Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 30 United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MELISSA REIMER, SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE Plaintiff, a? 4 4 ?gainsp CAP CAPRONB THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, CHRISTOPHER ST. LAWRENCE, NATHAN OBERMAN, MICHAEL KLEIN, LINDA CONDON AND BETH INKELSTEIN all are SUED HEREIN AS INDIVIDUALS as well as IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants. TO: THE TOWN OF RAMAPO Of?ce of Town of Ramapo 237 Rte 59 Suffem NY10901 CHRISTOPHER ST. LAWRENCE 48 Wesley Chapel Rd Suffem NY10901 NATHAN OBERMAN 10 Bannock Ct Suffem 0901 MICHAEL KLEIN 1 Stone Meadow Lane Airmont NY10901 LINDA CONDON 585 Haverstraw Rd Suffem NY10901 BETH FINKELSTEIN 97 Crum Creek Rd New City NY10956-4137 YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FRED LICHTMACHER (FL-5341) The Law Of?ce of Fred Lichtmacher PC. Attorney for Plaintiff The Empire State Building 350 5th Avenue Suite 7116 New York, New York 10118 (212) 922-9066 an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 21 Days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also ?le your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. AUG 2 9 2014 2.. ?2 DatetfiTiZ-I. 49;. - TI 1 I Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 30 Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 30 JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 CV SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MELISSA REIMER, Plaintiff, -against- THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, CHRISTOPHER ST. LAWRENCE, NATHAN OBERMAN, MICHAEL KLEIN, LINDA CONDON AND BETH INKELSTEIN all are SUED HEREIN AS INDIVIDUALS as well as IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Jury Trial Demanded Defendants. Plaintiff, by her attorneys, The Law Of?ce of Fred Lichtmacher P.C., alleges the following upon information and belief as her Complaint: JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is founded upon the existence of a Federal Question. 2 This is an action to redress the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of ?ghts, privileges, and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 as well as pursuant to the common law and statutes of the State of New York. 3 Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343 (3 4). 4 Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391 (1 2). 5 This Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff?s state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. -1- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 4 of 30 PARTIES 6 The Plaintiff, Melissa Reimer, is a resident of the County of Rockland in the State of New York. 7 Beginning on December 16, 2002, Ms. Reimer was employed by the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter Ramapo) in the Finance Department and although her title changed she was in sum and substance the Supervisor of Fiscal Services for the Ramapo Town Government. 8 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Ramapo is and was a municipal corporate subdivision of the State of New York duly existing by reason of and pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and the Plaintiff and the individual Defendants were at all times relevant employed by Ramapo. 9 The Ramapo Local Development Corporation (hereinafter, RLDC), which is not a party to this action, is a New York not-for-pro?t corporation organized pursuant to Section 1411 of the Not-for-Pro?t Corporation Law of the State of New York, and the Plaintiff is not now and never was employed by the RLDC nor was she ever in charge of providing services for the RLDC, as the RLDC maintains a staff with its own ?nance employees. 10 At all times hereinafter mentioned Christopher St. Lawrence was the elected Supervisor of Ramapo and he is sued herein in both his of?cial capacity and as an individual. 11 Mr. St. Lawrence has appointed himself to be the Ramapo Director of Finance, and at all times relevant, he served in that role as well. 12 At all times relevant Mr. St. Lawrence was the President of the RLDC. 13 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Nathan Oberman, was the Receiver of Taxes and the Deputy Director of Finance of Ramapo and he is sued herein in both his of?cial capacity and as an individual. 14 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Michael Klein, was the Town Attorney employed by -2- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 5 of 30 Ramapo and he is sued herein in both his of?cial capacity and as an individual. 15 At all times hereinafter mentioned Linda Condon was employed by Ramapo, and upon information and belief, during the relevant time periods she was an Administrative Assistant and she is sued herein in both her of?cial capacity and as an individual. 16 At all times hereinafter mentioned, upon information and belief, Beth Finkelstein, was an Assistant Town attorney employed by Ramapo and she is sued herein in both her of?cial capacity and as an individual. 17 At all times relevant Mr. St. Lawrence and Mr. Oberman were Ms. Reimer?s supervisors. 18 Plaintiff?s Notice of Claim was served on Ramapo on June 21, 2013 and more than thirty days have elapsed since service was completed and as of this date Plaintiff?s demand for payment has not yet been addressed by the Defendants. 19 The state claims in this cause of action are commenced within one year and ninety days of when these causes of action arose and Plaintiff?s federal claims are brought in a timely manner Within three years of the date they accrued. 20 The Plaintiff has appeared at 50-h hearings on three occasions. 21 On October 1, 2013 Plaintiff appeared for the ?rst time on her hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law 50-h'. 