" when the same demands were not made of other NJDOC administrators.<br />
<br />
Yatauro's lawsuit lists many more allegations that are not recounted here. In sum she claimed that the retaliation she suffered culminated in her May 16, 2013 demotion from Administrator to Executive Assistant that resulted in an $26,000 salary reduction. She said that she was assigned to perform the duties of a file clerk which she found "not only extremely demeaning but a complete waste of [her] talents and abilities." She said that the intolerable working conditions forced her to retire on March 1, 2014.<br />
<br />
According to an August 1, 2017 court filing, defendants Judith Lang and Christopher Holmes were dismissed from the lawsuit.<br />
<br />
The trial court case was captioned Meg Yatauro v. Kevin Bolden, et al, Superior Court Docket No. CAM-L-1901-14 and Yatauro's' attorney is Heidi R. Weintraub of Cherry Hill. The matter is currently pending before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.John Paffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04350782495358292862noreply@blogger.com