05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 1 0f 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 CASTELLANI LAW FIRM, LLC David IL Castellani, Esquire ID 023 691991 450 Tilton Road, Suite 245 New Jersey 08225 (609) 641~2288 Attorneys for Plamtiff KAMIL WARRAICH, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY MONMOUTH COUNTY Plaintiff(s), LAW DIVISION Civil Action ASBURY PARK DAVID KELSO, GUY THOMPSON, JOHN CRESCIO, JOEL FIORI, MICHAEL DOCKET NO.: MON-L-000854-20 CAPABIANCO, ANTHONY SALERNO, COMPREHENSIVE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SERVICES, Betty P. McLendon and JOHN JURY DEMAND DOES 1?10 Defendant(s) Plaintiff, Kamil Warraich, who resides in the State of New Jersey says: FIRST COUNT (Parties) 1) The Plaintiff, Kamil Warraioh, was hired as a Class II Special Police Of?cer by the Asbury Park Police Dept. (APPD) on 01? about September 2004. Plaintiff was hired as a full-time APPD Police Of?cer in July of 2007. 2) The Defendant, Asbury Park, is a Municipal Corporation organized and llPage' MON-L-000854-20 05I2?l/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 2 of 34 Trans lD: LCV2020921592 existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, located at One Municipal Plaza, Asbmy Park, New Jersey. 3) The Asbury Park Police Department, hereinafter (APPD), is a Department within the City Administration, and at all times relevant herein, its of?cers were acting in such capacity as its agents and employees of Defendant Asbury Park, executing its policies and procedures. 4) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant David Kelso is the current Police Chief and ranking supervising of?cer within the Asbury Park Police Dept. 5) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Guy Thompson is a Deputy Chief and ranking supervising of?cer Within the Asbury Park Police Dept. 6) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant I elm Crescio is a Captain and ranking supervising officer within the Asbury Park Police Dept. 7) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Joel Fiori is a Police Of?cer Within the Asbury Park Police Dept. 8) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Anthony Salerno (retired) was the Acting Chief and ranking supervising lof?cer within the Asbury Park Police Dept. 9) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Michael Capabianco, was the (former) City Manager for the City of Asbury Park and was the appointing authority for disciplinary matters involving the Plaintiff. 10) The aforementioned APPD Defendants are being sued in their individual capacity and in their official capacity. 11) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Betty P. McLendon, Psy.D. as agent employee of the Comprehensive Services, RD. and Was hired by Defendant Asbury Park Police Dept, conducted a ?tness for duty assessment of the Plaintiff as an independent 2 I Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 3 0f 34 Trans ID: contractor for Asbury Park and/or as Asbury Park Police Dept and otherwise conspired with the individual Defendants named herein and the defendant City ?of Asbury Park to produce a fraudulent and false ?tness for duty evaluation report conceming the Plaintiff for purposes of terminating his employment with defendant Asbury Park and stigmatizing his ability and or opportunity to gain employment in the law enforcement ?eld generally. 12) Defendant John Does 1?10 are unidenti?ed potential Defendant. Background Information 1) In September of 2004, Plaintiff was hired as a Class II Special Police Officer with the Asbury Park Police Department (APPD). 2) Plaintiff began working in Asbury Park as the ?rst Mddle?Easterner, Pakistani American officer and the second Muslim of?cer in the history of APPD. 3) Plaintiff was hired by an African American Police Director noticed Louis Jordan and labeled by many Caucasian of?cers/Supervisors as ?Loui ordan?s boy?. 4) Plaintiff received minimal on-the-job training, received con?icting orders from his superior of?cers, and was the victim of openly bigoted comments from all ranks and ethnicities of of?cers with the APPD. 5) Plaintiff was commonly referred in the department as 0?Taliban? and as a terrorist by his coworkers/ supervisors and subj ected to other stereotypical racial slurs towards MddleuEastemers. 6) Plaintiff was hired by APPD as a full?time police of?cer in July of 2.007. 