22 On July 9, 2014 Plaintiff appeared for the second time to give testimony pursuant to General 1After the ?rst date of her 50-h hearing, Plaintiff moved the Rockland State Supreme Court via Order to Show Cause to limit the scope and duration of Defendants? questioning. After reviewing the transcript, Judge Al?eri found that the Defendants had improperly used the 50-h hearing as a discovery device delving into areas that clearly went beyond the statutory purpose of the 50-h hearing. The Court placed time and parameter limitations on the remaining hearing which clearly in the next two hearings Defendants sought to exceed and ignore. -3- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 6 of 30 Municipal Law 50-h. 23 On July 15, 2014 Plaintiff appeared for the third time to give testimony pursuant to General Municipal Law 50-h. 24 Each and all of the acts of the Defendants alleged herein regarding the violations of Ms. Reimer?s First Amendment rights were done by the Defendants, acting as state actors acting under the color of law. NATURE OF THE CLAIM 25 This claim is in large part about Ms. Reimer exercising her First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public concern. 26 One of several complaints Ms. Reimer made was about the RLDC an entity which did not employ her. 27 Ms. Reimer had the same ability to obtain the information about the RLDC she complained about as did any private citizen. 28 Ms. Reimer spoke out about what she reasonably believed to be a thirty two million ($32,000,000) dollar overstatement of revenues by the RLDC. 29 Ms. Reimer did not speak out about the RLDC as part of her job, nor did she discover the information regarding the overstatement in the regular course of her job. 30 Mr. St. Lawrence, Ms. Reimer?s supervisor in the Ramapo government also holds the separate title of President of the RLDC. 31 The series of retaliatory acts against Ms. Reimer complained about herein, resulted after and because of Ms. Reimer exercising her right to free speech. STATEMENT OF FACTS 32 Beginning near the end of the year 2009 Ms. Reimer began to observe what she perceived to -4- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 7 of 30 be improper ?scal activities by government of?cials in the Town of Ramapo. When Ms. Reimer began reporting these acts, initially internally and ultimately externally and subsequently publically in her disciplinary hearings, the Defendants committed several acts of retaliation, severely altering the terms and conditions not only of Ms. Reimer?s job, but of her entire life and career. 33 It was not always within the scope of Ms. Reimer?s employment to report the improper actions described herein and some of the actions she reported were not committed on behalf of Ramapo but on behalf of the RLDC. 34 On November 19, 2009 Ms. Reimer informed Mr. Oberman, that Ramapo?s cash balances were very low and that the budgeted revenues for 2009 and 2010 were overstated and the expenditures (expenses) were understated. 35 The overstated revenue budgets and the understated expenditure budgets were created by Mr. St. Lawrence?s actions and inactions. 36 At the same time, Ramapo had a $3.08 million receivable on its books from the RLDC and Ms. Reimer informed her supervisors that it could not keep a current account receivable on the books for more than one year, which it was then about to do. 37 Said receivable is still depicted on the 2013 Financial Statement of Ramapo, which gives the Town an in?ated fund balance in its general fund, something Ms. Reimer complained to Ramapo officials about and speci?cally to Mr. St. Lawrence about, numerous times. 38 In approximately November of 2009 Ms. Reimer was explicitly informed by Mr. Oberman to no longer generate emails or memos regarding Ramapo?s ?nancial information due to the fact that such documents could be obtained via a FOIL request. 39 Mr. Oberman is closely aligned with Mr. St. Lawrence and the two meet and speak frequently. Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 8 of 30 40 With Ramapo?s cash balances being low, Ramapo was in danger of not being able to meet it?s ?scal obligations. 41 On several occasions Ms. Reimer was present for discussions at which Mr. St. Lawrence was also present when it was discussed that the cash balances were dangerously low and Ramapo was in danger of not being able to make payroll. 42 From 2010 through and including 2013 Ramapo was transferring money from the ambulance fund to the general fund, without documentation, not as a loan and without board approval which is improper. 43 Ms. Reimer was complaining about the improper transfers to Mr. St. Lawrence and Mr. Obennan and they took no action to correct the improper transfers, which were depleting funds from one tax base to give them to another. 44 On or about January of 2011 Mr. St. Lawrence was planning to improperly pay a vendor for playground equipment and accessories for two residents. 45 Ms. Reimer complained that Mr. St. Lawrence was planning to make an improper gi? of taxpayer money. 46 Mr. Klein disingenuously claimed that the money for the playground equipment was actually for cutting down trees. 47 From approximately January to August of 2011 Ms. Reimer sent out emails to the Defendants and other Town employees regarding the trees and playground equipment. 48 On August 31, 2011 Ms. Reimer received vouchers signed by Mr. St. Lawrence for payment to Green Tree Woodworks to pay for the playground equipment. 49 Ms. Reimer refused to submit these vouchers to be paid because they were improper, and upon information and belief, Mr. St. Lawrence knew Ms. Reimer was causing payment not to be -6- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 9 of 30 made on the vouchers. 50 During the late summer or early fall of 2011 Ms. Reimer requested and received a copy of the April 15, 2011 Of?cial Statement of the RLDC something any citizen even one who was not a government employee could request and receive. 51 Because reviewing the Of?cial Statement was not part of her job, Ms. Reimer took the document home to review. 52 After reviewing the Of?cial Statement, Ms. Reimer told Aaron Troodler (director of the RLDC), Mr. Oberman and other Ramapo employees that the Of?cial Statement was fraudulent, in that the RLDC was overtly overestirnating revenues to facilitate the sale of bonds. 53 Ms. Reimer reported to Ramapo that the RLDC was overestimating revenues by over thirty- two million (32,000,000) dollars. 54 Reviewing the Of?cial Statement was not part of Ms. Reimer?s employment responsibilities nor did she need to obtain the Of?cial Statement to facilitate her duties. 