fez: .A..'.zaw.i'er.».r:i izizatczh 1’-I‘-~ DIFRANCESCO, BATEMAN, COLEY, YOSPIN KUNZMAN, DAVIS, LEHRER & FLAUM, P.C. iifiaeztir 15 Mountain Boulevard fiueaqmeymiazait (’3.l§21'-iivtmii 908-757-7800 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson JERSEY Civil Action -\/S- C; sot} .3; Plaintiff, 3 , - SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH couwnzg: DOCi Lnu_«‘;jiI 'U,.:’-“=i3_'s.‘I :»»= . -.4 ~.. :30 Fig ‘J ..n~.:=: 28 2013 Defendants. residing at 36 West Street, Monmouth Beach, against the Defendants, says: Kevin Pierson, Complaint New Jersey, by way of PRELIMINARY STATEMENT brought by Plaintiff against his employers, the Borough of Tinton Falls and the Borough of ‘ ":nton Falls Police Department (“Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks judgment of this Court against Defendant for relief permitted under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, _i‘§_.;l_.§‘a_.A_. 34:19-1 et seq. (“CEPA”), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6—1 ez‘ seq (NJCRA), and common iaw fraudulent This is an action conceaiment. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson, Monmouth Beach, NJ. 2. Defendants were is a resident of New Jersey residing at 36 West Street, empioyers within the meaning of CEPA at all times relevant to this complaint. Borough of Tinton Falls Poiice Department are entities Eocated in the County of Monmouth, state of New Jersey. 3. Defendants Borough of Tinton Falis and the 4. Defendants John Does 1-10 are fictitious persons who are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but who may be identified during discovery in this matter. STATEMENTOF FACTS COMMON TQ ALL COUNT§ Plaintiff began his employment with the borough of "iinton Falls Poiice Department in or around 1994. Plaintiff's current position within the Department is Lieutenant. In or about eariy 2008, Piaintiff became aware of improper and iliegal conduct on the A part of his co~worker, Sergeant David Scrivanic. Specificaily, Plaintiff learned that David Scrivanic was knowingly and iliegally placing a device on his home water pipes to divert water for his personal use without charge. A Jersey American Water Company employee noticed the device on 3 occasions. Scrivanic used his position in the Police Department to intimidate the employee. Scrivanic, in uniform, threatened the worker to leave his property. Upon learning this information, Plaintiff notified the Monmouth County Prosecutor's New ‘ office of Scrivanic’s conduct. Upon information and belief, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's office conducted an investigation and directed the Tinton Falls Police Departmentto institute a major disciplinary action against Scrivanic. 10. On or about March 9, 2009, Defendants instead discipiined Plaintiff for reporting the said incident to the Prosecutor's Office. Specifically, Defendants charged Plaintiff with: misconduct observed by police personnel, reporting violations of law or rules, insubordination, failure to notify the chief of police and failure to file a report and forward it to the IA commander. Dennehy, the State Delegate of the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local No. 251 of the charges brought against him. Dennehy objected to retaliatory charges and notified the PBA attorney of same. 12. Upon information and belief, the PBA attorney notified the Prosecutors office of charges brought against Plaintiff as well as Captain Joseph Miiano’s improper questioning of employees regarding the incident. 13. Upon information and belief the Prosecutor's office responded to the Department's actions by threatening to take over the Departments internal affairs unit if the Department did not withdraw the disciplinary charges against Plaintiff. 11. Plaintiff informed co—worker Thomas directive, the charges were ultimately dismissed, however, retaliation against plaintiff continued unabated through 2012. 15. Following this incident, Defendants, then Chief Turing and now current Chief John Scrivanic and the Scrivanic brothers, in their capacity as superior officers of the Department, members of upper management of the Borough, plaintiff's supervisor and agents of the Borough with the authority to impact plaintiff's employment began to engage in repeated retaliatory and harassing conduct directed towards Plaintiff which continued from March 2009 to the present unabated in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq through the present. 16. By way of example and without limitation on or about August 5, 2009, Plaintiff repeatedly asked Lt. Scrivanic for new purple inspection stickers for his squad. Scrivanic purposefully ignored Piaintlff’s requests while providing the stickers to other squads. 14. Based on this 17'. In or about October 2009, Plaintiff's scheduled overtime hours were cancelled. Plaintiff placed at the bottom of the overtime list, and Plaintiff was passed over when overtime opportunities arose. No legitimate explanation was provided for same. 18. Throughout the rest of 2009 and 2010, the Scrivanics and Chief Turning would drive past Plaintiff on duty in an effort to continually intimidate and harass plaintiff allegedly ignoring plaintiff. while recognizing and stopping to converse with other employees/officers of equal or lower rank than plaintiff. 19. On or about April 1, 2010, Chief Turning, Sr. retired from his position as Chief and was thereafter appointed as Tinton Falls Business Administrator in May 2010. 20. On or about September 10, 2010, Defendants swore in John Scrivanic as Chief of Police. The promotion of John Scrivanic was accompiished by the Borough Mayor without any formal promotional process. Upon information and belief John Scrivanic was unqualified for the position as a consequence of his priordiscipilnary record, was ' withheld from the appointing authority. Further there candidates including plaintiff who were passed over for the however that information were other qualified was position. John Scrivanic is the brother of David Scrivanic. 21. . Following John Scrivanids appointment as chief, the against Plaintiff increased. A retaliatory and harassing conduct 22.'fhroughout 2010, Lt. Scrivanic would regularly ignore Piaintiffs radio calls and withhoid squad preventing Plaintiff and his squad from competently performing their functions. On or about September, 2011 Plaintiff asked Lt. Scrivanic ‘for a copy of the active shooter training power point presentation for his review. Lt. Scrivanic never provided Plaintiff with same. Plaintiff continued to follow up on his request on several occasions with no success. After several months, Lt. Scrivanic finally provided Plaintiff with a CD of the power point presentation. The CD was, however, information from his blank. V Turning expressing his Academy. Plaintiff was denied permission to attend same. Plaintiff was denied the right to attend classes necessary for his continued training as a police officer impacting his ability to properiy perform his functions. The classes plaintiff sought to attend were classes that were routinely approved before plaintiff complained and were routinely approved for other 23. In or around November 2011, Plaintiff wrote a memo to Lt. interest in attending classes at the Monmouth County Police officers of the same or lesser rank. regularly informed of new developments in departments he was running, specifically field training. He would find out new information and/or changes from lower ranking officers which undermined his authoritywithin his squad. 24. Plaintiff 25. On or was about not December 4, 2011, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Chief John Scrivanic inquiring promotion to captain. Specifically he asked what courses he might attend to enhance his job skills. Chief Scrivanic responded on December 7, 2011 with no feedback or mention as to how Lt. Pierson could improve and become promoted. Lt. Pierson's requests were ignored. 