7) In early 2009 Plaintiff was assigned to APPD Narcotics and Gang Unit where he was one of the leading, if not the leading officer in gun arrests. Plaintiff annually participated in hundreds of arrests over the next several years. Plaintiff proactively enhanced gang hivestigations/arrests and data collection by identifying gang members. BIPage' MON-L-000854-20 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 4 of 34 Trans ED: LCV2020921592 8) In 2009 Plaintiff was also selected to join the faculty of the Top Gun (Narcotics, Gangs, Guns Investigation and Prosecution), and Undercover Narcotics Investigation Training (UNIT) training courses, two of the most coveted classes provided to ederal/State/County and Municipal police officers by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. Plaintiff was initially involved as a role player, and' eventually moved up to Squad Coordinator and Classroom Instructor. 9) In September 2012 Plaintiff was sent on loan to the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Of?ce (MCPO). PlaintiEf was sent back to APPD after just a few days, and advised the reason was Plaintiffhad too many open Internal Affairs (IA) complaints. Lieutenant David DeSane (now Captain), his supervisor at the time in Narcotics Gang Unit, had a meeting with Chief Mark Kinrnon to review the IA complaints. It was determined that all the open IA complaints were left open for an extended period (some over a year or more) and merely needed to be closed out. 10) Despite the simple need to close the completed IA investigations, which resulted in the appearance that Plaintiff had a number of opened pending IA complaints, Plaintiff was not sent back to the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Office as a Task Force of?cer. 11) InNovember of 2012 Plaintiff was passed over for a position in the Detective Bureau for two junior Caucasian of?cers. A review of Plaintiff 3 work record would show Plaintiff was far more quali?ed for the position than the two officers selected and had more experience. 12) In October 2014 Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant after scoring number one on the promotional list generated by Civil Service. 13) In June 2015 Plaintiff was assigned as a Supervisor to the Narcotics and Gang Unit, where he ran a highly productive Unit. 4lPage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 5 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 14) In July 2016 soon to be retiring Acting Chief, Anthony Salerno, wrongfully ejected Plaintiff from Narcotics and Gangs Unit. 15) Acting Chief Salerno assigned Plaintiff to midnights on Patrol, a well known ?punishment assignmen recognized in the APPD and prematurely mandated Plaintiff to several other corrective actions. 16) Plaintiff was also banned by Acting Chief Salerno from participating as faculty in Top Gun and UNIT which are desirable and distinguished training programs for police officers causing Plaintiff ?thher embarrassment and harm to his reputation amongst Plaintiff?s outside agency colleagues across the State of New Jersey. 17) Acting Chief Salerno stated all of this was done at the recommendation of the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Of?ce. 18) From September to December 2016 Plaintiff made repeated requests to IA investigators Police Of?cer Danny Newman (now a detective assigned to Internal Affairs? in the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Office) and Sgt. Michael Barnes (now Lieutenant) to close out the long overdue IA complaints against the Plaintiff. 19) After receiving several excuses on why his IA complaints remained open, Plaintiff was later advised by Dot. Newman that all his cases were closed. However, Newman refused to provide Plaintiff with disposition letters for these. cases as required by the Attorney General Guidelines. Plaintiff also spoke to IA commander, Lt. Mary Bulsiewicz, and she also refused to provide him with the disposition letters. Plaintiff rep orted the issue to then SOA (Union) President, Lieutenant Guy Thompson (now Deputy Chief), who spoke to Lt. Bulsiewicz and Det. Newman regarding the matter. SiPage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 6 0f 34 Trans 1D: LCV2020921592 20) On 12/16/2016, after reporting Lt. Bnlsiewicz and Det. Newman, Plaintiff was retaliated against by Lt. Mary Balsiewicz who wrote Plaintiff up for a previously settled matter by the Patrol Captain, Terrence Fellenz, (for calling out sick 15 minutes late). In effect, disciplining Plaintiff twice for the same incident. Thereafter, Plaintiff was repeatedly and excessively charged with rules and regulation Violations (Conduct Unbecoming) and threatened by Lt. Bulsiewicz who stated, ?don?t expect me to look out for you?, ?can?t wait to put this (mite-up) in Guardian Tracker (discipline tracking system used by the department), ?you had to run to the big shot (Captain Thompson)? etc. She made these comments in the presence of Michael Barnes (now Lieutenant), who was temporarily working in Patrol Division as Shift 21) Plaintiff noti?ed then SOA President, Lieutenant Guy Thompson (now Deputy Chief) of this retaliation incident, however, no action was taken against Lt. Bulsiewicz for the retaliation by any member of the Administration or APPD when reported. 