55 Ms. Reimer reviewed the aforementioned April 15, 2011 Official Statement as a private citizen as a matter of concern for the public and not as part of her job. 56 Ms. Reimer reviewed the aforementioned April 15, 2011 Of?cial Statement out of concern that the fraudulent Of?cial Statement would potentially mislead stakeholders including purchasers of bonds issued by the RLDC. 57 On dates including but not limited to July 28, 2011 and September 23, 2011 Mr. Oberman provided Ms. Reimer with spreadsheets for then current and prior period charge backs for Ramapo. 58 These charge backs were expenditures that Ramapo had paid for through the General Fund and then looked for reimbursement from other funds and tax bases which were not responsible for those charges. -7- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 10 of 30 59 From approximately 2011 through 2013 Ms. Reimer made internal complaints about the improper charge backs indicating they were improper and she expressly told Mr. St. Lawrence that this was shady and done without proper backup. 60 In 2011 the Town paid for enhancements and assets for a ball?eld property owned by the RLDC. 61 Instead of showing the enhancements and assets for the ball?eld as an asset for the RLDC on its records, the enhancements and assets were improperly kept on the Town?s books, which served to hide the costs of the ball?eld property ?om the taxpayers of Ramapo. 62 Ms. Reimer complained about the enhancements and assets being kept on the Town?s books stating it should be reported as a donation to the RLDC and removed from the Town?s assets. 63 Ms. Reimer complained internally that keeping the enhancements and assets on the Town?s books caused the Town to overstate it?s assets, and mislead stakeholders, including residents, investors and banks. 64 These complaints were made via emails and texts to Defendants Mr. St. Lawrence, Mr. Oberman and Mr. Klein among others. 65 Speci?cally, Ms. Reimer complained to Aaron Troodler (who is an of?cer with the RLDC and an Attorney for the Town) and to the Defendants that they would have to put the aforementioned assets on the books. 66 Reporting what the RLDC needed to do was not part of her job. 67 By March of 2012 Ms. Reimer was already speaking with the FBI regarding all the Defendants? improper activities. 68 On March 1, 2012 an employee of O?Connor Davies, the auditors for Ramapo, informed Ms. Reimer that said employee was no longer allowed to send Ms. Reimer emails about the assets for the -3- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 11 of 30 ball?eld. 69 The employee of O?Connor Davies told Ms. Reimer to instead speak with Mr. St. Lawrence or Mr. Obennan. 70 In early April of 2012, Ms. Reimer was questioned by an employee of O?Connor Davies as part of the process of ?lling out a fraud questionnaire pursuant to the Town?s annual audit for ?scal year 201 1. 71 Ms. Reimer provided her answers verbally, and response to an inquiry Ms. Reimer indicated there was in fact fraudulent activity by the Ramapo of?cials and she questioned whether O?Connor Davies was also involved in those activities. 72 Shortly thereafter Domenick Consolo, a partner at O?Connor Davies came into Ms. Reimer?s office and screamed at her questioning why she made those statements to his employee and telling Ms. Reimer she had better change her answers. 73 Consolo then spoke with Mr. St. Lawrence and informed him that Ms. Reimer was complaining about fraudulent activities. 74 Ms. Reimer was urged and induced to provide more benign answers to the Fraud Questionnaire although she still managed to insert information indicating that things were not being handled properly in Ramapo. 75 Ms. Reimer provided the new answers only after consulting with law enforcement. 76 Ms. Reimer was provided with her Fraud Questionnaire from the prior year to assist her with providing the answers Mr. Consolo wanted. 77 However, the prior Questionnaire had been prepared before $3,080,000 listed as an account receivable from the RLDC, was improperly switched from one transaction to another. 78 In July of 2012 Ramapo was reimbursing the RLDC for expenses erroneously alleged to -9- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 12 of 30 have been incurred for attorneys? fees on behalf of Ramapo, with no backup. 79 On July 13, 2012 Ms. Reimer explicitly informed Oberman this activity was improper. 80 On July 17, 2012 Ms. Reimer wrote a memo to Mr. Oberman informing him that transfers made to the RLDC were improper because there was no backup. 81 On August 3, 2012 Ms. Reimer told Mr. St. Lawrence Ramapo ?nancial activities were ?shady? regarding a gift of taxpayer money to the local movie theatre. 82 On August 13, 2012 Ms. Reimer wrote to Mr. Klein informing him that Ramapo?s bank information was being given out to non-?nance employees. 83 On August 28, 2012 Ms. Reimer signed a Con?dential Information Policy, but crossed out Paragraph 3 ?Enforcement? which would have, in sum and substance, provided for her to be disciplined and sued for reporting improper activities to outside agencies. 84 In September of 2012 Mr. St. Lawrence asked Ms. Reimer to improperly move money from Ramapo?s workers? compensation fund to Ramapo?s general ?md, which she refused to do. 85 Ms. Reimer spoke with Mr. Oberman about the above mentioned request and asked for something in writing saying that this was all right to 86 In response Mr. Oberman accused Ms. Reimer of wanting to use the writing to show to a law enforcement agency to get him in trouble, and at that point, upon information and belief, Defendants suspected or knew Ms. Reimer was cooperating with law enforcement agencies, regarding Ramapo?s and the activities, which was in fact true. 87 On September 5, 2012, Ms. Reimer warned Mr. Oberman that she would not take responsibility for improper acts. 88 In September of 2012, Ms. Reimer spoke to Ms. Finkelstein and informed her that she was being asked to do improper things, and Ms. Reimer asked Ms. Finkelstein (as well as Deputy Town -10- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 13 of 30 attorney Janice Gittelman-who was also present) what should she do. 89 The response from the two attorneys was to laugh and to tell Ms. Reimer to quit her job. 90 In September of 2012 Ms. Reimer attended a meeting with Mr. Oberman and Francis Hunter (then Deputy Supervisor). 91 Ms. Reimer told Mr. Oberman and Ms. Hunter that she was asked to move money without board approval and she informed them that this was improper. 