26. Plaintiff again wrote a memo to Chief Scrivanic in or around August 2, 2012 asking for could improve his job performance to his specific recommendations‘as to how solidify a promotion. Chief Scrivanids ‘response offered no helpful suggestions or recommendations; rather, it focused on how everyone promoted was allegedly handling more responsibilities than Plaintiff. Plaintiff was given no feedback on how he couid improve his performance. When Plaintiff sought this feedback from Captain Milano, Captain Milano replied that he was doing an “exceilent job" and that he did not about his potential for Plaintiff understand the Chief's ietter of response. missing from 27. Throughout 2012, Plaintiff noticed that certain icons and programs were his log on screen in the watch commander's office. In or around August 2012, Plaintiff disciplinary issues with an officer under his command. Plaintiff offered ideas for motivating the officer and improving the officer’s evaluations. Rather than support Plaintiffs initiative, the Chief transferred the officer to a different squad thereby undermining Plaintiffs supervising authority. 28. In 2012, Plaintiff responded to a first aid caii at the Goddard School. Lt. Scrivanic was aiso present at the scene. Plaintiff aided Lt. Scrivanic by heiping to provide rescue breathing and/or airway obstruction management to the child in need and saving the met with Chief Scrivanic to discuss child's life. Defendant's held an award ceremony for Lt. Scrivanic and Ptl. Galluci for their work during the Goddard school first aid cail. Defendants did not recognize or acknowledge Plaintiff's participation in the call. In fact, Defendants asked Plaintiff to participate in handing out the awards for an event in which Plaintiff was responsible for helping to save the child's life. Lt. Scrivanic laughed at and mocked Plaintiff as he ‘ handed out the award. 29. In or around September 2012, Plaintiff attended a meeting with Chief Scrivanic, Captain Milano and Lt. Turning. During this meeting Plaintiff brought up that his firearms mail I that is addressed to Lt. Scrivanic but clearly states A'l‘i'N: Kevin Pierson is repeatedly opened Captain Milano stated that he would switch the maii Contact to Piaintiff. However, in or around October 25, 2012 Plaintiff received another firearms envelope addressed to Lt. Scrivanic, ATTN: Kevin Pierson. The envelope was again open and reseaied before it was provided to Plaintiff. These events have continued through today, and in fact, plaintiff has recently been and given to him after it has been resealed. stripped of his responsibilitiesrelated to firearms. 30. On or about September 13, 2013, Plaintiff had a conversation with Dan Romanov who upon information and belief is responsible for defendants IT systems in the watch commander office. Plaintiff explained that he was having problems “losing icons” on his computer. Romanov responded that the icons were not lost wherein they were intentionally removed. When Piaintiff inquired as to who was removing the icon, Romanov responded probably “Dave" or words to that effect. When plaintiff inquired “Dave who" Romanov said “Dave Scrivanic” while iaughing, like what Dave Scrivanic was doing was a joke orfwords to that effect. Immediately after Romanov said “Dave Scrivanic” piaintiff asked if he could find out if he did it and he said “yes it is easy” _or words to that effect. Approximately an hour after this conversation, Plaintiff called Romanov in his office asking how to obtain information as to who accesses his computer. Romanov responded that he “did not want to piay those games and did not want to be involved." investigating the situation with his computer. Lt. Turning repeatedly asked him if he wanted this brought to internal affairs or if the Department could just look into it and “have it stopped.” Lt. Turning dismissed the idea as juvenile and tried to taik Piaintiff out of filing of official charges. 32. On or about September 18, 2012, Plaintiff had a meeting with Lt. Turning, Jr. and Capt. Milano. During said meeting both Turning and Milano tried repeatedly to talk Plaintiff out of starting an investigation with internal affairs regarding David Scrivanic tampering with Plaintiffs computer. Both Turning and Milano told Plaintiff that if they brought the issue to the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor would laugh at them. They told Plaintiff he was paranoid and stressed that they did not want to see “had blood" between 31. Plaintiff spoke with Lt. Turning about Plaintiff and Scrivanic. 33. The meeting was nothing more than an attempt by both Turning and Milano to intimidate Pierson and prevent him from seeking an internal affairs investigation related to the tampering with his computer, which would impact plaintiffs ability to perform his job functions and impact the health safety and welfare of the public. Following the meeting Capt. Milano said in the lobby of HQ to plaintiff “I wish that incident was never reported to you". Milano also said this in the watch commander's office and in the processing room or words to that effect demonstrating that the representatives of the Borough at the highest levels of management in the Police department continued to seek retribution against Plaintiff for reporting the theft by Scrivanic in 2008. 34. On or about September 21, 2012, Plaintiff met with Lt. Turning, Jr. to provide his statement regarding the tampering with his computer. During the interview, Lt. Turning repeatedly questioned plaintiff that if the computer aliegations were unfounded, would he believe the retaliation was ongoing. Upon information and belief following the interview, the computers involved in this investigation were removed and may have been subject to further tampering and spoliation. 2012, the computer that was removed or repiaceci was the around October 24, swipe card computer, which 35. In or was kept in Capt. IVii ano’s office. Piaintiff observed Milano and Dan Romanov removing it from the office. 36. In addition to the retaiiation against plaintiff for his Capt. whistleblowing activities, Defendants have retaliated against Officer Dennehy and Plaintiff's brother as a direct and proximate consequence of plaintiff's protected whistleblowing activities. 37. Plaintiff's brother, Officer Craig Pierson, is also an employee at the Tinton Falls Police Department. Following Plaintiff's protected Whistleblowing activities, and as a direct and proximate consequence thereof, defendants retaliated against plaintiff by way of example and without iimitation by passing over Officer Craig Pierson, plaintiffs brother for corporal assignment on seven (7) occasions. No reasonable explanation has been provided for the repeated denials of promotions. Officer Craig Pierson was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2012. The accident review Board consisting of members of the Tinton Falls Poiice department found that Officer Pierson should not be subject to discipline. Following their decision, Lt. Dave Scrivanic, who is responsible for traffic safety, ordered Sergeant Van Lew to change the report and find Officer Craig Pierson at fault in order to suspend him for a day. This was an iilegal and unethical action by Scrivanic and in response to and as a proximate whistleblowing and other protected activities. cause of Piaintiff Kevin Piersoh's 2012, Defendants continued their retaliatory actions against Plaintiff by attempting to further discipline and intimidate plaintiff's brother Craig, also an Officer in the Tinton Palis Police Department. 39. Piaintiff has also supported Plaintiff Dennehy in connection with his claims against the Borough. The defendants are aware of plaintiff's support of Dennehy. Further in or around October 2012, plaintiff Lt. Pierson engaged in additional protected whistleblowing activity. 40. Upon information and belief, the Department was informed of Lt. Pierson’s protected whistleblowing activity. In or around November 5, 2012, Captain Milano 38. On or about December 18, V , additional came to Lt. Pierson's home and handed him Department was placing him on an without explanation to attend a a letter. The _letter notified him that the administrative psych leave. Plaintiff was required tit for duty evaluation on or about November 20, 2012. Defendant's actions were in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity. plaintiff's support of Dennehy and additional A . 