22) On 01/02/2017 Det. Newman provided Plaintiff with IA disposition letters, all of which were backdated, and the dispositions were ?not?sustained?. Det. Newman asked for the disposition letters back from Plaintiff when Plaintiff pointed out to Newman the letters/investigations were backdated. I 23) Plaintiff immediately notified SOA President, Captain Guy Thompson (now Deputy Chief) and advised him he was requesting an internal affairs investigation by the Acting Chief of the matter. Plaintiff time stamped the disposition letters as evidence of their receipt. Plaintiff receiVed no response and no action was taken by the APPD Administration. 24) On 01/10/2017 Plaintiff again requested Captain Thompson (now Deputy Chief) to initiate an investigation regarding the backdated disposition letters and the retaliation against him alpage MON-L-000854-20 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 7 of 34 Trans ID: by Lt. Bulsiewicz for reporting the matter. On 01/11/2017 Plaintiff followed up with a letter to Captain Thompson regarding his Complaints and received no response. 25) Thereaiter, Plaintiff was advised he had two additional pending IA matters. 26) On 01/16/2017 Plaintiff retained an attorney and shortly thereafter, both open IAs were closed with the dispositions of ?exonerated?. Plaintiff noticed a clear disparity in dispositions of cases in which he was represented by an attorney vs. cases of other APPD officers without an attorney, even with similar circumstances and/or witnesses. 27) On 01/17/201?7 Plaintiff had a meeting with Deputy Chief David Kelso (now Chief) and Captain Thompson (now Deputy Chief) regarding his complaints, during which both made excuses for the actions or lack thereof for IA of?cers, stating Bulsiewicz, Barnes and Newman didn?t know they were supposed to provide Plaintiff disposition letters at the conclusion of their investigations despite AG guideline requirements. No further action was taken by the APPD Administration in this regard. 28) On 01/23/2017 Plaintiff followed up with a second Letter to Captain Guy Thompson (now Deputy Chief), regarding the meeting on 01/17/2017. In this letter, Plaintiff repeated the complaint of retaliation by Lt. Bulsiewicz and Plaintiff addressed the refusal to accept his IA complaint against IA of?cers. Plaintiff also respectfully disagreed with the excuses given by Deputy Chief Thompson and Chief Kelso that experienced IA investigators didn?t know they were supposed to provide him disposition letters at the conclusion of the investigations per Attorney General IA Guidlines. No further action was taken by the APPD Administration. 29) On 02/ 02/2017 Plaintiff had a telephonic conversation with Deputy Chief Thompson and again inquired into the status of his complaint. Deputy Chief Thompson stated his complaint was forwarded to Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Of?ce due to the nature of the allegations. 7 Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 8 of 34 Trans ED: 30) On 02/15/2017 Plaintiff had an in-person conversation with Captain Thompson regarding his complaint and received a con?icting answer from his previous conversation on 02/ 02/2017. Deputy Chief Thompson now stated Plaintiff?s complaint was not forwarded to the Prosecutor?s of?ce because the complaint wasn?t criminal in nature. No further action taken by the Administration. 31) On 03/07/2017 Plaintiff had a telephonic conversation with Captain Thompson who stated he did not hear anything from Salerno regarding his complaint, and added, ?maybe because they didn?t ?nd anything wrong?. Thompson made demeaning comments and verbally chastised Plaintiff while he (ThompsonPBA function in Atlantic City. 32) On 03/07/2017 Plaintiff followed up with a third Letter to Captain Thompson, respect?illy requesting the Administration?s response to his complaint against IA in writing. Captain Thompson did not reply to this letter. Ten days later on 03/ 7/2017 Plaintiff had another telephonic conversation with Captain Thompson regarding his complaint on IA staff. Captain Thompson stated as per Salerno ?there is nothing there?. Per Captain Thompson, Acting Chief Salerno threatened Plaintiff with an hisnbordination charge if he continued to pursue the matter. 33) On 03/7/2017 Plaintiff wrote another letter to Deputy Chief Thompson, requesting to ?le a grievance regarding an issue pertaining to scheduling, which involved retaliation and nepotism, where Plaintiff was affected negatively. In October of 2016 Sgt. Armento was intentionally advised by the Administrati on to pick a schedule after he submitted his paperwork for retirement knowing he will not be returning to work starting 2017. Yet Armento was assigned the best schedule due to his seniority on the midnight shift over Plaintiff and another Sergeant, Eddy Raisin, a Haitian American. In 2017 Armento?s assigned schedule was kept open and 8 Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 9 of 34 Trans ED: LCV2020921592 assigned in March to an ?Acting? Sergeant, Michael Casey over Sgt. Raisin and Plaintiff, two minority, permanent and senior Sergeants to him. Sgt. Casey remained in that position for the rest of the year until he was assigned back to Community Relations? Unit. 34) On 03/ 14/2017 Deputy Chief Thompson ?led a grievance on Plaintiff?s behalf regarding the scheduling con?ict. On 03/15/2017 Plaintiff grievance was denied by Anthony Salerno without any explanation. 