Appendix CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT DCK DOG EICA (C I S) NO. Use for initial Law Division Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 415-1 Pleading will be rejected for ?ling, under Rule OVERPAYMENT: if information above the black bar is not completed or attorney?s signature is not af?xed BATCH NUMBER: ATTORNEY I PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE DAVID J. PACK, ESQ. (201) 525-1011 Bergen FIRM NAME (if applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (when available) HAN RAHAN PACK, LLC OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE 80 GRAND AVENUE. SUITE NO. 2 ANSWER TO 2ND AMEND COMP RIVER EDGE, NEW JERSEY 07661 JURY DEMAND YES No NAME OF PARTY John Doe. Plaintiff) CAPTION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, HERMAN SAVAGE V. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD DEFENDANT CASE TYPE NUMBER HURRICANE SANDY (See reverse side for listing) Is THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE YES YOU HAVE CHECKED SEE N.J.S.A. A -27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION To FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT. RELATED CASES IF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMBERS YES I NO DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES NAME OF PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (if known) (mm m? ?same GARDEN STATE MUNICIPAL JOINT INSURANCE FUND I3 NONE CI YES I NO UNKNOWN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE. CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION D0 PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT. PAST OR IF YES. IS THAT RELATIONSHIP: RECURRENT I OTHER (explain) I YES NO FAMILIAL BUSINESS DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING I YES NO USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED DISPOSITION EN DO YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY DISABILITY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION I [3 YES I NO WILL AN INTERPRETER BE IF YES, FOR WHAT YES I NO I certify that con?dential personal Identi?ers have been dacte from documents now SImeitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the tumor an with Rule 1 ATTORNEY SIGNATURE: pg 9, Effective 05-04-2015. CN 10517-English page 1 of 2 0215 IC i SUPERIOR COURT BERGEN COUNTY I FILED t, DAVID J. PACK-039061993 go: ?of 0 CG HANRAHAN PACK, LLC JUN 29 2017 Emma: J) 19C 80 Grand Avenue, Suite NO. 2 ,1 . River Edge, New Jersey 07661 X4 . . (201)525"1011 DEPLEIYOLERK Attorneys for Defendant City ofEnglewood Plaintms) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY I LAW DIVISION BERGEN COUNTY HERMAN SAVAGE DOCKET NO. BER-L-4451-15 vs. 5 CIVIL ACTION Defendant(s) I ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED CITY OF ENGLEWOOD COMPLAINT, SEPARATE DEFENSES, i DESIGNATION 0F TRIAL COUNSEL, JURY DEMAND AND CERTIFICATION Defendant CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, with of?ces at 75 South Van Brunt Street, City of Englewood, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey 07631, by way of Answer to the Second Amended Complaint ?led herein, hereby says: THE PARTIES 1. Admitted that Plaintiff is employed by the City of Englewood as a Police Lieutenant. 2. Admitted. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS l. Admitted as to employment; and Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to the satisfactory performance evaluations, if any. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Admitted. Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to the racial or ethnic composition of the ?ve applicants. Denied. Denied; and Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to the exact promotional process in place at the time. Denied; and Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to the exact promotional process in place at the time. Insuf?cient knowledge. The written examination in questions ?Speaks for itself? as to the objective or subjective nature of said examination; and Plaintiff does not have the ability to speculate about bias, judgments or the promotional process in general. Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to the exact written examination scores. Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to the exact written examination scores. Admitted that the named persons did participate in the oral interview phase of the promotional process. Denied; and Plaintiff does not have the ability to speculate as to the nature of the interview questions, or whether responses were objective or subjective; and denied that the interview Panel members were allowed to interject their ?personal feelings and biases? into the overall merit and fitness assessment. Admitted that Plaintiff and Chief Suffern had a conversation; and Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to what was discussed. Admitted that Lieutenants Torell and Halstead were promoted to Captain on or about March 18, 2014; Plaintiff is left to his proofs as to who had achieved the lowest score on the written examination; and denied that the written examination by itself was the only component of the overall merit and ?tness assessment. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 21a. Denied. 21b. Denied. 21c. Denied. 21d. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 23a. Denied. 23b. Denied. 23c. Denied. 23d. Denied. 23e. Denied. 23f. Denied. 23g. Denied. 23h. Denied. 23i. Denied. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 25a. Plaintiff is left to his proofs in these regards. 25b. Plaintiff is left to his proofs in these regards. 25c. Plaintiff is left to his proofs in these regards. 25d. Plaintiff is left to his proofs in these regards. 25e. Plaintiff is left to his proofs in these regards. 25f. Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. (NJ LAD Discrimination) 29. This Defendant repeats its responses to paragraphs 1 through 28, as though fully set forth at length herein. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. SECOND COUNT (NJ LAD Retaliation) 32. This Defendant repeats its responses to paragraphs 1 through 28 and to the First Count, as though fully set forth at length herein. