(V0

Claudia A. Reis (Bar 

SUPERIOR ecurzr semen couw?rv
FILED

 

 

 

.LENZO REIS, LLC JUN 1 2 2017
360 Mount Kemble Avenue, Suite 1004
Morristown, NJ 07960 a 6 ?4 .
(973) 845-9922 DEPUTY CLERK
Attorneys for Plainti?
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
HERMAN SAVAGE,
Plaintiff DOCKET NO.: BER-L-445 1-15
V- Civil Action
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND
Defendant

 

Plaintiff Herman Savage says the following by way of the First Amended Complaint

against defendant:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Herman Savage (?Plaintiff? or ?Lt. Savage?) currently resides in the

Borough of Fort Lee, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by defendant City of Englewood as a Lieutenant by the City

of Englewood Police Department (?Department?).

2. Defendant City of Englewood (?Englewood?) is municipality within the County of

Bergen, State of New Jersey.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff, a black of?cer who has been employed by the Township for the past

twenty-two years, has always received satisfactory performance evaluations.

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by defendant Englewood as a
Lieutenant.

3. On or about August 15, 2013, the Department issued an Order (?Order?)
announcing that a promotional examinations would be administered on January 4, 2014, including
for a promotion to the rank of Captain.

4. The Department had two available promotions to the rank of Captain.

5. Pursuant to the Order, all individuals interested in participating in the promotional
examination were required to indicate their interest on or before 5:00 pm. on Wednesday,
September 4, 2013.

6. On or about October 7, 2014, the Department issue a Reading List for the

promotional examination.

7. Five Lieutenants expressed interest in being considered for the promotion to
Captain.
8. Three of the lieutenants who expressed interest in the promotion to Captain are

black, one is white, and one is Latina.

9. Prior to the January 4, 2014, written examination, Chief Suffem made clear that the
promotional decision had already been made, at least in part, when he told then?Lt. Halstead and
Lt. Hayes, both of whom are black, that he would not be able to promote both of them to Captain

even though there were two available promotions to Captain.

. 10. On the day of the written examination, Chief Suffern publicly advised the
examinees that a score of 75 was necessary to move on to the oral interview phase of the
promotional exam.

At the conclusion of the written examination, the President of the Supervisor?s
Union advised Plaintiff and others that despite Chief Suffem?s statement to the contrary, the
Department wanted all of the lieutenants to move on to the interview phase of the promotional
process regardless of their score on the written examination.

12. Chief Suffern subsequently advised that City Manager Timothy J. Dacey, who is
white, insisted that all of the lieutenants be interviewed regardless of their score on the written
examination.

13. The written examination and scoring was entirely objective in nature given that the
questions asked sought responses to policing questions and, as such, the scoring for the written
examination was unbiased given that it did not require the individuals making the promotional
decisions to interj ect their udgrnents about the responses or candidates.

14. Plaintiff received the second highest score and then-Lt. (now Captain) Halstead
received the highest score on the objective written examination for the promotion to Captain.

15. Then-Lt. (now Captain) Torell, who is white, received one of the lowest scores (if
not the lowest score) of all those participating in the written phase of the examination process and,
indeed, scored below the passing score of 75.

16. Chief Suffem, Deputy Chief Loschiavo, City Manager Dacey, and Arielle
Greenbaum Saposh, an HR employee, administered the verbal interview phase of the promotional

examination.

 17. Almost all (if not all) of the questions asked of the interviewees during the verbal
[interview for the promotion to Captain solicited subjective responses thereby permitting, and
indeed requiring, those administering the interview to interject their personal feelings and biases
into the assessment.

18. On or about March 6, 2014, Chief Suffern advised Plaintiff that he was not selected
for the promotion.

19. On or about March 18, 2014, the Department issued a Personnel Order announcing
that Torell, who is white and achieved the lowest score on the written examination, and Halstead
were promoted to Captain.

20. Even though the two most quali?ed and highest scoring individuals were black, the
Defendant re?ised to promote them both to Captain and, instead, promoted a less quali?ed white
male who failed to even pass the written examination and, in fact, achieved one of the lowest
scores on the written test.

