Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1 . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JENNIFER HECKMAN 176 Alberts Way Langhorne, PA 19047 CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, . Docket N0.: V. LYNEER INTERNATIONAL LLC, d/b/a LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 134 Franklin Corner Road Suite 100 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 and INFINITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC 134 Franklin Corner Road Suite 100 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 and CIERA STAFFING, LLC 1 Greentree Center Marlton, NJ 08053 and ENDURIX NATIONAL STAFFING, LLC 1719 Chestnut Street Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19103 and GARY SPINNER Lawrenceville, NJ 134 Franklin Corner Road Suite 100 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 and JIM RADVAN-Y Lawrenceville, NJ 134 Franklin Corner Road Suite 100 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 and Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2 TODD MCNULTY Lawrenceville, NJ 134 Franklin Corner Road Suite 100 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 and BRYAN SMITH Lawrenceville, NJ 134 Franklin Corner Road Suite 100 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Defendants. CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jennifer Heckman (hereinafter referred to as ?Plaintiff?), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby avers as follows: I. Introduction 1. Plaintiff has initiated this action to redress violations by Defendants of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination LAD N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq), the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act? NJSA 34219-1, et seq), and 42 U.S.C. 1981. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants unlawfully terminated her employment in violation of these laws and that she suffered damages as sought herein. II. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants? contacts with this state and this judicial district are suf?cient for the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants to comply with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, satisfying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310 (1945) and its progeny. . Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 3 3. This action is initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the claims arise under laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claim(s) because they arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts as her federal claim(s). This Court would alternatively have jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1332 based upon diversity anyway, as the Parties are citizens, domiciliaries, and residents of different states. 1 4. Venue is pr0perly laid in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and because Defendants conduct business in this judicial district and because a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district. 5. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 6. Plaintiff is an adult female who resides at the above-captioned address. 7. Defendants Lyneer Staf?ng International LLC ("Defendant Lyneer", In?nity Staf?ng Solutions LLC ("Defendant Infinity"), Ciera Staf?ng LLC ("Defendant Ciera"), and Endurix National Staf?ng LLC ("Defendant Endurix") are 4 separate legal entities. These 4 legal entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant Entities." 8. Defendant Entities for the purposes of this action should be considered a joint, single and/or integrated employer of Plaintiff because, among other reasons: a) They are all incorporated in New Jersey; b) They are operated by overlapping upper-level management; Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4 c) They share in resources, recruiting efforts, and employees; and d) They operate as a joint enterprise (even though technically they are formed as separate entities). 9. Plaintiff applied for and was hired to work as a Director of Human Resources by Defendant Lyneer. Plaintiff was not even paid by Defendant Lyneer, but rather, a company known as Stellar Management. At the commencement of her employment, she performed Work, compliance duties, management, and oversight over all 4 of Defendant Entities. Her work and oversight over all 4 of Defendant Entities did not cease or change throughout the duration of her employment and through her termination from Defendant Entities. Plaintiff was recluired to follow practices, policies, and management as to all 4 Defendant Entities. 10. Defendant Gary Spinner ("Defendant Spinner") is a Chief Operating Of?cer and high-level manager within Defendant Entities. Defendant Jim Radvany ("Defendant Radvany") is a Chief Financial Of?cer and high-level manager within Defendant Entities. Defendant Todd McNulty ("Defendant McNulty") is a Chief Executive Of?cer and high-level manager within Defendant Entities. Defendant Bryan Smith ("Defendant Smith") is a President and high-level manager within Defendant Entities. These 4 individual defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant Individuals." 11. During Plaintiffs approximate 6 months of employment with Defendant Entities, Plaintiff reported directly to Defendant Spinner. Plaintiff however also reported regularly and consistently on an indirect basis to Defendants McNulty, Smith, and Radvany. 