92 On October 12, 2012 Ms. Reimer informed Ms. Hunter that in a meeting with several Finance department employees, Mr. Oberman asked her to perform improper acts. 93 On October 23, 2012 Ms. Reimer informed Mr. Oberman that giving ?iel for free, which Ramapo had done, is improper. 94 On October 23, 2012 Ms. Reimer via Attorney Gregory Kuczinski, explicitly informed Mr. St. Lawrence she was being subjected to a hostile work environment. 95 During a meeting on November 27, 2012 Mr. Oberman discussed Ramapo using NYSERDA grant money to cover payroll and Ms. Reimer informed him that this was be improper. 96 Upon information and belief, the warnings about improper activities that were not given by Ms. Reimer directly to Mr. St. Lawrence were conveyed to him by Mr. Oberman, and Mr. St. Lawrence was aware of Ms. Reimer?s opposition to Ramapo and the improper activities for which he was responsible. 97 On November 29, 2012 Ms. Reimer cautioned Mr. Oberman that moving money without board approval is improper. 98 Also on November 29, 2012 Ms. Reimer was threatened by Mr. St. Lawrence to be written up for insubordination because she said, ?if I call you, will you answer the phone?? 99 On December 21, 2012 Ms. Reimer was told that Town attorneys were going to interview -11- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 14 of 30 her and others about what was referred to as Chief Brower?s ?complaint of misconduct.? 100 On January 7, 2013 Ms. Reimer was interviewed by Ms. Finkelstein, with Ms. Condon and a non Defendant present. 101 Ms. Reimer did not trust Ms. Finkelstein because of the aforementioned incident in which Ms. Finkelstein and Ms. Gittelman had told her to quit her job when Ms. Reimer tried to report improper activities to them. 102 On January 16, 2013 Ms. Finkelstein conducted a Second interview with Ms. Reimer with Ms. Condon present as well as a non Defendant. 103 A?er the January 16, 2013 interview had concluded, Ms. inkelstein told Ms. Reimer, in relevant part ,?I?ve been asked to investigate a matter and you cooperated and I?ll say that you cooperated.? 104 On January 24, 2013 Ms. Reimer sent an email to Environmental Capital who was Ramapo?s ?scal advisor, with cc?s to Mr. St. Lawrence and Mr. Obennan that she did not have the same fund balance information that Ramapo was depicting for Moody?s. 105 On January 25, 2013 Mr. St. Lawrence, with Ms. Reimer, Mr. Oberman and others present had a phone conference with Moody?s during which Mr. St. Lawrence provided Moody?s with incorrect ?md balance information, despite Ms. Reimer having provided the correct fund balances to Mr. St. Lawrence earlier. 106 On or about February 11, 2013 there was a workshop discussion before a Ramapo board meeting regarding a proposed sewer hookup at Ms. Condon?s residence, which would constitute, upon information and belief, an improper gift of taxpayer money, which upon information and belief was to be a reward to Ms. Condon for her cooperation in prosecuting Ms. Reimer on false disciplinary charges. -12.. Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 15 of 30 107 On February 15, 2013 Ramapo sent Ms. Reimer a proposed Stipulation of Settlement, regarding false allegations the Town was planning to bring against her, with the intent of trying to coerce her into admitting wrongful acts which she never committed and a response was demanded by March 1, 2013. 108 By February 23, 2013 Ms. Reimer was forced to retain private counsel to defend against the false charges which were being planned. 109 On March 5, 2013 Ms. Reimer sent an email to Mr. St. Lawrence and shortly thereafter delivered a hard copy of the Fund Balances to Mr. St. Lawrence which were similar to those ultimately submitted in the Annual Update Document (AUD). 110 On March 13, 2013 Police Officer Charles Edwards, who was to be a witness against Ms. Reimer in her disciplinary hearing, was promoted to Sergeant after a history of working as a police of?cer without a promotion. 111 On March 15, 2013 there was a Ramapo Board resolution to commence disciplinary charges against Ms. Reimer and Ramapo hired William Sherwood as the hearing of?cer at $225 per hour. 112 Ms. Reimer had seven charges brought against her which were as follows: 1 Employee entered police department of?cers and engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and language. 2 Employee attempted to coerce other employees to circumvent protocol and alter police department records. 3 Employee attempted to have other employees alter police records thereby obstructing governmental administration under the penal law. 4 Employee engaged in Of?cial Misconduct under the penal law by the acts described in charge one and two. 5 Employee?s acts amounted to ?harassing, intimidating, bullying and coercive? behavior in violation of the town?s workplace violence policy. 6 Employee ?Attempted to Falsify Business Records? a penal law violation, with her acts described in charges 1 and 2. 7 Employee was guilty of misconduct by refusing to cooperate and being evasive when questioned by the Deputy Town Attorney. -13- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 16 of 30 113 Despite being served with the above listed charges, all of which were false, Ms. Reimer continued to question and complain about the Defendants? improper actions. 114 On March 28, 2013 Ms. Reimer informed Ramapo that it was imprOperly moving money from Provident Bank to Capital One Bank with no competitive bids requested and this caused Ramapo to earn lower interest and incur higher banking costs. 115 On April 3, 2013 Ms. Reimer again warned Ramapo about improper activities. 116 On April 9, 2013 Ms. Reimer again informed Ramapo that moving money without board approval is improper. 117 On May 2, 2013 William Sherwood, donated money to the Friends of ChristOpher P. St. Lawrence. 118 On May 13, 2013, Kathleen Ferrezzano, another Ramapo employee who was to be a witness against Plaintiff at her disciplinary hearing, was moved from a part-time to a ?ill-time position. 119 On May 15, 2013 the FBI, pursuant to a warrant, conducted a search of Ramapo Town Hall. 120 Upon information and belief, the search was conducted in part due to the evidence of improper actions Plaintiff complained of to outside agencies. 121 The ?rst set of Disciplinary Hearings were conducted on May 17, 21, 23, 28 and June 20 2013. 