35) On 04/07/2017 City Manager Michael Capabianco held a hearing regarding the scheduling con?ict. On 04/ 13/2017 City Manager Capabianco denied Plaintiffs grievance without giving a reason as well. In Addition, Deputy Chief Thompson refused to further ?le a complaint with Public Employee Relations Committee (PERC) on Plaintiff?s behalf but had recently filed such a complaint through an attorney for a Caucasian of?cer, Lieutenant Amir Bercovicz (now Captain), by his own admission to Plaintiff. 3 6) Plaintiff believed he was continuously being retaliated against for submitting multiple letters to Deputy Chief Thompson requesting accountability for the Internal Affairs? Unit and for demanding fairness and equality in scheduling amongst of?cers of different races and ethnicities. 37) On 03/0 8/2017 a single vacation day was denied by Patrol Commander Captain John Crescio, which was previously approved by him for Plaintiff. 3 8) On 03/ 1 0/201 7 Plaintiff was wrongfully suspended by Officer Joel Flori ?'om working outside employment (departmental overtime details) and the suspension was upheld by Sgt. Carmen Gagliano (now Lieutenant) in retaliation to Plaintiff. 39) On 4/ 1 7/2017 Plaintiff prepared and Submitted a memorandum to Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramicoioni titled. ?Misconduct by the APPD Administration?.- Plaintiff SIPage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 10 01?34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 submitted his complaint to MCPO per Attorney General Guidelines because Acting Chief Salerno and the IA investigators were the accused. Plaintiff reported-AI Salerno for exposing matters from Plaintiff?s IA file to unauthorized Department and City personnel, under unwarranted and prohibited circumstances, pursuant to the AG. Guidelines. Plaintiff reported unjust and excessive punishment, inconsistent with AG. Guidelines for an IA complaint (electronically recorded), for which he was exonerated. Plaintiff was advised by NC Salerno that the punishments served upon him were recommendations by the Momnouth County Prosecutor, which reportedly also recommended his termination. Plaintiff asked the Prosecutor to verify this statement by NC Salerno. Plaintiff reported APPD IA Investigator Daniel Newman?s (now working for Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Of?ce IA Unit) refusal to provide Plaintiff with disposition letters, inconsistent tvith the AG. Guidelines. Plaintiff reported retaliation by Internal Affairs Commander Lt. May Bulsiewicz, for consistently demanding the disposition letters. Plaintiff reported IA Investigator Newman for backdating of?cial documents, which Plaintiff reasonably believed could constitute a criminal offense of falsi?cation of office documents. Plaintiff reported IA Sgt. Michael Barnes for refusing to accept Plaintiff?s IA complaint against his subordinate, Det. Newman. Plaintiff reported Deputy Chief David Kelso (new Chief) and Captain Guy Thompson (now Deputy Chief) for not accepting his complaint against the IA Unit, and in fact covering up for them. sewage MON-L-000854-20 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg of 34 Trans iD: LCV2020921592 - Plaintiff reported serious concerns regarding the IA Unit not following the AG. Guidelines themselves. I 40) On 05/ 1 6/2017 Plaintiff received a response from Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Lipp of the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s office regarding his complaint of Misconduct by the APPD Administration. MCPO returned the matter back to City Mayor John Moor, who returned the matter back to City Manager Michael Capabianco, who then returned the matter back to APPD Internal Affairs to investigate themselves. Instead of investigating Plaintiff?s allegations, MCPO started their response letter by pointing out that Plaintiff used departmental stationary (letterhead and an envelope), the matters were personal in nature and the incidents Plaintiff mentioned. were employee?employer con?ict in nature. 