4 41. Plaintiff filed a grievance related to this retaliatory action, however, the grievance was denied without expianation on two occasions, by Capt. Miiano by phone and by Chief Scrivanic in writing. 42. Plaintiff has provided support for Officer the department. Dennehy who has a pending lawsuit against Upon information and belief defendants’ are aware of plaintiff's support for Dennehy in connection with his lawsuit against the department. 44. Defendants have engaged in retaliatory behavior against plaintiff as a result of his support of Dennehy. 45. In 2012, Plaintiff engaged in additional protected whistlebiowing activities known to the 43. defendants. 46. As a direct consequence of plaintiffs activities, defendants retaliated against piaintiff including, but not limited to, removing plaintiff's supervisory responsibilities with respect to department training, the Field training officer's program, the firearms unit, firearms background checks, access to records, jail cell management, and in car video discovery. COUNT QNE CEPA repeats and incorporates the preceding paragraphs 47. Piaintiff as set forth in their entirety. 48. Defendant's actions N.J.S.A. were in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, 34:19~1, et seq. 49. Plaintiff engaged in protected whistleblowing activities in that he disciosed an employee reasonabiy beiieved was in vioiation of law and or regulations promulgated pursuant to law and or public of Defendants’ conduct which he public policy, and/or rules policy‘ to a or governmental agency between 2009-2012. Plaintiff which became known to the defendants related to his provided information protected whistleblowing activity between 2009-2012. 50. Plaintiff engaged in further whistleblowing activities when he disclosed the Departments retaliatory conduct against him as weii as various Department misconduct, cover-ups reasonably believedwere in violation of law and or public policy, and or rules or regulations promulgated pursuant to law and or public policy to a governmental agency to which he provided information between 2009-2012. 51. In retaliation for Plaintiff's whistieblowing activities, Plaintiff has suffered adverse employment action(s), including repeated harassment, placement on administrative leave, denial of promotions, denial of access to inspection stickers and presentation materials, denial of requests to attend classes and seminars, denial of overtime hours, having his computer tampered with, failure to receive recognition for his role in life saving activities, and other retaliatory acts at the hands of Defendants, as outlined and fraud which he above. proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, bodily injury, couples with physical manifestation of emotional distress, loss of income and benefits and other severe financial losses. 53. The foregoing actions were knowing, willful and deliberate violations of law and deprivation of Plaintiff’ statutory rights, and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages under applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson, demands judgment against Defendants as follows: (3) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to, equitable, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's employment, and other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress, together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs for defendants’ violations of plaintiff's civil rights; lb) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to equitable, punitive’ and compensatory damages on all iost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's employment, other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress, together with both pre—judgment and post—juclgment interest and attorney's fees and costs of court with regard to retaliation engaged in by the defendants against plaintiff 52. As a direct and , , all with regard to the adverse employment actions taken against the plaintiff without any basis in law or fact; Order of the court retaining jurisdiction over this action until defendants have fully complied with the orders of this court and that the court require defendants to file such reports as may be necessary to supervise such compliance; (:3) For an (cl) For such other further additional relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT TWO RETALIATI N 54.Piaintiff repeats and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as set forth in their entirety. 55. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity of supporting Officer Dennehy’s pending lawsuit against the defendants. 56. In response to plaintiff's protected activities Defendants retaiiated against Plaintiff. actions were knowing, willful and deliberate violations of law and S7. The deprivations of Plaintiffs statutory and civil rights, violated the New Jersey Law Against foregoing Discrimination NJSA 10:5-1 et seq. and Piaintiff is entitled to damages. 58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, plaintiff has suffered injury, severe coupled with physicai emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, bodily manifestation of emotional distress,~ oss of income and benefits and other severe financial loss. W!-EEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson, demands judgment against Defendants as follows: (a) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not iimited to, equitable, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's emp oyment,_and other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs for defendants’ vioiations of plaintiff's civil rights; (b) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to equltabie, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits the adverse back pay, lost , , award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's employment, other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress, together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs of court with regard to retaliation engaged in by the defendants against plaintiff all with regard to the adverse employment actions taken against the piaintiff without any basis in law or fact; For an Order of the court retaining jurisdiction over this action until defendants have fully complied with the orders of this court and that the court require defendants to file such reports as may be necessary to supervise such compliance; (C1) For such other further additional relief as the court deems just and proper. tax consequences of a lump sum COUNT THREE E 59. Piaintiff repeats and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as set forth in their entirety. 60. Defendant's actions are in violation of the NJCRA under 61. 10:6-1 et seq. Defendants’ actions as described above violate Plaintiffs rights to freedom of speech, assembly, freedom of association and the right to organize and submit grievances and proposals through representatives in violation of the New Jersey state freedom of constitution. deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges and or immunities secured by the New Jersey state Constitution. Through Defendant's iliegal acts, Plaintiff's exercise and enjoyment of these rights privileges or immunities has been interfered with by threats, intimidation or coercion by a person acting under coior of law. Defendants have aiso imposed adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, as outlined above, in retaliation for Plaintiff having engaged in protected activities. 63. The foregoing actions were taken pursuant to an official and extant poilcy and practice of Defendants, and were taken by individuals with final policy making authority over 62. Defendants have such actions. by agents, officiais, employees and/or other individuals acting on Defendants’ behalf who ratified such violations by Defendant's actions, which were retaliatory and vioiations of law, and being in a position to stop the 64. These violations of law were overseen iliegal behavior Defendants faiied to take remedial action in wiilfui indifference to the violations of Plaintiffs civil rights. 65.The illegal acts by Defendant against Plaintiff as outlined above were initiated by Defendants for the purpose of retaliating against, harassing and intimidating Plaintiff for his whistleblowing activities. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ harassing and retaliatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic and non-economic damages, including emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson, demands judgment against Defendants as follows: (8) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to, equitable, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not iimited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's employment, and other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress , together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees and costs for defendants’ vioiations of plaintiff's civil rights; (D) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to equitable, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's employment, other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress, together with both pre-judgment and post~judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs of court with regard to retaliation engaged in by the defendants against piaintiff all with regard to the adverse employment actions taken against the plaintiff without any basis in law or fact; For an Order of the court retaining jurisdiction over this action until defendants have fuily compiied with the orders of thisncourt and that the court require defendants to file such reports as may be necessary to supervise such compliance; (d) For such other further additional relief as the court deems just and proper. , C NT F UR (SPQLIATION) incorporates the preceding paragraphs as set forth FRAUDULENT QONQEALMENT OF EVIDENCE 67. Plaintiff repeats and in their entirety. intentionally removed and destroyed computers and computer records, which were the subject of investigation into Plaintiffs allegations that his work computer had been tampered with. 69. Defendants had a duty to preserve this evidence involving a potential lawsuit, which did in fact, result in this lawsuit. 70. By removing and destroying the computers and computer records, Defendants have intentionally and fraudulently concealed and tampered with evidence that is material to 68. Defendants ' this case. 71.The intentional and fraudulent concealment of this evidence damaged Plaintiff in the underlying litigation by denying him by defendants has to material access evidence in the case. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson, demands judgment against Defendants‘ as follows: (a) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to equitable, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits, the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiffs employment, other economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress, together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs of court with regard to fraudulentconcealment engaged in by the defendants; (b) For an Order of the court retaining jurisdiction over this action until defendants have fully complied with the orders of this court and that the court require defendants to file such reports as may be necessary to supervise such compliance; (c) For such other further additional relief as the court deems just and proper. . A COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENCHNEGLIGENT _S_PQLIATION QF EVIDENCE 72. Plaintiff entirety. repeats and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as set forth in their 73. Defendants owed duty a of care to Plaintiff to preserve computer records and of investigation into Plaintiffs allegations that his computers, which were the subject work computer had been tampered with. 74. Defendants negligently removed and destroyed the subject computers and computer records, which were essential evidence to the litigation it knew or should have known was forthcoming. 75. Defendants breached the duty of care it owed to Plaintiff. 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has been significantly impaired in the underlying litigation by being denied access to material evidence in the case. WHEREFORE, Piaintlff, Kevin Pierson, demands judgment against Defendants as follows: ((1) Awarding plaintiff damages, including but not limited to equitable, punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights including but not limited to back pay, lost earning power, as well as commensurate pension benefits, the adverse tax consequences of a lump sum award, and other benefits with respect to plaintiff's employment, other economic and non~economlc damages for emotional distress, together with both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs of court with regard to the negiigence engaged in by the defendants; (e) For an Order of the court retaining jurisdiction over this action until defendants have fully complied with the orders of this court and that the court require defendants to file such reports as may be necessary to supervise such compliance; (f) For such other further additional relief as the court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a Trial by Jury on all issues triable by a jury. NSEL DESIGNATI N OF TRIAL Piaintiff hereby designates Richard P. Fiaum as his trial counsel in this matter. DIFRANCESCO, BATEMAN, COLEY, YOSPIN KUNZMAN’ DAVIS Attorneys r’ i By: Dated: January 23, 2013 » $071t: M, F{— &F ‘liichard/P. ’ P.C. CERTIFICATION IN A CORDANCE WITH R. 4:5-1 3u _e 4:5-1, the undersigned hereby certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, and no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated, and the undersigned is unaware of any other party who is potentially responsible to any party on the basis of the Rules 4:28 and 4:29. facts set forth herein and who shouid be joined in this ,,./ / 1, et seq. Pursuant to actio i . /I Dated: January 23, 2013 Rgfird P. Fialum V 7 Apgendix XII-B1 E”, H CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS) CHGICK No. Use for initiai Law Division Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5—1 Pleading will be rejected for fiiing, under Rule 1 :5-6(c), if information above the black bar is not compteted or attorney’s signature is not affixed ATTORNEYIPROSE NAME FIRM NAME (908)757-7800 (ltapplicable) OVERPAYMENT: BATCH NUMBER: Monmouth . L (wh;S 7 7...[_3 available) DOCKETNUMB R DiFrancesOo, Bateman ADDRESS I OFFICE 15 Mountain Boulevard -I COUNTYOF VENUE TELEPHONE NUMBER Richard P. Flaum, Esq. AMOUNT; ' DOCUMENT TYPE Complaint Warren, NJ 07059 I JURY DEMAND NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe. Ftaintiff) YES [I No I NO , CAPTION Kevin Pierson, Plaintiff Kevin Pierson v. Borough of Tinton Department, and John Does CASE TYPENUMBER (See reverse side for listing) Is THISA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? 005,616, 618 IF YOU HAVE CHECKED "YES,"SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:53 A -27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION To FILE AN AFFIDAVITOF MERIT. IF YES. LIST DOCKET NUMBERS RELATED GASES PENDING? I No D YES Do YOU ANTICIPATEADDINGANY PARTIES (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? El f *1 ; i , YES Falls, Tinton Faiis Police Ci NAME OF DEFENDANT’S PRIMARYINSURANCE COMPANY YES (if known) EI NONE UNKNOWN I I NO ?fTI-II=, TINEORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE SNTRODUCEDOINTOEVIDENCE. CASE CHARACTERISTICSFOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATEFOR MEDIATION IF YES. IS THAT RELATIONSHIP: DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT. PAST OR RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP? [Ii FFIIENDINEIGHBOR I EMPLOYERIEMPLOYEE E} BUSINESS D FAMELIAL III No I YES I A I I CI OTHER (explain) Pr/XRTY? I YES CI N0 INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICSTHAT MAY WARRANT DOES THE STATUTEGOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTOF FEES BY THE LOSING ACCELERATED DISPOSITION ’ ' Do You OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY DISABILITYACCOMMODATIONS? I NO D Yes IF YEs. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION VVILL AN INTERPRETERBE NEEDED? I NO [3 Yes IF YES. FORWHAT LANGUAGE? I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from ail documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule .n-'20; 1:38-7( ATTORNEY SIGNATURE: I Effective 06I20I2U11, CN 10517-English page 1 of 2 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS) Use for initial pieadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-‘I CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter numberof case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.) Track I 150 days‘ discovery - NAME CHANGE 151 175 FORFEITURE TENANCY REAL PROPERTY(other than Tenancy. Contract. Condemnation. compiex Commercial or Construciton) BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only) OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (including deciaratory Judgment actions) PIP COVERAGE UM or UIM CLAIM (coverage issues onty) ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT LEMON LAW SUMMARY ACTION OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (summary action) OTHER (brieflydescribe nature of action) 302 399 502 505 506 510 511 512 801 802 999 TrackII 300 ~ days‘ discovery 305 CONSTRUCTION 509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD) 599 CONTRACTICOMMERCIALTRANSACTION 603N AUTO NEGLIGENCE PERSONAL INJURY (non-verbal threshold) 603Y AUTO NEGLIGENCE PERSONAL INJURY (verbal threshold) 605 PERSONAL INJURY 610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE PROPERTYDAMAGE 621 UM or UIM CLAIM (Includes bodilyInjury) 699 TORT OTHER ~ — ~ —— TrackIII 450 - days’ discovery 005 CIVIL RIGHTS 301 CONDEMNATION 602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY 604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 506 PRODUCT LIABILITY 607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE 508 TOXIC TORT 609 DEFAMATION 616 WHISTLEBLOWERI CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEEPROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES 617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION 613 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES TrackIV 156 303 508 513 514 620 701 Active Case Management by Individual Judge I 450 days‘ discovery ENVIRONMENTALIENVIRONMENTALCOVERAGE LITIGATION MT. LAUREL COMPLEX COMMERCIAL COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION INSURANCE FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVEWRITS - Centrally Managed Litigation (TrackIV) 280 285 288 289 ZELNORM STRYKER TRIDENT HIP IMPLANTS PRUOENTIAL TORT LITIGATION REGLAN Mass Tort (TrackIV) 248 CIBA GEIGY 266 HORMONE REPLACEM ENT THERAPY (HRT) 271 274 278 AOCUTANEIISOTRETINOIN RISPERDALISEROOUELIZYPREXA ZOMETAIAREDIA 279 GADOLINIUM 290 POM PTON LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION 291 PELVIC MESHIGYNECARE 292 PELVIC MESHIBARD 293 DEPUY ASR HIP IMPLANT LITIGATION ‘ 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 282 FOSAMAX 284 NUVARING 286 LEVAOUIN 287 YAZIYASMIN/OCELLA 601 ASBESTOS If you believethis case requires a track other than that provided above, In the space under "Case Characteristics. Please check off each applicable category Effective OB/2012011. ON 10517-English please indicate the reason on Side 1, Putative Class Action Titie 59 page 2 of 2 Thomas A. Abbate Attorney ID #01555-2002 DEC OTIIS, FITZPATRICK& COLE, LLP Glenpointe Centre West 500 Frank W. Burr Blvd. Teaneck,New Jersey 07666 Tel: (201) 928-1100 Attorneys for Defendants, Borough of Tinton Falls and Tinton Falls Police Department 3 1m F" ‘ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH COUNTY 5 DOCKET NO. MON-L-3 77-13 KEVIN PIERSON, Plaintiff, Civil Action v. ANSWER AND AFFIRLIATIVE 5 DEFENSES TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS; TINTON FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT;and JOHN DOES(s) 110, 1 Defendants. I I I J Defendants Borough of Tinton Falls and Tinton Falls Police Department, collectively a single public entity, having its principal office at 556 Tinton Ave, Tinton Falls, County of A Monmouth, State of New Jersey 07724 (hereinafter “Defendants”),by way of answer to the Amended Complaint state as follows: AS TO THE “PRELI1_\__/IQNARY S'I'ATEMEl\_I_'I_‘f The Preliminmy Statement of the Amended plaintiff’5 legal claims and not allegations of fact. Complaint contains As such no response is a summary of the required, but to the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations. E351 ‘H:25 3; .-“ be 7 " C. -_-of " ‘ ._ l7l3£4l.2 SO AS TO “THE PARTIES” 1. Defendants admit the ailegations of paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint. 2. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. 3. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint. 4. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint. AS TO THE “ST__ATEMENT OF F15L_CI‘S COMMON TQ ALL COUNTS” 5. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint. 7. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. 8. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Amenddd Complaint. 9. investigation. Defendants admit that the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office conducted Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 an of the Amended Complaint. 10. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended i Complaint. ll, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint. 12. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint. i7l3i4l.2 . 13. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. 14. Defendants admit that the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint. 15. paragraph 15 of the Amended- Defendants deny the allegations Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations paragraph 17 of the Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Amended allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the contained in Complaint. l6. Complaint. 17. contained in Ame11ded Complaint. 18. Complaint. 19. Defendants admit the Amended’ Complaint. 20. in as Defendants admit that on or about September 10, 2010, John Scrivanic was swdin Chief of Police and that he is the brother of David Scrivanic. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint. 21. paragraph 21 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of contained in Complaint. 22. the Amended Complaint other than to admit that plaintiff requested a copy of the active shooter presentation and that, due to technical difficulties there was a malfunctionwith the initial version of the disk. l7l3l.4l.2 23. The terms of the November 2011 for its terms. Defendants deny the memo speak for itself and Defendants refer to it remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint. 24. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint. 25. The terms of the December 4, 2011 letter speak for itself and Defendants refer to it for its terms. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint. 26. The terms of the August 2, 2012 memo and Chief Scrivanic’s response speak for themselves and Defendants refer to the documents for their terms. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint. 27. Defendants admit that plaintiff met with Chief Scrivanic in August 2012 and that plaintiff reported issues with his computer around the same time frame, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint. 28. Defendants admit that plaintiff, Lt. Scrivanic and Ptl. Galluci responded to a first aid call at the Goddard School, and that an award ceremony was held. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint. 29. Defendants admit that a meeting took place amongst the referenced participants but are without knowledge or informationsufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or accuracy of the remaining aliegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint. 30. Defendants admit thatRomanov is responsible for their IT systems but otherwise deny plaintiff’s characterizationof the substance of the events described in paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint. l'7l314E.2 31. icons on Defendants admit that plaintiff complained to Lt. his computer and deny the Turning with respect to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint. 32. Defendants admit that the referenced meeting took place but deny plaintiffs characterization of the substance of the events described in paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint. 33. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint. 34. Defendants admit that the referenced interview took place and was recorded, transcript of which speaks for itself. Defendants deny the remaining the allegations contained ‘in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint. 35. Amended in paragraph 35 of the contained in paragraph 36 of the Amended J Defendants deny the allegations contained Defendants deny the allegations Complaint. 36. Complaint. 37. Police Defendants admit that Officer Department Defendants deny and that he the was Craig Pierson is employed by the Tinton Falls involved in the motor vehicle accident remaining allegations contained in paragraph as desc1'ibdd. 37 of the Amended Complaint. 38. allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Amended Defendants deny Defendants deny that plaintiff engaged in protected whistleblowing activity or the Complaint. 39. that retaliation occurred, and are without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a beliefas l713l4l.2 to the truth or accuracy of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint. 40. The terms of the letter dated November 5, 2012 Defendants refer to it for its terms. Defendants speak for themselves and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint. 4}. speaks The terms of the grievance filed by Plaintiff and Defendants’ denial thereof Defendants for itself and Defendants refer to it for its terms. allegations contained in paragraph 41 42. deny the remaining of the Amended Complaint. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint. 43. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint. 44. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of Complaint. 45. Complaint. 46. the Amended Complaint. or aboiit or about January 10, 2013, the terms of which speak for themselves as contained in paragraph 47 of the 47. Defendants admit that January 2, 2013, and Amended Complaint. l7l3l41.2 plaintiff was served a written reprimand on plaintiff thereafter filed a grievance with Chief Scrivanic on ‘ 48. Defendants admit that Sgt. Mclintegart issued a Supervisor’s Action Report to Cpl. Mazzeo-Ignaczakon or about August 31, 2013, and Lt. Gerald Turning Jr. thereafter sent a plaintiffregarding such report, the terms of which speak for themselves as contained in letter to paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint. 49. The contents of the September 10, 2013 letter from Chief Scrivanio to plaintiff speak for themselves, and Defendants refer to that letter for its subject matter. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint. 50. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint. 5]. Defendants admit that plaintiff was notified that he Affairs complaint regarding Cpl. was the target of an Internal A Mazzeo-Ignaczakon or about September 24, 2013, the terms of which speak for themselves, and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint. 52. Defendants admit that plaintiff was notified that he was the target of an Internal Affairs complaint regarding plaintiffs response to a call at the Jersey Shore Prelnium Outlets on or about September 27, 2013, and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint. 53. The contents of the charges filed against Craig Pierson in or around October 2013 speak for themselves, and Defendants refer to those charges for their subject matter. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint. 54. Defendants admit that Craig Pierson was served with disciplinary documents regarding a certain posting he made on Facebook on or about November 19, 2013, the terms of 17131412 which speak for themselves, and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint. 55. Defendants admit that Chief Scrivanic issued a personnel order on or about January 22, 2014 regarding Sgt. McBntegart’s reassignment to the Jersey Shore Outlet Mall, and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 55 ofthe Amended Complaint. 56. Defendants admit that piaintiff was notified that he was the target of an Internal Affairs complaint regarding plaintiffs violationof the Tinton Falls Police Department Rules and Regulations on or about February 10, 2014, terms of which speak for themselves, and deny the reniaining allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint. 57. Defendants admit that plaintiff was notified of the results of the Internal Affairs investigation regarding plaintiffs violation of the Tinton Falls Police Department Rules and Regulations on or about May 1, 2014. Defendants further admit that plaintiff was served with a Notice of Disciplinary Action on or about June 11, 2014, terms of which speak for themselves, and deny the remaining allegatidns contained in paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint. AS TO COUNT ONE (CEPA) 58. Defendants repeat and restate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 59. Defendants deny the in paragraph 48 of the Amended contained in paragraph 49 of the Amended allegations contained Complaint. 60. Complaint. i7l3l4l.2 Defendants deny the allegations 61. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 50 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 52 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph of the Amended Complaint. 62. 51 of the Amended Complaint. 63. of the Amended Compiaint. 64. 53 of the Amended Complaint. WI-IEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismissing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice, plus costs. AS TO COUNT TWO (Retaliation) 65. Defendants repeat and restate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 66. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint. 67. Amended paragraph 56 of the paragraph 57 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations Defendants deny the allegations contained Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Amended contained in Complaint. 68. in Complaint. 69. Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand. judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismissing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice, plus costs. l7l3i4l.2 AS TO COUNT THREE (NJCRA) Defendants repeat and restate their responses to the 70. foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 71 . Defendants deny allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Amended allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Amended the Complaint. 72. Complaint. 73 . Defendants deny the Complaint. 74. deny the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of the Amended Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Defendants Complaint. 75 . Amended Complaint. 76. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint. 77. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of the ‘Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismissing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice, plus costs. AS TO COUNT FOUR (FraudulentConcealment of Evidence (S po1iation)) '78. Defendants repeat and restate their responses to the thoughfully set forth herein. 10 17131432 foregoing paragraphs as 79. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 68 Defendants deny the allegations contained Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph Defendants deny of the‘ Amended Complaint. . 80. in paragraph 69 of the Amended Complaint. 81. 70 of the Amended Complaint. 82. allegations contained in paragraph 71 of the the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, dismissing Plaintiff’3 Amended Complaint with prejudice, plus costs. AS TO COUNT FIVE (NcgligencefNegligent Spoliationof Evidence) 83. Defendants repeat and restate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 84. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of Defendants deny the allegations Defendants deny the allegations contained the Amended Complaint. 85. contained in paragraph 74 of the Amended paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint. 86. in Complaint. 87. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff‘, dismissing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice, plus costs. ll l7l3l4l.2 AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES 1. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Defendants took no action at any time to deprive Plaintiff of any federal, constitutional or statutory right of law. Defendants acted in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey and 3. the United States of America. Defendants acted at all times relevant hereto with good faith, without fraud or 4. malice, and are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Defendants acted on reasonable grounds and without malice and, therefore, are 5. not responsible in damages to Plaintiff. 6. recovery The Amended Complaint and the proceedings resulting therefrom and any resulting therefrom is barred, limited and/or controlled by all provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, 59: l~1 through 59: 12-3 inclusive, as if each section, provision, defense, and immunity were listed herein separately, particularly,and at length. 7. The action is barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 8. Defendants are not liable for attorneys’ fees under thefacts of this case. 9. - The action is barred by the entire controversy doctrine and applicable claiin preclusion principles. 10. The action is barred in whole or part by the statute of limitations. ll. The action is barred by 12. Defendants have absolute immunity to any and all actions for damages charging it res judicata, collateral estoppel, waiver and unclean hands. with violation of civil rights. 12 l7l3l4 .2 13. Defendant have qualified immunity to any and all actions for damages charging it with violations of civil rights. Defendants were were acting under a good faith belief that its actions lawful and such beliefwas reasonable. 14. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter in this action. 15. Plaintiffhas failed to join indispensable parties. 16. Recovery is barred by the failure of Plaintiff to give timely notice of claim or to 59:8-1 Q E1. present a claim in accordance with 17. Defendants were not joint tortfeasors and are not liable for contribution or indemnificationto any other party. 18. Defendants were not negligent and violated no duty to Plaintiff. 19. Negligence, if any, on the part of Defendants was not the proximate cause of any injuries which may have been sustained by Plaintiff. 20. Any damages alleged in this incident were solely and exclusively the result of the negligence of Plaintiff. 21. Plaintiff has not sustained any damages entitling him to relief under any theory of recovery alleged. 22. Defendant has suffered 23. Defendant did not engage in no adverse employment action within the meaning of CEPA. whistleblowing activity within the meaning of CEPA. WHEREFORB, Defendants demand dismissal of Plaintiffs claims with prejudice, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary, just, proper and equitable. 13 l7l3l41.2 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to the provisions of 3. 4:25-4, the Court is advised that Thomas A. Abbate is hereby designated as trial counsel. DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK & COLE, LLP ‘1'2?r:‘;2a. Thomas A. Abbate Dated: September 23, 2014 CERTIFICg[0N PURSUANLTOR. 4:5-1 I certify in accordance with 3. 4:5-I that to the best of my knowledge as of the date herein there are no other proceedings either pending or contemplated with respect to the matter in controversy in this action and no other parties who should be joined in the action. DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK & COLE, LLP By: Dated: Thomas A. bate September 23, 2014 CERTIFICATION OF SERECE I the time certify that a copy of the within pleading was sewed on the attorney for Plaintiff within period allowed by 51;. 4:6-1 or within the extended time period pursuant to Consent Order. DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK & COLE, LLP y: Dated: 17131412 September 23, 2014 T omas . abate DIFRANCESCO, BATEMAN, COLBY,YOSPIN KUNZMAN, DAVIS, LEHRER & FLAUM, P.C. 15 Mountain Boulevard Warren, NJ 07059 903-757-7300 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kevin Pierson ‘ ~ . .. {_N___,_A_,¢ w:c:i~as\nC;u'i"a;i\f§_§§g“ f~EiE 9 .....,...s£ii‘s£“:Ti.")::'*v::s-»»;"~....L "' J ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,.,.s 4 ) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ) LAW DIVISION-MONMOUTHCOUNTY ) DOCKET NO. MON-L—377-13 Plaintiff, ) Civil Action -vs) ) BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS; ) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL TINTON FALLS POLICE ) DEPARTMENT;and JOHN DOE(s)1-10, ) ) Defendants. ) KEVIN PIERSON ‘ ) The matter in dispute in the above entitled action having been amicably adjusted by and between the parties, it is hereby stipulated and agreed thatthe same be and it is hereby dismissed without costs and with prejudice against either party. DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, P.C. Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & F , ‘By. ' Richard P. iéiaixfi ‘ Attorneys for Plaintiff DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick & Coie, LLP By: . , Thomas A. Abbate, Esq. Attomeys for Defendants Dated: ML .5 .- C e 2 tsam ll? tswx SF.'l"l‘l.l7.l\'lli'.N'l‘z\(3l{IBF.l\rllCl\"l‘ AND Gl".Nl‘IR.»\l. Rl!‘.l,}‘,ASl7. This Settlement Agreement and General Release (hereinal'ter rel'crre(l :9 as the’ ".r‘\green1ent") is entered into. on July 7, 2t) 5. by and between l’ aintil'l'. l‘\'l£VlN l’Il3RS()N (het'einal'ter relerred to as the “l:Zmp oyee”) and the l)elendants. l3(‘)ROlJ(il 0 " 'l'lN'I'0N l-'/\l.I.S (l1ereinal‘tet' t'el'erretl to as the "l3oroLigl1"). and the l3()R()lJ('}ll OF l‘lN‘l‘()N l-‘/'\l..l.S l‘()l,lCli DI.-‘,l’/\R'l‘Ml-INT(hereinzil'ter reI‘errel<>_vcI' and its past, present and Future mcmh«:r.»‘. 2§titt1lltlSl§‘tll£)l‘S. tlimetcmz. :zttut't:c_vs. ctnpluyccs. insurers. officcrs, ol'l':cials. council agents. and their mspcctit-'c :'mcccs.s'nrs and ztssiglts (hcrcinnl'tut' collectively t'c "crrct torcinstn'cr.s', as the “Rclcasccs"). _'tointl_y and severally. from titty and all actions, comp uint.~;. causes 01' action. law-‘suit:'s or claims olztny kind (ltct'citml'tcr cnllcctivcly rull:t't*e(l in as the "(.‘laims“), known or unlilit_v. ltumlicnp, citixcnsltip, natinnztl ut'it_:itt, ancestry. SL‘.‘x'tl£tl oricmati<‘:n. p’I'cgnzmc_y. va:tcran'.s* status. marital status. l';Imiti:tl Slttllis. tlt')ll‘lCSllC )tll‘lnt.‘:‘.\'ltl§3 stttttts. civil union status. or any other l'acu>t' protcclzxl by l'cclt:ral. Slitlti or local law (such as 'l'itlc Vll of the Civil Rights Act 0!‘ I964. as umcntltccl, the Civil Rights Act of‘ 99l, -/2 l_.i=.__S_._C_'._ §l9«‘s‘lu_. the Amcriczms with Disnhililicx Act, 42 L}_._.S_.(_‘_, § l‘2ltll gt §c_q.. the Older Wm‘kcI‘.\‘ l3Cnclit Protection Act. 29 § 62l gt g_:;:1.., ztncl/nr the New .lcrse_v Law Against l)iscriInination. 1§!_.J_.~.‘1\_. I025-i gt >'_:st.): cl. relating to or arising .l.§l-_-'.«.;$.',..A.- 34: E 9- l 91 :»:_t:stt: c. relating In or arising, out nl'("()llRA. nr till)’ implementing rules and rcgulzttionsj. ti. relating to or arising out oi‘ L\_':J...S,./_\.; 34: I M. I. 9.1 ,~‘i0.l.‘l-2 out at" thc (.‘t)t1scict1ti()tts the Ncw l-Employee Protection Act. .lcrscy limpl0ycr-limploycc Rclatliuns l’:tgt: 2 Act. ul' 8 g. rclatting, to or arising out oftho Occtipationnl .‘a‘nl'cty and llcuith A\ct.'29 or h. or tiny implementing rules and rcgulzilions; L_l.,§L(§_.'_. § oil relating to or arising out oi‘ the New . cr.<;c§.= Public l7.tnp o;.?<:cs' Occllrtétlitiltlli Sail‘;-t3, and l-luzilth Act. N..l,S_/\. 3¢l:6/\-25 ct seq}. or any implementing rules and rcgulatimisz ’ i. relating to or arising out j. rclztting to or :n°ising out old? fl._!}I_,_{_.‘_. § ii. relating to or arising out 01' the I-lcatttlt lnsttrztncc l’orlahilit)' illlti /\CC0lll1lt1i)iii1}—" Act. l’.E..ll)~‘l—l9i; 1. relating to or misittg nftltr: l-‘air (frctlit out oi’ the New lntimititttion Act. _N_..¥_,,1'_x.‘",.!;_\_, 34: l 9-9: Reporting Act. 15 Q_.§.,§_‘,,§ ISSI g:_t 5g:_q.; E‘)8l, 1933 or I985; Jersey \lVorkcr Freedom From Ifmploycr in. relating to or arising. out oi‘ the (.‘ivi Service Act. N_.,,Lfi.-_.{\_.= 1 l.'\:l-l Q .5c_q.: n. lmsccl upon t1l1_\_’<:t)l‘tll‘¢'1Cl or 0. relating. to or arising out oi‘;/any provisioii of any other law, constitution. ordinance. (lccision. common or stnnttory, 0 ’ the United States. New regulation. Jersey or any other Slttlc. cit}-u C0lll11_\" or municipality; p. t‘t.n'nttot'i1c_vs‘ l'c<:.