122 During the ?rst set of hearings, Ms. Reimer voluntarily disclosed she had tape recorded her interviews with Finkelstein. 123 The tape recording demonstrated that Ms. Finkelstein had knowingly drafted and prosecuted Ms. Reimer on at least one false charge Charge #7 failing to cooperate with the investigation. 124 When inkelstein in open Court heard that Ms. Reimer had a tape of her, she then announced ?now I am going to get her ?red.? -14- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 17 of 30 125 On May 28, 2013 Ms. Reimer was again directed to appear for investigative interview on June 4, 2013 and improperly, without legal authority to do so, Ramapo ordered Ms. Reimer to give audio recordings to the Town Attorney?s of?ce by May 31, 2013. 126 Ms. Reimer declined to comply with the improper order as Ramapo has no legal authority to demand discovery in a disciplinary proceeding. 127 On or about May 30, 2013 Ms. Reimer relinquished her recording devices to the FBI. 128 By May of 2013 the RLDC was the subject of a federal investigation with at least one newspaper article about the investigation being published on May 31, 2013. 129 Also on May 31, 2013 Ms. Reimer was directed to appear for another investigative interview on June 21, 2013 and she informed Ramapo she could not attend on that speci?c date, while not objecting to attending on another date. 130 On June 7, 2013 Ms. Reimer received notice from Mr. St. Lawrence that effective immediately she was placed on administrative leave and instructed not to report to work, to surrender her keys, and to remove nothing ?om Town Hall other than personal effects. 131 MS. Reimer was placed on administrative leave as a direct result of her internal and external complaints about Ramapo and the activities and not related to any wrongdoing by her. 132 On June 6, 2013 Defendants again changed the date they were demanding Ms. Reimer appear for her latest investigative interview and now demanded that date be moved up so she would appear on June 17, 2013, coincidentally before the end of the ?rst set of hearings. 133 When Defendants were not able to obtain an interview prior to the continuation of the Hearing on the ?rst set of charges, Defendants stopped pursuing another interview of Ms. Reimer on the second set of charges. 134 On June 17, 2013, Defendants released a scathing defamatory Press Release about Ms. -15- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 18 of 30 Reimer and about things Ms. Reimer was falsely alleged to have done. 135 The allegations within the Press Release were patently false and the Defendants knew to a moral certainty, the text of said Press Release was false in several regards. 136 The Press Release was issued in order to scapegoat Ms. Reimer for the Defendants? ?scal irresponsibility and improper acts. 137 The Press Release caused to be promulgated by the Ramapo Defendants reads as follows: FACT SHEET: NYS COMPTROLLER FURNISHED MISLEADIN INFORMATION ON TOWN FINANCES (Ramapo, NY) - On Monday afternoon, June 17, 2013, the Supervisor received a telephone call from the Of?ce of the New York State Comptroller indicating that the Town of Ramapo was to be included on a list to be released the following day of municipalities currently in signi?cant ?scal distress. When asked what formed the basis of this determination, he was advised that it resulted ?om a report called an ?Annual Update Document? or submitted by a town Finance Department employee in May suggesting certain fund de?cits. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the AUD was submitted without Town Board review or authorization and without review and authorization by either the Director or Deputy Director of the Finance Department. The report is based on incomplete, unaudited and misleading information provided by a now suspended Finance Department employee facing disciplinary charges for attempting to falsify Town records of her paramour and lying under oath. In an apparent attempt to embarrass the Town, she failed to disclose to the comptroller over $3.5 million in anticipated revenue. Her conduct was discovered too late to correct the Comptroller?s report. When the Town?s certi?ed audit is released shortly, it is expected to con?rm the Town?s continued ?scal health as re?ected by the Moody?s rating of A1 issued just two weeks ago. The Of?ce of the Comptroller has indicated it will review and revise the determination of ?scal distress when the certi?ed audit is completed. 138 This Press Release was promulgated to the media. 139 The ?now suspended Finance Department employee facing disciplinary charges? referred to in the June 17, 2013 Press Release is clearly Ms. Reimer, in that she was then the only suspended Finance Department employee and the only Finance Department employee facing charges. 140 The details of those false charges had been the source of previous newspaper articles in -16- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 19 of 30 which Ms. Reimer?s name was published repeatedly, allowing the public to connect her as being the person described in the Press Release. 141 The Defendants caused the Press Release to be published knowing that almost every fact within it was incorrect and with the intent of passing the blame to Ms. Reimer for their improper acts. 142 Several items in the Press Release were knowingly incorrect, some, but not all of which, were as follows: 143 The Defendants knew that the AUD was not released without authorization and in fact was submitted in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures, Mr. St. Lawrence had been authorizing for several years. 144 Additionally, Mr. Obennan knew the AUD was being sent and he even inquired of Ms. Reimer as to when it was being sent. 145 Mr. St. Lawrence and the other Defendants knew what the numbers in the computer system were which were sent as the AUD. 146 The Defendants knew that the AUD was not based on misleading information. 147 The Defendants knew Ms. Reimer never failed to disclose $3.5 million in expected revenues, because such revenues never legitimately existed. 148 The supervisor never reviews the AUD, and the Town Board never passes a resolution to authorize it, because they already are aware of the numbers it contains including the town's year-end fund balance ?gures that are readily available to the Defendants on the Ramapo computer system. 