41) On 06/08/2017 Plaintiff was charged by APPD 1A with using department stationary as pointed out by MCPO. 1. Misuse of Public Property 2. Other Suf?cient Cause 3. Use of Department Property and Equipment 4. Insubordination 5. Communication, Correspondence Restriction 42) Chief Kelso had a meeting and later a telephonic conversation with the Plaintiff and attempted to convince Plaintiff to plead'guilty to the outstanding charges, but Plaintiff adamantly . requested a departmental hearing as soon as possible instead. 43) Between 06/ 08/2017 and 01/22/2018 Plaintiff made multiple verbal/written requests for a departmental hearing, which were all ignored by the Administration. 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 12 01?34 Trans lD: LCV2020921592 44) Plaintiff, frustrated with the lack of response by the department, e?mailed Chief Kelso, again inquiring into getting a hearing date for the charges now pending for over eight months. 45) On 02/01/2018 Plaintiff received new and additional charges via US. mail, at his residence, dated 1/29/2018, City Manager Capabiancc charged Plaintiff with Insubcrdination, Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee and Other Suf?cient Cause regarding Plaintiff?s email to Chief Kelso, with a recommended penalty of 15?days suSpension. 46) On 02/27/2018, ?nally a hearing was held to address the charges from 6/8/2017 and the new charges from 1/29/2018. On 03/12/2018 City Manager Michael Capabianco decided in a departmental hearing to dock Plaintiff?s pay for Six?day suspension for the charges of Improper Use of City Equipment and email Insubordhiation. Once again, no explanation or reasoning was given as to his ?ndings. Plaintiff believes the punishment was unfair and not generally practiced with respect to other police of?cers of the Department in similar circumstances and an act of further retaliation for reporting a racist APPD officer to APPD IA in addition to his reports of misconduct to the Prosecutor?s of?ce and to the Office of the Attorney General concerning the Defendants? Violation of New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines and misuse of the hiternal Affairs process. 47) On 05/ 15/2017 Plaintiff prepared and disseminated an e-mail to Administration Sgt. Carmen Gagliano, IA Sgt. Barnes and leaders complaining about P.O. Joel Fiori?s actions, behavior and statements including: retaliatory and differential treatment towards Plaintiff, insubordination in front of room full of of?cers, racist comments over the years, a previous racist incident in the Detective Bureau in presence of several of?cers, repulsive about the Middle Eastem and Haitian taxi drivers when he was assigned to the traffic Bureau, and racist/inappropriate memes on PD. Fieri?s (a Community Relation?s officer) Facebcok silpage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 13 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 account regarding various protected groups such as Muslims, Hispanics (particularly Mexicans), Asians, African Americans, community, Women and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Plaintiff later reported to IA Officer Francis Sangi (now Sergeant) that other of?cers (Supervisors and high?ranking members of the Administration) were friends with PD. Fiori on Facebook, which Sangi also had first-hand knowledge of and no one from the Administration took any corrective action. In fact, many ?liked? and had similar bigoted memes on their Facebook accounts. 48) On 06/26/2017 Plaintiff received a disposition letter from 13.0. Sangi regarding his complaint of . O. Fiori (5/15/2017). Sangi stated his investigation found .O. Fiori (only) violated the department rules and regulations. Plaintiff believes this complaint was not- fully investigated due to a departmental coveruup. 49) P.O. Fiori has remained in specialized Units Relations) since and as part of his duties has been conducting background investigations of police applicants; some applicants are from the same ethnicities he has shown a clear bias toward. 50) On 06f07/2017 Plaintiff submitted a letter of interest to be transferred to Community Relations Unit. Chief Kelso and Captain Thompson stated to Plaintiff he cannot be assigned to Community Relations because Plaintiff did not have experience in Community Relations and Captain Thompson didn?t have the time to train him. 51) Meanwhile ?ve Caucasian of?c ers were recently n'ansferred to Specialized Units, none of whom had any previous experience in those Units and their jobs were much more complicated than a position in Community Relations. For example, Sangi was transferred to IA, N. Townsend and Walsh were transferred to Evidence, Gagliano was transferred to Administration and Fiori was transferred to Relations. adage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg ?14 01?34 Trans ID: 52) Plaintiff believes this to be another discriminatory and retaliatory act by Chief David Kelso and Deputy Chief Guy Thompson. According to Plaintiff, since that time many other Caucasian of?cers have been assigned to Specialized Units without any prior experience since. 