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. WHEREFORE CLAUSES This Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief prayed for within the various Wherefore Clauses, and leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. SEPARATE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff?s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against this Defendant as a matter of law. 2. Plaintiff?s claims, or some of them, may be barred by the two-year statute of limitations. 3. Plaintiffs clairns, or some of them, are barred by the doctrines of laches, waivers and estoppel. 4. Defendant did not unlawfully discriminate against Plaintiff due to his race. 5. Plaintiff was not subject to disparate treatment by this Defendant. 6. Defendant did not subject Plaintiff to a hostile work environment. 7. Plaintiff?s work conditions were not so severe and pervasive so as to create a hostile work environment. 8. Defendant did not unlawfully retaliate against Plaintiff. 9. Defendant did not violate Plaintiff?s rights as protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 10. Defendant cannot be held liable pursuant to the LAD on the theory of respondent! or on the theory of vicarious liability for the alleged conduct by Plaintiffs co-workers, speci?cally Sgt. Carnahan. 11. The City of Englewood and its Police Department have an anti-harassment policy and an anti-retaliation policy. 12. The City of Englewood and its Police Department have a well-publicized effective and practical grievance procedure for reporting unlawful harassment. 13. Defendant was not negligent in training its employees regarding compliance with its anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies. 14. Defendant was not negligent in failing to properly supervise their employees to ensure compliance with its anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies. 15. Plaintiff did not report any harassment to his supervisors or to the City. 16. While denying all allegations of LAD discrimination and retaliation as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant contends that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the City or to avoid harm otherwise. 17. Pursuant to the Attorney General?s Guidelines on Internal Affairs Policy Procedures (revised July 2014) all complaints pertaining to officer misconduct were properly investigated, whether made by Plaintiff or made by others against Plaintiff including by Sgt. Camahan. 18. Defendant was not negligent in their investigation of Plaintiff?s complaints of harassment by Plaintiff or against Plaintiff by Sgt. Carnahan. 19. Defendant was not negligent in failing to prevent, stop, or remedy any known harassment of Plaintiff. 20. Defendant did not participate in, ratify, approve, or authorize any harassment of Plaintiff. 21. The promotional process in questions was fair and objective, and was designed to promote the candidates with the best merit and ?tness, pursuant to MA. 40A:l4?129. 22. The score on the written examination was not the sole promotional factor, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A: 14-129. 23. It is asserted that there are legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Defendant?s promotional decision in question, and for the failure to promote Plaintiff, including but not limited to the results of the oral interview process, the review of any documents, Captain Torell?s seniority and superior time in grade, and the recommendations of the Chief. 24. To the extent Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff should have been promoted rather than Captain Torell based solely upon the written examination scores this is not the law of this state, as the Appellate Division has expressly approved oral examinations as an appropriate testing technique, Rox v. Dept. of Civil Service. 141 NJ. Super. 463, 467 (App. Div. 1976), and since the promotional process in question satis?es the requirements of NJ .S.A. 40A: 14-129. 25. 40A:l4-129 also requires that consideration be provided for length of service (that is, in aparticular rank). 26. M.4OA214-129 provides that a preference be given for seniority, which statutory language does not require that promotions be made based solely upon seniority, and seniority is only required to be assessed when candidates are tied on all other merit and ?tness factors. Gaskill v. Mayor and Commissioners of Borough of Avalon, 149 Super. 364, 365 (App. Div. 1977). 27. Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress damages, humiliation, back pay or retroactive pay. 28. Plaintiff?s claims are frivolous and without any reasonable basis in law or fact; cannot be supported by a good faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law; are lacking in evidentiary support; and are in violation of Court 124-8 and M. 29. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and pursuant to the Englewood Police Department?s Rules and Regulations. 30. No punitive damages may be awarded against Defendant since its employee?s actions were never willful, wanton, evil-minded or malicious. 31. No punitive damages may be awarded against Defendant, pursuant to 59:2-c. 32. Since Plaintiff cannot prove that Plaintiff will be a ?prevailing party,? Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees as to any of the claims contained in Counts One and Two of the Second Amended Complaint. 33. There was a good faith basis for all promotional actions including Plaintiff. 34. Plaintiff 5 Second Amended Complaint insofar as it challenges the validity of the March 18, 2014 Personnel Order is barred by the 45-day rule at 1; 35. Plaintiff is not entitled to an enlargement of the 45-day period to challenge the validity of the March 18, 2014 Personnel Order since Plaintiff cannot comply with the three- prong test as provided for in Schack v. Trimble, 28 NJ. 40, 48 (1958). DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to R. 4:25-4 DAVID J. PACK is hereby designated as Trial Counsel as to the claims made in the Second Amended Complaint. JURY DEMAND Please take notice that demand is hereby made for trial by jury as to all issues herein so triable. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that, pursuant to Rule 4:5-1: (1) the within matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or arbitration; (2) no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated; and (3) no other necessary party to be joined in the subject litigation is presently known. I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been served Within the time provided by Rule HANRAHAN PACK, LLC Dated: June 28, 2017 to Second Amended Complaint. dacx