21. Since January 2014 when Chief Suffern became the Chief of Police, defendant has

a. not hired any black of?cers even though it has hired approximately eight
non-black officers;

b. denied a black (non-of?cer) employee a promotion to a supervisory position
and hired two white individuals for the position at issue;

c. disproportionately granted promotions to White of?cers; and

d. has reserved plumb assignments for non-black of?cers such as assignments
to the Criminal Investigation Bureau or Police Evidence Unit.

22. Chief Suffern has expressed the opinion that defendant?s black of?cers are lazy, do
not work hard, and fail to take actions to better their situations but has not expressed similar broad-

sweeping sentiments about White employees.

. 23. After being put on notice of Plaintiff?s discrimination claim, the Department
undertook a campaign to retaliate against Plaintiff for disclosing and objecting to the race
discrimination to which he was subjected, which campaign included but is not limited to:

a. Unfairly targeting Plaintiff by instituting and pursuing
various unwarranted Internal Affairs investigations against
Plaintiff;

b. Seeking and imposing signi?cantly harsher discipline upon
Plaintiff than white police of?cers who engaged in
similarly minor conduct or signi?cantly more egregious
conduct, and (ii) of?cers who had not complained about
unlawful discrimination;

c. Pursuing Internal Affairs investigations against Plaintiff at
the behest of Sergeant Sean Carnahan, a subordinate of?cer
who is closely aligned to and doing the bidding of defendant,
Chief Suffern, Captain Halstead, Captain Torell, and
Lieutenant Delarosa, who is a member of the Professional
Standards Unit for the Defendant and, therefore, responsible
for Internal Affairs Investigations;

d. Failing to pursue internal affairs investigations against white
of?cers and/or of?cers who have not complained about
discrimination even though they engage in conduct similar
to or worse than that alleged to have been engaged in
Plaintiff;

e. Pursuing criminal charges for simple assault and terroristic
threats against Plaintiff as a result of Sgt. Carnahan?s
allegations even though it took no action against Sgt.
Carnahan who ?rst challenged plaintiff to a physical
altercation;

f. Instituting an Internal Affairs Complaint and seeking to
impose major discipline upon Plaintiff for allegedly stating
in the presence of Sgt. Carnahan that he ?sees a bite while
failing to pursue similar charges or seek any discipline
against Police Of?cer Timothy Barrett who re?ised to talk
to the African-American female administrative assistant and,
instead, threatened her that ?bitches end up in ditches? or
Lieutenant Fred Pulice who immediately asked her if she?d
rather be a bitch or a snitch;

g. Seeking diSproportionately severe discipline against plaintiff
such as greater than a thirty-day suspension and ultimately
consenting to such a suspension arising from Plaintiff?s
?bitch? comment to Sgt. Camahan but imposing less
discipline upon a white male police of?cer who had not
complained of discrimination but who had been videotaped
masturbating in his uniform while at work on duty;

h. Maliciously subjecting Plaintiff to unjusti?ed Internal
Affairs investigations and charging him with
insubordination for not answering Of?cer Delarosa?s
request for information relating to an incident involving
another of?cer?s treatment of a prisoner even though
Plaintiff had already provided all requested information to
his superior of?cer and confirmed that no further
information was necessary; and

i. Harassing Plaintiff by subjecting him to an Internal Affairs
investigation because a White police of?cer fallaciously
claimed to have felt offended by Plaintiff?s alleged use of the
term ?mother fucker? during a private conversation with
another police of?cer.

24. It is clear that Sgt. Camahan is targeting Plaintiff on behalf of or to garner favor
with defendant given that Plaintiff and Sgt. Camahan always worked together cordially prior to
Plaintiff opposing the racial discrimination to which he was subjected and Sgt. Camahan?s recent
harassing complaints against Plaintiff were either made to and/or reviewed by Captain Torell
whom Plaintiff alleged was not quali?ed for the promotion to Captain.