53) On 10/20/2017 Plaintiff received a telephone call from Captain Thompson upset at Plaintiff for going to the mosque for 15 minutes during Plaintiff?s break. Plaintiff viewed this inquiry as in infringement on his religious freedom. 54). On 12/15/2017 Plaintiff became aware Fiori excluded him from a group text message Fiori disseminated to APPD employees regarding overtime details. 55) On 1 1/15/2017 Plaintiff articipated in a recorded interview with Investigators Thomas Dempsy and Jesus Ramirez under the supervision of Lt. Stanley Beet from the Division of Criminal Justice - Of?ce of Public Integrity Accountability (OPIA) regarding his complaint against APPD Internal Affairs/Administration and the Internal Affairs Unit of Monmouth County Prosecutor. CI #2017?141. 56) On 11/17/2017 Plaintiff prepared and submitted a detailed letter to the Division of Criminal Justice alleging (1) Monmouth County Prosecutor failed to accept and inVestigate his complaint against APPD IA Unit/Commander and the Police Chief. (2) Coveiups of misconduct in the department by APPD Administration and failure of the 1A Unit to follow AG. Guidelines regarding Internal Affair complaints: A) Timeliness of investigations; B) Failure to notify subject of?cers; C) Not providing disposition letters to officers; D) Inaccurate dispositions; E) Retaliation by using the IA process; I14 Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 15 of 34 Trans ID: F) Disparity in discipline between minority and Caucasian of?cers; G) Coercion by LA. members; H) Failure to investigate complaints; 57) On 12/20/2017 Plaintiff received a copy of a letter from Division of Criminal Justice Assistant Attorney General Michael J. Williams advising MCPO AP Jennifer Lipp that DCJ was returning the complaint ?led against IA back to MCPO for ?whatever action you (MCPO) deem appropriate.? 58) 01/18/2018, Plaintiff had a telephonic conversation with Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Detective, Ryan Mahony, regarding his IA complaint to DCJ being sent back to MCPO. Det. Mahony asked Plaintiff if there was anything criminal in nature or involving ?corruption? he wanted to report. Plaintiff referred Det. Mahony to his complaint to DCJ. Det. Mahony stated he would investigate the DCJ complaint and get back to Plaintiff. Plaintiff never heard from Det. Mahony again. 59) Plaintiff believes the retaliation against him by defendants escalated thereafter as is evident from the factual events as described in this complaint Defendants were further emboldened in their retaliation (para. 41, 45, 46 and continuing forward from below para. 60) knowing Plaintiff had exhausted his recourse of reporting APPD Administration/IA misconduct to the Prosecutor?s Office and the Division of Criminal Justice. By way of example are the following acts of retaliation. 60) 011 21230018 Captain Crescio falsely accused Plaintiff in a write up for not following his order and threatened further Progressive Discipline against Plaintiff. 61) In March or April of 20 8, Deputy Chief Thompson berated Plaintiff in front of a room packed with of?cers and supervisors calling Plaintiff a liar, delusional, and accused Plaintiff of islPage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 16 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 making up things for merely sharing some of his experiences with other Union members. This was a very humiliating experience for Plaintiff, especially as a ?rst line supervisor, since there were many new officers present in the room. 62) On 06/12/2018 Plaintiff received a telephone call from Captain Crescio who verbally berated and harassed him in reference to an approved vacation day by Plaintiff?s immediate supervisor, Sgt. Marshawn Love as Acting Lieutenant. Crescio did not order Plaintiff in to work. Instead, on 06/12/2018, as per Lt. DeSane (new Captain), Captain Crescio ordered him to put Plaintiff out as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) on the manpower sheet. Plaintiff believed this Was another example of harassment and Captain Crescio being vindictive. On 06/28/2018, Plaintiff prepared and submitted an e?mail to Chief Kelso through 0A President Danny Kowsaluk in which Plaintiff reported Captain Crescio for lying and requested a formal investigation. On 07/ 1 1/201 8 Plaintiff had a meeting with Chief Kelso, Deputy Chief Thompson and SOA President Lt. Kowsaluk regarding the 6/12/2018 AWOL incident, during which Plaintiff was given excuses by Chief Kelso and DC. Thompson for Crescio?s behavior such as ?you know that?s just Crescio, that?s his supervision style? as to justify Defendant Crescios actionswhich amounted to harassing a subordinate and lying as a Police Captain. 