SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN COUNTY LAW DIVISION DOCKET NO.: CIVIL ACTION THEODORE WELLS, EDWIN E. WOOD, III, JAMES KEHOE,

Transcription

1 Matthew S. Wolf, Esquire WOLF & BOOTH, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 13 Haddonfield, NJ Tel: Fax: Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicole Hoffman NICOLE HOFFMAN, vs. Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN COUNTY LAW DIVISION DOCKET NO.: CIVIL ACTION THEODORE WELLS, EDWIN E. WOOD, III, JAMES KEHOE, AMENDED COMPLAINT KATHLEEN JENSEN, MEDFORD. (jury trial requested) TOWNSHIP, JAMES J. GERROW, JR., : DEBRA LEITENBERGER, COUNTY : OF BURLINGTON, Defendants. Plaintiff, Nicole Hoffman, residing at 3449 Elm Avenue, Pennsauken, New Jersey, 08109, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby brings the following Complaint against Defendants Theodore Wells, Edwin E. Wood, III, James Kehoe, Kathleen Jensen, Medford Township, James J. Gerrow, Jr., Debra Leitenberger, and County of Burlington: PARTIES Plaintiff Nicole Hoffman resides in the County of Camden at and has resided there since January of Defendant Theodore Wells resides i New Jerse ) Defendant Edwin Wood is the Chief of Police of Medford Township with offices at 91 Union Street, Medford Township, New Jersey. Defendant James Kehoe is a Captain in the police force of Medford Township with offices at 91 Union Street, Medford Township, New Jersey. 5. Kathleen Jensen is a Lieutenant in the police force of Medford Township with offices at 91 Union Street, Medford Township, New Jersey.

2 6. Medford Township is a municipal body organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey and is located in Burlington County at 91 Union Street, Medford Township, New Jersey. 7. James J. Gen-ow, Jr., is an attorney at law and he is employed by the County of Burlington as the Executive Assistant Prosecutor for the Office of the Prosecutor of the County of Burlington. 8. Debra Leitenberger is a detective employed by the County of Burlington as the Executive Assistant Prosecutor for the Office of the Prosecutor of the County of Burlington. The County of Burlington is a political body organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. BACKGROUND 10. From September of 2000 until the present, Plaintiff has been employed as a communications officer, or dispatcher, for Medford Township. I Defendant Theodore Wells was, at the same time, a corporal in the Medford Township police department. 12. Defendant Wells was in a supervisory position over the Plaintiff. I 3. Defendant Wells, from time to time, made sexual advances and overtures toward the Plaintiff. 14. Plaintiff clearly indicated to Wells that the advances were unwelcome. 15. Throughout 2002, during the period of time that Plaintiff worked for Medford Township, the police department maintained a sexually hostile work environment. 16. The nature of this environment was well known to the management and supervisors in the police force. During the course of her work, Plaintiff came to learn that it was common knowledge that several, but not all, of the officers had engaged in sexual conduct while on duty, and in the police station and in patrol cars. 18. Plaintiff has been the target of the sexually hostile work environment. -2-

3 19. On or about August 3, 2002, one of the Medford police sergeants tried to engage the Plaintiff in a conversation regarding dating, and he called Plaintiff "an ignorant slut", repeatedly, and he further stated that he would not "set the plaintiff up on a date" because she "did not put out." 20. This sergeant was and is, at all times, in a supervisory position over the Plaintiff. 21. This sergeant's conduct was reported to the internal affairs officer Defendant Kathleen Jensen. 22. Jensen responded to Plaintiff that Jensen would talk to the sergeant and "take care of it." 23. Plaintiff never heard anything about it after that point. 24. Defendant Jensen failed to follow the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures in response to Plaintiff's complaint about the events of August 3, 2002, and that particular sergeant. 25. As a matter of fact, that sergeant was subsequently promoted, and is now in a management position supervising the detectives of the Medford Township Police Department. 26. Defendant Jensen failed to deal with Plaintiffs complaint regarding this sergeant's conduct even though it contributed to the sexually hostile work environment. 27. Throughout the time that Plaintiff worked with Wells, he would constantly and regularly refer to the Plaintiff in a sexually provocative manner, referring to her as "hottie", "sexy" and telling her that she was "good looking". 28. During work, defendant Wells stated to the Plaintiff that he would have like to have married her. 29. During work, defendant Wells stated to the Plaintiff that she "looked good" in her uniform. 3U. During work, defendant Wells would refer to the Plaintiff as "Sexy" instead of using her name. 1. In general, defendant Wells continually and pervasively pursued the Plaintiff for a sexual and personal relationship. -3-