149 Additionally Mr. St. Lawrence provided the software necessary to complete the AUD and to submit it. 150 Ms. Reimer submitted the AUD to the state the same way every year, with the Defendants? Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 20 of 30 knowledge, consent and assistance, by using the electronic software provided by the Comptroller's Office to Mr. St. Lawrence and provided to Ms. Reimer by Mr. St. Lawrence. 151 And the Defendants knew there was no basis for charging Ms. Reimer with attempting to falsify records as was further demonstrated when they were able to present quite literally no evidence of such action by Ms. Reimer at her multiple hearing dates, yet they had placed that allegation in the disciplinary charges brought against her and they republished that statement with the June 17, 2013 Press Release knowing it was false in a feeble attempt to destroy her credibility. 152 Just after the Press Release was published, the New York State Comptroller?s Of?ce published a statement vindicating Ms. Reimer. 153 The Comptroller?s Of?ce explained the listing of Ramapo as the. second-most ?scally stressed community in the state came about after the relied upon data from the AUD went through a number of checks and balances by the State Comptroller's Of?ce to ensure that information was accurate. 154 The Comptroller?s Of?ce stated that the ranking should come as no surprise to the town because the data was veri?ed prior to their of?ce publicizing the list. 155 On June 20, 2013 Mr. Klein reiterated the false charges in the defamatory Press Release by telling the press when discussing the Press Release "we stand with what was released.? 156 After the completion of the hearings on the ?rst set of false disciplinary charges, Ramapo brought new charges against Ms. Reimer with a Board Resolution passed on June 26, 2013. 157 On June 28, 2013 Ms. Reimer was both suspended without pay and served with new charges brought against her which were the following: 1 Recording her interview after being informed she should not on January 7, 2013. 2 Recording her interview after being informed she should not on January 16, 2013. 3 Acknowledging under oath she was not recording and recording on January 16, 2013. -13- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 21 of 30 4 Perjury. 5 Refusing to produce a copy of the recordings of her interviews, including the one in which Defendant Finkelstein is caught being disingenuous. 6 Refusing to accept a letter from Defendant Condon and not surrendering her keys. 7 Attempting to gain access to her of?ce after she was barred. 8 Failing to appear for an investigative interview. 158 Some of these charges were false and some of them, while factually correct, stated behavior which violated no rules pursuant to the laws of the State of New York or elsewhere. 159 In July of 2013 Ms. Condon, who played an active role in the prosecution of the charges against Ms. Reimer, and who testi?ed against Ms. Reimer, was promoted to Personnel Administrator. 160 On August 1, 12, 27, 29 and September 6, 26 and 30 of 2013, Hearings were conducted on the second set of false charges. 16] On September 26, 2013 Ms. Reimer received Sherwood?s decision on the ?rst set of disciplinary charges (dated September 6, 2013 and not delivered to Ms. Reimer until 20 days later) exonerating Ms. Reimer on all charges except charges 1 and 5 which were in sum and substance, violence in the workplace; despite all the evidence including visual recordings showing Ms. Reimer committed no acts of violence. 162 On December 30, 2013 the attorney Ramapo retained to try the second set of false charges, Gelb, issued his Decision and Recommendation to the Town Board ?nding against Ms. Reimer on charges and recommended she be terminated. 163 On January 16, 2014, the Ramapo Town Board passed resolution 2014-90, to retain special counsel in the person of the Law of?ce of Vincent Toomey to advise the board for Ms. Reimer?s disciplinary charges at a rate of $245 per hour. 164 However, the video of the Board meeting neither shows the resolution being introduced, -19. Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 22 of 30 voted on, nor passed in contravention of proper procedures. 165 To date the Decision and Recommendation to the Town Board has not been voted on by the Town Board. 166 To this date, Ms. Reimer remains suspended and is unable to obtain another job, due to the string of false allegations and negative publicity brought against her and promulgated by the Defendants and by no vvrongdoings on the part of Ms. Reimer. 167 To this date the Defendants continue to perform many of the same improper acts Ms. Reimer complained of, and which led to the ?nding by the New York State Comptroller?s Office listing Ramapo as the second-most ?scally stressed community in the state. 168 The aforementioned acts of the Defendants and complaints about them made by Ms. Reimer do not constitute the entirety of their improper acts or complaints about them made by Ms. Reimer. 169 Most of the acts the Defendants accused Ms. Reimer of she never performed and the acts she did perform were not prohibited by any law, rule or regulation. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIQHT TO FREE SPEECH BY THE DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALS 170 Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein. 171 Ms. Reimer?s rights have been violated under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that Ms. Reimer was retaliated against by the Defendants for exercising her right to ?ee speech in speaking out on matters of public concern. -20- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 23 of 30 172 Defendants? acts of retaliation were causally related and solely motivated by Ms. Reimer?s exercise of her First Amendment rights. 173 All the adverse employment actions Defendants took collectively and individually against Ms. Reimer were taken for no legitimate reason but rather in retaliation for Ms. Reimer exercising her right to free speech. 174 The primary motivation for Mr. St. Lawrence and the other Defendants to retaliate against Ms. Reimer was due to her speaking out abut the improper activities surrounding the RLDC. I75 Ms. Reimer requested, received and reviewed the April 15, 2011 Of?cial Statement of the RLDC and she reported to Aaron Troodler, Mr. Oberman and other Ramapo employees that the Of?cial Statement was fraudulent and overtly overestimated by over thirty-two million ($32,000,000) dollars revenues to facilitate the sale of bonds. 