\'. costs or c.\'pt':t1scs: 2lIlCi/OI‘ q. hnsccl upon any othcr stzittitory or common law. now existing or lrcrcinttlhsr t'ccngi1i7.cd. including, hut not limited to violations of" public policy. tort. privacy. tlct'mnntion. intentional infliction 0 ’ emotional distress. negligence. contract, witisztlclxlowct‘ laws, ])t‘()t11lSS()l‘)’ estopptzl or cqttitztblc cstoppcl; and implied contract: 4. i’cn.x'imi Appli‘ution. l:~'.mp oycr and their rc})i'cs<:t1tt1tivcs incltiding, but not their lttinmn i'cso1trce and payroll departments. agree that they will cooperate with £mp o_vuc. l*.mploycc‘s counsel and any tuul till rcprcstsntntives oi‘ the Division ol’ Pensions and Bcnciits with whom ii-Employee has lilccl l‘or hcnciits with ruszpcct to the ztdtninistrativc pmccssittg of such application. liinpioyci‘ and their rcprcscnttItivc.s' .s‘pccil'tcnl _y agi'cc that they will not intot'l‘ut'c with l~Implo_vcr:‘s ztppliczttion For which has been filed with the lnettcfits, Division oi‘ l’cnsim1s and Rciiclits. limploycr takes no position with l’<.'S )cL'l to the merits ot'suc:h atpplicatioii. Iintitecl to. 5. Nu (mu-r I’t'tJcec( iII;'s. By his signtttttre hclo\\3'. the i’-2n1;1!o;t—'cc l'Cpl'L‘.'\Cl!¥S that i)L'II(§itlt_1 or cotttmnpizttctl lziwxtiits. l3h‘:1I'j.}‘.L'S, 1l(il' lilliSll"dli\'L" p:'occ‘::tIiitgs, trriininal complztints or other claims of any nztturc whnt.s'ocvcr by the l?ntp o_\-'cc agaiiisl the Iimplnycr or any Rclcztsccs in any state or l'c(lcm court or lacthrc other or any tttlntinistrmivc agci1c_v hotly with tho cxccptitm of H pending \\-‘orltcrs compt:nsz1tion claim. which claim is not lacitig l'CiC€l.\‘C(i nml is spccilicztliy reserved hcrcin. Further. the Hinploycc ilgt'L3<.‘S. to the extent permittctl by law. there am: no lhtgc 3 ol‘ 8 :m_y cluittts. Ci1:lt‘g_3.CS. gt‘il.‘\’IIItCL‘St!t‘0(i1%.’fI‘ICg2Iinr cuntt‘ztctu:t g1t‘0CCCdiltgS ztgttittst the aztty {ctL'at:sccs in titty liwuitt, hzmu.-.tl upon his with the I-Ittttiloycr. ctnptuymcttt whether known or lttti\‘I’zn\\‘tt. ’t'hc litttttloycc t‘ttrihcr and tigrr.-cs that he has nut tiled t'cprc.-‘auttts il§t_\“ chtéttts ztgtziitst thc l§tttplu_yc1' 08' tiny Rch.‘:tS(;'(:.S‘ with any to wit. state or t'cdcr:tl ctitbrcctmzitt = t1'~'“'~'."’~ 5'W51 It of et ttcttttiatg \\-'ttt'is'Cl‘S cumpctisatictn chtiztt. whicttclztiitt is spcciiittzttiy t‘C.\It.‘t‘\’c(i ltcwiit. 6. not hcing tho wtcztsctt tutti is Wtiivt-I-. The t:‘tnpl<‘>ycc ttndcrstttttds (.'ltzili.‘vm_.,riny /\gt'ccmcttt is ittlt.'tt(iCti tit izt£c:'t'ct'c witlt or (iClCi‘ his right to clttttlcttgu thethat nothing in this xvaivcr ofztn /\DI.{A utetim ot'st:ttu.lztw t'l§_1L'tiiSt‘l‘i1t‘Iitl:tiit‘)l‘lctttim or thc titittg nfztn /\l)l-IA cltttrgc or /\l.)i~I/\ at‘ cnmpluittt ctiscrimitzzttémt cumpltzint or chargc with the i.£l?I()(.' or any state iiis,critnittht_i:‘:it ttgcttcy ur cmnmissiun car In p;tt'ticip:ttc in illl_\;' im-'<:stig.;:tti0n nr by ttmxc agencies. t-‘ttrtlict'. the impt<>_\,=cc l¥tuiCl‘Si:lt1(iS that nothing in thist)l'(t¢cc(IiILL_'. ct)tt«;¥m:tcti wmtttt l\‘gI'L'U l1Cl)l him t'ct;tti:'c‘ tn tcmlut‘ hack the money :'cct:i\«'cd under this f-\t._!t'L'&.'l1l(.‘l}E it’ itc'sc.ck.~: to citztllcttgc the or the /\ .)i{;'\ or static law ztgc atistcritttinzatitm \\"itii\'L‘t', itttt‘ t§nc.~: thc I-iiitplctycc ;tgrct.- to v:tlittit_\; t':ttil'):' zmy or state lav age /\t)t~2.-‘\ or Sliilc luv; age ttisLtt'iittih:itiitzt W:.li\’Ct‘ that thils to cnmpiy with the (’)l‘ln_vcc shttil l'i.‘iIlti!ltl'.\‘(‘ tvtctticmc tin‘ such cnndititmttl pztytttcttts :t:~: t'cqttit'cd hy l\’IL‘(iiLf€tl'U Svct>mt:tt'_t* ’ztyct' iztw. including t\rtcclic:u'c wgitlzttiutis at: (.‘..!-‘.R. §=tt .24ttg) amt tit}. Tltc ’:tt'tiv:.x‘ ztgrcc that ttii rupt'<:scntattiutts and \v;m'zttttic:4 tnztdc ttc:'cin shztit .~:ttt'viv:.- :;clliL‘IIk‘ttE. €tttpinyct' sttntttd the t{mpin_y«:c Ltttztlluttgc‘ the xvtzivct‘ 01' an The Pztrtics l'ut‘I ict' agree thztt, in l tL' cvcttt ota brcaclt (tithe 1'Cpl'k.‘SC!ll‘rtli()I]S and xvztmmlics by the t-Itnpluycc. the limptnycr and their iIt.\'ltt‘t.'l'5 ttn(t:‘<)t' rcinsurcrs shall lac entitled to set oft‘ any rctnaitting pztytncnts cluc lhc Iitttptnyec llmfct’ the tcrtns at‘ this Agrccmxsttt or any other agreement. as well its lo the full extent nl'ttatn:uges ztml other t'c1ict':tvailztbleathaw amt equity. tnztdc 3mpIn_vcc and his t‘cpt‘csetttntivc.s atgrcc to indemnify. hold it:tt‘ttIiL'S:i. and tlctbstti the: titnplnycr an-2 their ilt.S‘ltt‘x.'t'.‘a' and rcinsttt-ct's ztgztittxt iIl1_\;’ loss, cmtt, cxpcttsc. ur lizttwitity impuscd upon or ittCUt't‘L‘{i by thc lintgiluyw tlttd./tit‘ their itt.\‘ttt‘cI'S and t'cinstt1't_:t's ztrising hunt, t’CiEl i1}§__'_ to ur The Paige 4 ht‘ 8 (.'0lk.'(.'fI1il}g l\»letlieare conclitionztl pztymcnts rclatecl this settlement. to the aeciclettt, in_iut')-‘. 0 ‘ illness giving rise In liaeh l’3It‘l_\‘ ltns been :iLl\’l.\'(.'(l h_\/ mttttsel hel'nre signing this !\§_zt‘(.‘t.‘lt‘tt.?ttI anti l‘I‘iL‘s‘ reiieti ::t's. anal empfoyecs. Nothing in this pttl'£ty_I‘:t])i} or this !\t,ll'Ccl}‘tl.'ltl sltztil he interprctet! to t‘cstt'iet til’ isthiluit the l{mplt>_vce’s right and uhligtttiml (i) to testify trut it'u§l}.= in any t'm'ttm tn‘ tii) tn <:¥u_\7ce um" the I‘-impitiy;-t' simil t'el‘er to lllCt1l:iCl\’CS or to the ntizcr party its the winning or iusing p::rt_y :*egttrtlittg the Lztxvsttit. tn ll. Cmum-rp:ti'ts; ttltttire .t'\£1l'4.?L'!!t(‘I 1; No (Just Mmiifiezttiun. This /\greemcttt 1112))’ he c.\‘L'CUlC(l in cottnterpzu'ts. which together shall the entire x'\grceinent. This comprise /\gt'-aementeonstittttes the entire ztgt'ccment between the parties and supettsetles any-' and till priur zigreentents. written or oral, CXpl‘US.'-IC(l or No other promises. agreements or implied. ttmcntlments. or any septtrzttc agreement relating to the subject l112lEl€t' of this Agreement shall be‘ hincling or shall mnciily this .I\greetnettt unless <:,\'pressed in writing and signed by all! parties hereto. Signzuttrcs tmnstnitted by facsimile machine or electronically in Portztble Document l-‘ntfmat (PDF) or sintihar soft ware shall be trcat<:(l as otiginttls for purposes 0!‘ this Agreemettt. 12. (§()\'Cl'¥!ill§’ Lint’. 'i‘his Agreement shall he gcwerncd and ctmstmccf in iICCOr(it1nC(.’. with the laws utithe State ot’Ncw .iCl‘SC)-‘. ’:t’_L-e 5 nf S F3. N0 Atllnissiml of’ llittltililv. Nothing in this .t\y.t'cCmt.‘tIl shall he construct! as an or eoitcession 0 ‘ lizzl>ilit_vor wrongtloing by‘ the Employer‘. Rzttlter, this /\gt'cem'cm is being o{l'crcd fin‘ the sole pttrnosc otsettling, cooperrttivei '§lt'I(l amicably. the i.z1wsui£, as well as any and all pcmsilalc current tlisptttes between the parties. znlinission E4. .S‘cvernl>ility. Nothing in this/\grecmentis intcncfed to violate any law or shall be violate any law. if any p:tt':igr;tpit or or :¢ltl3]):t!‘£ of any pztrngraplt in this Agreeincnt or the zlpplicttlion ther<:ol'is construed to bepart ovcrlnond ztntlfor lltlClllbI'CC3 l)iC. then the court innking such cletei'tninz1tioti sltazll have the aiutl1orit_y to narrow the pzwagrzipli or part or subpart oi‘ the pa_i';zgrzt;tlt an ticcess:tr_v to make it citthrceztlnic and the parztgrztph or part or :5ttl7]3£'tI'i of the j)zt!'Etgl'i![)h sliztli then he cnl'm'ceal)lc in its/their narrowed Form. Moreover, each p:tI‘(tgl‘:t ')l1 or part or sultpztrt ol'eztch pztrztgrnph in this Agrcetncnt is independent ol'ztntt l»’e.:'iutf"). If‘ the t{:ttpiu_vee timely revui_vee Es indicating that! he clues nut want to he ieguiiy hmtnd this ;\gret:men1. The .«\gt'cemettt sltztli nut he etteetivc tmtit after the i~iet'uc:ttiutt i’et'iml Ims by withmtt the e.\'pire6. The letter mt:.~:t shite that the 3-Zntgtloyce is I'C\-‘tilting his agreement to enter into this Agreement and he ;m.~:t-marked within sex-en {7} c :t_t'..s‘ n!’ the i'In:ph.s_\‘~'ee‘s cxeeutiun at this .I\gt'cetnent. it’ the seventh titty is u Sttttcltty Ill‘ federal imlicluy. then the letter mm! he pc>:.'t~ttmt'iyet' that he \.\'tShL‘t«: not tn t'evnke {his -‘\gt'eetnent ’:at'z1gr:tpit 20 zthtwe. then this x\gre,ement shalt hecmtte null um! void and shall be ptmzuztttt tn oi'tm el't'ect and the p:u‘tie.~: witi he let‘! In their mszpcetivc legztl and custtrztetutti t*ig.vhi.~: etmi t'eme