12. The very basis of Plaintiffs claims in the instant case are premised upon retaliation. Plaintiff asserts herein that she opposed clearly unlawful and/or discriminatory practices furthered and perpetuated by Defendants and as a result - she directly complained and Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 5 opposed same as to all 4 Individual Defendants. She was met with tremendous animosity by all 4 Individual Defendants, and all 4 Individual Defendants collectively decided to terminate Plaintiff pretextually speci?cally due to her complaints of illegalities and discrimination within Defendant Entities' workplace(s). 13. At all times relevant herein, Defendants acted by and through their agents, servants, and employees, each of whom acted at all times relevant herein in the course and scope of their employment with and for the bene?t of Defendants. IV. Factual Background 14. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 15. Plaintiff began working for Defendants in mid-March of 2013, particularly on or about March 18, 2013. 16. Plaintiff was hired and remained employed through her termination with Defendants as a Director of Human Resources. 17. At all times relevant during her period of employment, Plaintiff reported directly to Defendant Spinner. 18. Although Plaintiff directly reported to Defendant Spinner, she was regularly supervised by Defendants Spinner, McNulty, Smith, and Radvany. 19. Early into Plaintiffs employment, her management was commenting favorably about Plaintiff and praising her knowledge and abilities. 20. In the early stages of her employment, Plaintiff articulated and began implementing numerous procedures for Defendants to become more ef?cient, compliant, and Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6 effective from a human resources standpoint, including but not limited to creating and/0r modifying: a) Formal bene?t packages; b) Audit processes; 0) Broker usage; (1) Personnel documentation form usage; e) New hire processes; f) Filing systems; g) Compliance with local, state and federal posting requirements; h) Handbook and personnel policies; I i) Termination documentation; j) 1-9 and other immigration/alien veri?cation procedures; Overall training practices; 1) Coordination amongst departments; m) Medical bene?t policies and documentation procedures; It) Drug testing protocols; and 0) Many other effective business and human resources best practices. 21. Plaintiff was only employed with Defendant Entities for approximately six (6) months. And several months into her short tenure, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant Entities and Individuals were knowingly furthering and perpetuating clearly unlawful practices, which included but were not limited to:1 1 These types of knowing and unlawful acts are intended solely to be a list of some examples, as Plaintiff became aware of many unlawful acts and practices engaged in by Defendants. Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7 a) Intentionally paying non-exempt employees as if they were exempt employees to avoid overtime obligations and adjusting work hours and pay to have overtime shifted to different pay weeks (also to avoid paying overtime compensation);2 b) Intentionally not offering leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to employees to avoid federal obligations; c) Intentionally using and hiring of illegal and/or undocumented employees to tranSport temporary employees; and d) Intentionally failing to report worker?s compensation claims or to open worker?s compensation claims and/or misleading worker's compensation insurance carriers. 22. One of the most profound and upsetting unlawful practices to Plaintiff though was her objection to following directives relating to hiring, recruitment, and placement of employees on a discriminatory basis. Defendant Entities and Individuals directly and indirectly: a) Knowingly recruited, hired, and sorted candidates based upon race; b) Referred pervasiver to races by number, for example calling African American (black) candidates "number 23;" and c) Directed Plaintiff to place by gender and race in locations and for certain clientele. 2 The penalties section of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216, provides for both criminal sanctions. Under section 216(a), any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of section 215 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a ?ne of not more than 10,000 or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 8 23. Plaintiff adamantly expressed objections to Defendants unlawful hiring, recruitment and placement of employees based upon race and gender, which was not a Sporadic practice - but rather - a common practice. 24. Some of Plaintiffs most adamant objections to unlawful business practices, as aforesaid, were. through May of 2013. Plaintiff was treated with very signi?cant animosity for not going along with the program and catering to specific clientele as preferred by Defendants, 25. In or about June of 2013, Plaintiff was told to propose an independent consulting arrangement to Defendants if she wanted to continue providing services to Defendants. Plaintiff understood this to mean that she would be available as a consultant for issues that mandated human resources oversight but that Defendants were attempting to selectively remove her from being involved her with oversight of hiring, recruitment and placement practices within Defendant Entities. 