176 Reviewing the Of?cial Statement was not part of Ms. Reimer?s employment responsibilities nor did she need to obtain the Of?cial Statement to facilitate her duties. 177 Ms. Reimer did not need to be a Ramapo employee to obtain the Of?cial Statement. 178 Ms. Reimer reviewed the Of?cial Statement as a private citizen as a matter of concern for the public and not as part concern that the fraudulent Of?cial Statement would potentially mislead stakeholders including purchasers of bonds issued by the RLDC. 179 Ms. Reimer spoke out about a number of matters relevant to her employment with Ramapo as well. 180 Ms. Reimer?s speech was not calculated to redress personal grievances but instead had a broader public purpose in exposing and correcting a large number of improper ?scal and ?nancial .21- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 24 of 30 procedures by the Defendants which were detrimental to the public including but not limited to the taxpayers of Ramapo. 181 Not all of Ms. Reimer?s complaints were made in the regular performance of her job, and in the case of Ms. Reimer?s complaints about action taken by Mr. St. Lawrence on behalf of the RLDC, her complaints were not about her employer as at no time was she employed by the RLDC. 182 Defendants herein, both as individuals and in their of?cial capacity, retaliated against Ms. Reimer for complaining internally and externally about the improper actions taken by them and the way Ramapo and the RLDC were as a matter of policy and practice employing improper ?scal policies. 183 Ms. Reimer was also retaliated against for speaking out about the Defendants? improper activities at her disciplinary hearings while defending herself from the false charges during which time she publically aired the Defendants? and the improper practices. 184 Ms. Reimer was retaliated against by all of the Defendants for the actions and inactions stated in her Statement of Facts. 185 Ms. Reimer was brought up on the false charges by the Defendants solely in retaliation for her complaints and disclosures. 186 Ms. Reimer was suspended ?'om her job in retaliation for her complaints and disclosures. 187 Ms. Reimer was defamed in a Press Release as well as in a subsequent statement by Mr. Klein in retaliation for her complaints and disclosures. 188 Ms. Reimer suffered adverse employment actions as a result of her speech, to wit, being brought up on 15 false charges, being suspended with and without, being slandered and defamed in the press which made it virtually impossible for her to ?nd work and that the Defendant?s First Amendment violations cause Ms. Reimer other adverse employment actions. -22- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 25 of 30 189 Due to Defendants? actions, Ms. Reimer lost business opportunities, her employment status continues as suspended, she is embarrassed, humiliated, defamed, emotionally harmed, pecuniarin damaged, she incurred attorneys? fees in defending against the false charges, she lost CPA licensing fee reimbursements, continuing education reimbursements, memberships in government agency associations, renewal of her notary fees, and that she is otherwise harmed. 190 That by reason of the aforesaid, Ms. Reimer has been damaged in a sum not to exceed TWO MILLION DOLLARS, she is entitled to an award of punitive damages and attorneys? fees are appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY THE TOWN OF RAMAPQ MONELL CLAIM 191 Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein. 192 Ms. Reimer?s rights have been violated under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, by the Town of Ramapo in that Ms. Reimer was retaliated against as a matter of policy and practice by the Town of Ramapo. 193 Ramapo acts pursuant to a defacto policy to retaliate against any employee who questions its improper activities. 194 Ms. Reimer was additionally retaliated against for violating Ramapo?s policy of not allowing its employees to generate documents, particularly emails, which could be obtained pursuant to a FOIL request in Defendants? attempt to hide their improper activities. -23- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 26 of 30 195 Ms. Reimer suffered adverse employment actions as a result of her speech, to wit, being brought up on 15 false charges, being suspended ?rst without and then with pay, being slandered and defamed in the press which made it virtually impossible for her to ?nd work and that the Defendant?s First Amendment violations cause Ms. Reimer other adverse employment actions. 196 Due to Defendants? actions, Ms. Reimer lost business opportunities, her employment status continues as suspended, she is embarrassed, humiliated, defamed, emotionally harmed, pecuniarily damaged, she incurred attorneys? fees in defending against the false charges, she lost CPA licensing fee reimbursements, continuing education reimbursements, memberships in government agency associations, renewal of her notary fees, and that she is otherwise harmed. 197 That by reason of the aforesaid, Ms. Reimer has been damaged in a sum not to exceed TWO MILLION DOLLARS and attorneys? fees are appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS PURSUANT TO M, DEFAMATION and DEFAMATION PER SE 198 Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein. 199 Ms. Reimer was defamed by Ramapo, Mr. St. Lawrence and Mr. Klein who on June 18, 2013 caused to be published the Press Release detailed in the above Statement of Facts. 200 The Press Release is of a defamatory nature; it refers to Ms. Reimer; and was published to someone other than Ms. Reimer. 201 The Ramapo Defendants intentionally published false statements that they knew to be false, the statements were published without privilege or authorization, the statements were made to a -24- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 27 of 30 third party, the statements caused Ms. Reimer special damages, in that they made it dif?cult for Ms. Reimer to ?nd new employment and the statements were of a nature which would tend to expose Ms. Reimer to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, disgrace and to induce an evil opinion of her in the minds of right-thinking persons. 