63) On 07/25/2018 Plaintiff submitted another email to Chief Kelso, again formally requesting an investigation regarding the 6/ 12/2018 AWOL incident. Plaintiff also provided supporting statements and physical evidence regarding his complaint. On 09/3/2018 Plaintiff received a disposition letter from Lt. Bulsiewicz. exonerating Captain Crescio in reference to his complaint relating to the AWOL incident and other incidents, notwithstanding the evidence and statements provided to her. Plaintiff was advised by witnesses they weren?t even interviewed by i6lPage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 17 of 34 Trans 1D: LCV2020921592 Lt. Bulsiewicz, nor was Planitiff. There was no explanation given as to how she reached her investigative conclusion. 64) The harassment from Captain Crescio not only continued but increased in nature. 011 10/ 6/2018 PlainttEf received a direct camail from Captain Crescio denying his oveitiine slip for attending a department approved UNIT Faculty meeting and asking Plaintiff who had approved the overtime. This overtime was never denied in the past and apprOved as recently as a few months ago. On 10/24/2018 Plaintiff submitted an email to Captain Creseio answering/explaniing the submission of the overtime slip. On 10/25/2018, Captain Ci'escio ordered Lt. Jeffery White to write Plaintiff up for breaking the chain of command when Plaintiff replied to his direct email to Plaintiff asking for clari?cation. Lt. White made a false entry into Guardian Tracker by omitting and inaccurately stating some of the facts discussed in his meeting with the Plaintiff. 65) Once again, the Administration failed to intervene or take any action. Frustrated with the continued harassment by Captain Crescio, Plaintiff submitted an email to Lt. Bulsiewicz requesting an explanation of her disposition of ?Exonerated? in Plaintiff?s complaint against Captain Crescio in light of physical evidence (email, memos, etc.) provided to her clearly indicating lying and harassment from Captain Crescio. No response was given to Plaintiff, the complainant. 66) On or about 12/19/2018 Captain Crescio made harassing statements to Plaintiff during a PBA Christmas Party by stating such things as: I don?t like to hold grudges, but 1 never forget and although Plaintiff walked away from Crescio several times, Crescio followed and continued with ?you have a long way to go? and ?you should get with the program?. Plaintiff was up for promotion to rank of Lieutenant at the time. Plaintiff did not file another complaint for this incident 17 Page MON-L-000854-20 05/202020 2:04:22 PM Pg 18 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 because he believed his previous complaint against Crescio was not seriously addressed by the Administration. Plaintiff shared this incident with Sgt. Barnes right after the party. i 67) In 2018, Plaintiff and other minority of?cers were intentionally kept out of certain Union activities and the elections by the Caucasian PBA leadership in the department. Plaintiff had expressed verbal and mitten interest in running for a Board position to PBA leadership on several different occasions. 68) On 02/15/2019 Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant after ?nishing second on the promotional list. 69) On 03/19/2019 Plaintiff submitted a complaint via e-mail to PBA and IA Commander Lt. Bulsiewicz against Deputy Chief Guy Thompson (now directly of IA as of 2/15/19); Administrative Sergeant Carmen Gagliano and Community Relation?s Of?cer P.O. Joel Fiori. Plaintiff complained about overtime issues (economic disadvantage to Plaintiff) and differential treatment. 70) On 03/22/2019 12 members of APPD (10 A??iean American, one Caucasian and one Pakistani?American) broke off from APPD Administration backed PBA and joined FOP with Plaintiff being sworn in as the President of the newly formed Lodge. Four more A?'ican American of?cers joined the following week, totaling 16 officers. 71) Plaintiff has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of minority of?cers in the department. As of January 2020, Plaintiff as a Lieutenant would?ve been the minority in the department. Plaintiff does not believe his demotion to be a coincidence. 72) In addition, Plaintiff believes APPD, Asbury Park and the individually named defendants have deliberately neglected to promote and demoted officers from underrepresented groups based upon race, religion and national origin to give certain Caucasian officers promotional iBlPage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 19 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 advantage. Plaintiff has been vocal in his beliefs that APPD has failed to recruit and hire from underrepresented groups including minorities. For example, since October of2014, when Plaintiff became a supervisor, APPD has hired approximately 29 new police of?cers but only approximately six officers from underrepresented groups in a City with approximately over 70% minority residents. 