25. It is also clear that defendant is retaliating against Plaintiff and imposing
disproportionately harsh discipline upon him while covering up the unlawful conduct of white
police o?icers, and speci?cally Sgt, Camahan. who have not complained of discrimination. For
example,

a. On April 21, 2017, one of defendant?s police of?cers

attempted to stop a motor vehicle that was speeding through
the streets of Englewood.

b. Once the police of?cer?s emergency lights and sirens were
activated, the vehicle began to ?ee at a high rate of speed,

ran two red lights, and eventually entered Route 4 West as it
was pursued by several police cars.

0. After ?nally stopping the vehicle, it was discovered that the
driver was Sgt. Camahan, who had called out of work for his
shift that evening.

d. At the time that his vehicle was stopped, Sgt. Carnahan was
intoxicated, belligerent, and directing profanity at the
of?cers at the scene.

e. Not only was Sgt. Camahan not arrested, his vehicle was not
towed, he was not issued any summonses, and he was
allowed to drive home in an impaired condition.

f. The Defendant took no action whatsoever against Sgt.
Camahan or any of the of?cers who failed to arrest him and
allowed him to drive home while under the in?uence.

26. Chief Suffem, Captain Halstead, Captain Torell, and the Professional Standards
Unit, Led by Lieutenant Delarosa are closely aligned with Sergeant Carnahan. Their personal
relationships with each other appear to guide and interfere with their ability to properly address
matters relating to both plaintiff and Sgt. Camahan?s misconduct.

27. It is clear that the defendant is protecting Sgt. Camahan for doing its bidding and
retaliating against Plaintiff and imposing disproportionately harsh discipline upon him while
covering up the unlawful conduct of white police officers speci?cally and especially Sgt. Camahan
who have not complained of discrimination.

28. Defendant?s conduct makes clear that it is intent on a pursuing a never?ending
campaign of retaliatory Internal Affairs investigations and disproportionately harsh disciple upon

Plaintiff in retribution for his ?ling of a Complaint in this matter.

FIRST COUNT

IN VIOLATION OF THE
NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION)

29. Plaintiff repeats all of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

. 30. Defendant violated the (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, 1025~1
et_sch, by discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his race.

3 . As a result of defendant?s unlawful conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer economic losses, statutorily recognized emotional distress, harm to career, harm to
reputation, and other such damages compensable under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the following:

a. Compensatory damages;

b. Consequential damages;

c. Punitive damages;

d. Attorneys? fees with enhancement;
e. Costs of suit;

f. Pre-j udgment and post-judgment interest; and
g. Such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.

SECOND COUNT

(RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRINIINATIOM

32. Plaintiff repeats all of the foregoing allegations as if ?illy set forth herein.

33. Defendant violated the (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, 10:5-1
gig? by retaliating against Plaintiff for opposing the discrimination to which he was subjected
by unfairly instituting and pursuing baseless IA charges against Plaintiff and targeting Plaintiff
while not similarly subjecting Sgt. Carnahan to an IA investigation even though, by his own

admission, he threatened Plaintiff with physical violence.

. 34. As a result of defendant?s unlawful conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer economic losses, statutorily recognized emotional distress, harm to career, harm to
reputation, and other such damages compensable under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the following:

a. Compensatory damages;

b. Consequential damages;

0. Punitive damages;

d. Attorneys? fees with enhancement;
e. Costs of suit;

f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

g. Such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.

LENZO REIS, LLC

 

 

Claudia A. Reis 

Dated: June 9, 2017

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury tn'al on all issues subject to trial by jury.

LENZO REIS, LLC
Attorneys for .Plaim?i?r

By:

 

Claudia A. Reis
Dated: June 9, 2017

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Plaintiff hereby designates Claudia A. Reis as his trial counsel.

LENZO REIS, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintz?

A

By: 

Claudia A. Reis
Dated: June 9, 2017

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, this matter is not the subject of any other
action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, and that no other action or
arbitration proceeding is contemplated at this time. I further certify that to the best of my

knowledge, there are no non-parties who should be joined in this action at this time.

LENZO REIS, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

Claudia A. Reis
Dated: June 9, 2017