202 The falsehoods in the Defendants? Press Release would tend to injure Ms. Reimer in her business, or profession and therefore constituted defamation per se. 203 Due to Defendants? actions, Ms. Reimer?s reputation has been permanently and irreparany damaged, Ms. Reimer lost business opportunities, she is embarrassed, humiliated, defamed, emotionally harmed, pecuniarily damaged, and that she is otherwise harmed. 204 By reason of the aforesaid, Ms. Reimer has been damaged in a sum not to exceed TWO MILLION DOLLARS and she is entitled to an award of punitive damages. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE COMMON LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK via 205 Plainti? repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more ?illy and at length set forth herein. 206 The Defendants committed the tort of malicious abuse of process, pursuant to the common law of the State of New York by employing regularly issued legal process to compel Ms. Reimer to appear at disciplinary hearings, with intent to do harm without excuse or justi?cation, and in order to obtain a collateral objective that is outside the legitimate ends of the process. 207 The Defendants served Ms. Reimer with false disciplinary charges in order to remove her from her government position, for the collateral objective of preventing her from further learning -25- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 28 of 30 about their improper activities and to prevent her ?om continuing to exercise her First Amendment right to complain about their improper acts, which were costing taxpayers money and otherwise doing damage to the community. 208 Due to Defendants? actions, Ms. Reimer was damaged, her reputation has been permanently and irreparany damaged, Ms. Reimer lost business opportunities, she is embarrassed, humiliated, defamed, emotionally banned, pecuniarin damaged, she incurred attorneys? fees in defending against the false charges, she lost CPA licensing fee reimbursements, continuing education reimbursements, memberships in government agency associations, renewal of Ms. Reimer?s notary fees, and that she is otherwise harmed. 209 By reason of the aforesaid, Ms. Reimer has been damaged in a sum not to exceed TWO MILLION DOLLARS and she is entitled to an award of punitive damages. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CIVIL SERVICE LAW 75-b 210 Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein. 211 Defendants have violated Ms. Reimer?s rights as provided by Civil Service Law 75-b, in that the Defendants have retaliated against Ms. Reimer for disclosing to a govermnental body information regarding violations of a law, rule or regulation which Ms. Reimer reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes improper governmental action. 212 This cause of action and the damages prayed for herein are speci?cally authorized pursuant to Civil Service Law 75-b which cross references New York State Labor Law 740. -26- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 29 of 30 213 Ms. Reimer disclosed the information about the aforementioned improper activities to the Defendants repeatedly and they refused to take appropriate action to stop said actions ?om continuing. 214 Instead of correcting the improper actions, the Defendants instead took bogus disciplinary and other adverse personnel actions against Ms. Reimer because Ms. Reimer disclosed to a governmental body information which the employee reasonably believed to be true and reasonably believed constituted improper governmental actions. 215 Such improper governmental actions were undertaken in the performance of Defendants? of?cial duties, whether or not such actions were within the scope of their employment, and upon information and belief, were in violation of federal, state and/or local laws, rules and/or regulations. 216 Due to Defendants? actions, Ms. Reimer?s rights were in??inged upon, her reputation has been permanently and irreparany damaged, Ms. Reimer lost business opportunities, she has been ineligible to work and collect overtime and comp time, she is embarrassed, humiliated, defamed, emotionally banned, she is pecuniarily damaged in that she incurred attomeys? fees in defending against the false charges, she lost CPA licensing fee reimbursements, she lost continuing education reimbursements, she lost memberships in government agency associations, she did not receive a renewal of her notary and that she is otherwise harmed. 217 As a result of the Defendants? actions denying Ms. Reimer her rights pursuant to Civil Service Law 75-h she is entitled to the following: an injunction to restrain continued violation of this section; the reinstatement of Ms. Reimer to the same position held before the retaliatory personnel action, or to an equivalent position; the reinstatement of full fringe bene?ts and seniority rights; -27- Case Document 1 Filed 08/29/14 Page 30 of 30 the compensation for lost wages, bene?ts and other remuneration; and the payment by the employer of reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, Ms. Reimer demands judgment against the Defendants in awards of compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial as well as reasonable attomeys? fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and the Labor Law of the State of New York, pursuant to Civil Service Law 75-b she is entitled to an injunction to restrain continued violation of this section; the reinstatement of Ms. Reimer to the same position held before the retaliatory personnel action, or to an equivalent position;(c) the reinstatement of full fringe bene?ts and seniority rights; the compensation for lost wages, bene?ts and other remuneration; and the payment by the employer of reasonable costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney's fees as well as the costs and disbursements of this action; a trial by jury of all issues set forth in this complaint; and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: New York, New York August 29, 2014 FRED LICHTMACHER (FL-5341) The Law Of?ce of Fred Lichtmacher PC. Attorney for Plaintiff The Empire State Building 350 5th Avenue, Suite 7116 New York, New York 10118 (212) 922-9066 Of?ce of Town of Ramapo Town of Ramapo 237 Route 59 Suffern New York 10901 -23-