4 32 On or about December 11, 2002, during a night shift, defendant Wells tried to unbutton Plaintiff's pants while both he and she were on duty at the Medford Township Police Department premises. 33. Plaintiff physically resisted and verbally objected to this conduct. 34. Defendant Wells then stated that all he wanted to do was to see the Plaintiff "naked", to which the Plaintiff objected. 35. The following morning, Plaintiff reported defendant Wells' attempt to unbutton her pants to another officer in the Medford Police Department, which was then reported to defendant Jensen. 36. Plaintiff, prior to and after this incident, was never properly informed of Medford Township's policy or procedure regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, if such a policy existed at the time. 37. Upon learning of the claims by Plaintiff against defendant Wells, defendants Jensen, Kehoe, and Wood in Medford Township, and defendants Leitenberger and Gerrow in the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office were all obligated to comply with the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures. 38. Said defendants failed to comply with these guidelines. 39. In fact, throughout the course of the so-called "investigation" of the incident, Plaintiff was subjected to an intimidating interrogation, treated poorly from beginning to end, in a manner that would only lead to the conclusion that the real police policy being employed in Burlington County and in Medford Township in particular is to dissuade internal affairs complainants from coming forward with complaints of police misconduct. 40. Plaintiff was never urged to be forthcoming about events and, rather, was treated as a suspect of a crime from the very beginning. 4 I. After each and every interview at the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, Plaintiff was suffering extreme emotional distress. 42. Plaintiff's treatment at the hands of these defendants also would only lead to the conclusion that there is no policy against sexual harassment in Medford Township. -4-

5 43. Plaintiffs complaints regarding defendant Wells were never treated as a complaint for sexual harassment. 44. In fact, Plaintiff was treated as a suspect and asked to take a polygraph test as though she were a suspect. 45. Such conduct, if left as such, would have a chilling effect on subsequent complainants. 46. Immediately upon reporting Wells' conduct to defendant Jensen, Plaintiff was taken to the Office of the Prosecutor for the County of Burlington. 47. At that time, Plaintiff was interviewed by defendant Jensen - who had previously failed to follow up with Plaintiff on her previous complaint about the sergeant calling the plaintiff "an ignorant slut" - in the presence and with some participation by defendants Kehoe and Burlington County Prosecutor's Office Investigator Debbie Leitenberger. 43. Defendant Wells was informed of the allegations shortly after the incident. 49. Over the course of many months, Plaintiff, without counsel, and without being advised that she was ever a suspect of any wrongdoing, continued to cooperate with the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, and, in particular, met repeatedly with defendants Gerrow and Leitenberger. 50. During the course of these meetings, defendants Gerrow and Leitenberger continued to fail to comply with the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures. 51. Plaintiff continued to be employed and to report to duty at the Medford Township police department. 5). On August 26, 2003, Plaintiff was called from her work up to the office of the defendant, Police Chief Wood. 53. At that time, she met with defendant Wood and Kehoe. 5-1 At that time, they handed the plaintiff the letter dated August 15, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 55. They made Plaintiff read the letter in their presence. This letter is referred to hereinafter as "the target letter". -5-