26. Separately, Plaintiff was told to work from her home by Defendants (where she lived in as opposed to working from Defendants New Jersey facilities. As of June 2013, Plaintiff was gradually being limited in responsibilities, access to information, and was working primarily from her own residence. 27. While Plaintiff felt compelled and did in fact present an independent consulting agreement to retain a viable income, Plaintiff was never actually converted to an independent consultant by Defendants. 28. Between June and August of 2013, Plaintiff continued to reiterate her concerns of Defendants' unlawful practices, was investigating concerns of employees about similar types of discriminatory concerns, and was facing resistance from Defendant Individuals about attempts to Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 9 curtail and stop unlawful practices (in large part, in relation to ceasing discriminatory practices, as foresaid), 29. On or about September 13, 2013, Plaintiff was suddenly and abruptly told that Defendant Entities had to terminate her for ?nancial reasons despite that: a) She was only employed for 6 months, audit is completely implausible that Defendants suddenly thought ?nancial concerns existed; b) She had discussions through her employment with Individual Defendants about matters, goals, and issues that were to take place after her unexpected?termination and into 2014; 0) She was upon information the only person within Defendant entities supposedly eliminated as part of some purported ?nancial cutback despite that Defendants collectively employ 1,000s of employees; and d) Plaintiffs termination came on the heels of animosity by Defendant Individuals for her active attempts to stop unlawful practices that Defendant Individuals were perpetuating and permitting to exist for their own financial gain. First Cause of Action Violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (Retaliation) Against All Defendants - 30-. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 31. Plaintiff was terminated from Defendants for objecting to unlawful acts by Defendants, as aforesaid. 32. These actions constitute violations of CEPA. Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 10 Second Cause of Action - Violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (Retaliation) 33. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 34. Plaintiff opposed and complained about unlawful gender and racial hiring, placement and recruitment practices within Defendants. 35. Plaintiffs termination for objecting to unlawful discrimination practices constitutes a violation of the NJ LAD. Third Cause of Action Violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Retaliation) 36. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 37. Plaintiff opposed and complained about unlawful racial hiring, placement and recruitment practices within Defendants. 38. Plaintiff was terminated for her complaints of unlawful racially discriminatory practices within Defendants. 39. These actions as aforesaid constitute a Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter an order providing that: A. Defendants are to be prohibited from continuing to maintain their illegal policy, practice, or custom of retaliating against employees and are to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such discrimination and to adhere thereto; B. Defendants are to compensate Plaintiff, reimburse Plaintiff, and make Plaintiff I whole for any and all pay and benefits Plaintiff would have received had it not been for 10 Case Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 11 of-ll PageID: 11 Defendants' illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, bonuses and medical and other bene?ts. Plaintiff should be accorded those bene?ts illegally withheld from the date she ?rst suffered discrimination/retaliation at the hands of Defendants until the date of verdigt; C. Plaintiff is to be awarded liquidated or punitive damages as permitted by- applicable law in an amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish Defendants for their willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct, and to deter Defendants from engaging in such misconduct in the future; D. Plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate (including but not limited to damages for emotional distress pain and suffering); E. Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law; F. Any verdict in favor of Plaintiff is to be molded by the Court to maximize the ?nancial recovery available to Plaintiff in light of the caps on certain damages set forth in applicable federal law; G. Plaintiff?s claims are to receive a trial by jury to the extent allowed by applicable law. Plaintiff has also endorsed this demand on the caption of this Complaint in accordance With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b). Respectfully submitted, KA FT PF CERUTTI, P.C. By: Ari R. K?aipf 3331 Street Road Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128 Bensalem, PA 19020 (215) 639-0801 Dated: September 30, 2013 11