6 56. Even though the target letter was marked "PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL" and had been addressed to the Plaintiff, and it had not been "carbon copied" to any other person in the Medford Police Department, someone other than the Plaintiff had intercepted and opened this personal and confidential letter from the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office. 57. Additionally, whoever had intercepted this letter and opened it held on to it for over a week. 8. Upon information and belief, defendants Wood, Kehoe, and/or Leitenberger had intercepted the letter and withheld it from the Plaintiff so that they could plan and coordinate a way of disposing of the Plaintiff's complaint regarding the sexual harassment claim she had made. 59, Plaintiff was then handed the "Memorandum" dated August 26, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, which indicated that she was suspended on account of "pending subsequent criminal legal actions by the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office relative to the criminal investigation of the December 11, 2002 incident involving Cpl Theodore Wells and yourself." 60. Plaintiff, through her union, was subsequently referred to counsel for the union. 61. Subsequently, defendants Gerrow, Leitenberger, Wood, Kehoe and Jensen, all conspired to use the threat of criminal prosecution contained in the target letter to force the Plaintiff to give up any claim she had for sexual harassment, and any other claim. 6). The evidence of this is contained in the "Settlement Agreement and General Release" which defendant Wood signed on September 8, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In paragraph number 3, the Plaintiff would have been agreeing to a total and complete release of any civil claims she might have had. 63. Paragraph 2 states: Prosecutor has determined that pursuant to this agreement there will be no need for presentation of the underlying factual scenario to a Grand Jury and that accordingly no criminal charges will be filed. -6-

7 In fact, there was no basis for the target letter to begin with. COUNT I 65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 66. N.J.S. 34:19-2 defines an "Employer" for purposes of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. (referred to hereinafter as "CEPA"), as: any individual, partnership, association, corporation or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly on behalf of or in the interest of an employer with the employer's consent and shall include all branches of State Government, or the several counties and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the State, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof. 67. Defendants Gerrow and Leitenberger were acting directly and indirectly on behalf Plaintiff's employer with the employer's consent. 68, Defendants Wood, Kehoe and Jensen were acting directly on behalf of Plaintiff's employer with the employer's consent. 69. Defendants Gerrow, Kehoe and Jensen are in "upper management" positions. 70. Defendant County of Burlington, through Gerrow and Leitenberger, were acting indirectly on behalf Plaintiff's employer with the employer's consent. 71. Defendant Township of Medford is and was Plaintiff's employer. 72. Plaintiff was and is an "employee" as that term is used in CEPA. 73. All defendants named in this count of the Complaint violated N.J.S.A. 34:19-3, by retaliating against the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff: a. disclosed violations of the law and rules or regulations promulgated pursuant to law; b. provided information to the persons conducting the investigationlinquiry into the violations of the law and rules or regulations promulgated pursuant to law; c. objected to and/or refused to participate in the activities, policies and practices at Medford Township which she reasonably believed were: -7-

8 (I) (ii) (iii) violations of the law and rules or regulations promulgated pursuant to law; criminal; and/or, incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare. 74. Furthermore, the County of Burlington, through its employees, and the Township of Medford, through its employees, in general, sought to simply "sweep under the carpet" and "bury" the Plaintiffs complaints of sexual harassment by use of the threat of criminal charges against the victim, the very person was supposed to be protected. '5 Defendants Burlington County and Medford Township are liable both directly and vicariously. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:19-5, jointly, severally and in the alternative, against Edwin E. Wood,111, James Kehoe, Kathleen Jensen, Medford Township, James J. Gerrow, Jr., Debra Leitenberger, and the County of Burlington, for Compensatory damages; Punitive damages; Attorney's fees; Interest; Costs; a civil fine and any other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. COUNT II 76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 77. All defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices and unlawful. discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq., and in particular, N.J.S.A. 10: The conduct that the Plaintiff was subjected to by all defendants would not have occurred but for the employee's gender. 79. The conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person believe that the conditions of employment are altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive. $0. In fact, Plaintiffs conditions of employment were altered. -8-

9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all defendants for equitable relief rescinding her suspension and restoring plaintiff to her full and complete position, without any diminishment of her position and status. COUNT III 81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 87. All defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices and unlawful discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5. - 1, et seq., and in particular, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, jointly, severally and in the alternative, against all defendants for Compensatory damages; Punitive damages; Attorney's fees; Interest; Costs; and any other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Matthew S. Wolf is designated as trial counsel in this action. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1 I hereby certify that the within matter in controversy is not the subject of any other lawsuit or arbitration proceeding and that there is no other party who should be joined in this action at this time. There are administrative proceedings related to the suspension of the Plaintiff and defendant Wells which have been instituted by Medford Township. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jtu-y as to all issues so triable. WOLF & BOOTH, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: S 6 2-4/ 4) 1P Alatthew t6j S. Wolf, Esquire -9-