73) On 03/28/2019 Plaintiff had an innperson conversation with PD. Samuel Grif?th strictly out of care for him and his career. Plaintiff constructively criticized Grif?th?s use of force incident in November of 2018. PO Grif?th had con?ded in the Plaintiff for guidance in the past, but this time Plaintiff learned that this conversation was inaccurately reported up the chain of command through supervisors" Sgt. Joseph Spallina and Lt. Daniel Kowsaluk and eventually given to Internal Affairs by Captain Crescio. On 04/ 1 0/2019 Plaintiff received a memo from Sgt. Barnes ordering Plaintiff to prepare a report regarding his conversation with P.O. Samuel Grif?th on 3/28/2019. On 04/22/2019 Plaintiff prepared and submitted an e~1nailto Sgt. Barnes regarding the ?Griffith? incident. Plaintiff also reported police misconduct that some of the new of?cers, predominantly Caucasian, were engaged in: a ?selective enforcement? targeting minorities of low socioeconomic background vs. Caucasian wellwoff citizens for the same offenses. This practice can also be referred to as ?over policing? in the minority communities. 0 ?ego-based policing? involving unwarranted and unjust police actions including use of force incident and excessive use of force. a ??shing? as in turning minor interactions with members of the minority community into arrests and an opportunity to issue for stats. ?19]Paga 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 20 of 34 Trans ID: ?Quota system?, Plaintiff further reported that the department was engaged in a Quota system and was pressuring officers for stats regarding summons and arrests, which was leading to poor police practices for the sake of numbers. Plaintiff reported a possible costar up by officers and supervisors in this ?Grif?th incident? inVolying use of force reports and that additional charges were ?led against the injured arrestee as a possible covernup after pressure from the public. Plaintiff requested additional training for new of?cers in dealing with people of color. Plaintiff reported some Of?cers, with encouragement from certain (Caucasian) Supervisors, were not ?ling Use of Force reports in incidents where use of force was in fact used, in order to avoid additional paperwork and accountability, being detected for using force inappropriately, and being flagged under the new Attorney General?s Early Warning System. Plaintiff constructively criticized P.O. Samuel Griffith (a new of?cer) in his conversation with him. P.O. Griffith and another of?cer used forced (unjustly in Plaintiff 3 opinion) against a subject while he was being arrested. The subject received Visible signs of injury to his face/head when he was taken down to the ground on the sidewalk. Then the subject was mocked by several of?cers that surrounded him during the arrest. The of?cers used force against the subject but did not initially charge him with resisting arrest. The of?cers also did not take his photograph as required per arrest procedure because ?the camera was broke?. The officers, with the approval of the shift Commander, did not submit Use'of Force forms or complete an investigation report. The incident received social media attention and was discussed in City Council meetings. After being scrutinized by the public 2:04:22 PM Pg 21 of 34 Trans lD: LCV2020921592 for the incident, Plaintiff believes the police department charged the subject With resisting arrest days after the incident and had the officers fill out use of force reports. 74) On 04/ 1/2019 Plaintiff emailed Chief Kelsc advising him PBA members (officers, supervisors and PBA President) were harassing and making derogatory comments to FOP members. One of Plaintiff?s concern Was that the only Caucasian FOP member was particularly being mocked by other Caucasian of?cers/supervisors, who allegedly labeled him as a ?race traitor? for standing in solidarity with minority Of?cers. Plaintiff?s complaint to Chief Kelso once again fell on deaf ears. 75) On 0315/2019 Plaintiff was called in by IA and advised by Lt. Bulsiewicz in presence of Lt. Michael Barnes that he was being demoted to Sergeant because it was his last day of the Working test period (2/1319 to 5/ 1 5/ 19), the City Manager Michael Capabiancc ?doesn?t think it?s Working out" and that Plaintiff would get something in the mail at home from the City Manager. On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff received a letter from the City Manager at home advising him of the demotion. Plaintiff was smnmarily demoted in Violation of the Civil Service rules for the working test period, in Violation of Plaintiff?s due process and contrary to the Attorney . General?s guidelines and his Collective Bargaining Agreement with the City regarding the disciplinary process. 76) In addition, Lt. Bulsiewicz served Plaintiff with separate charges of Conduct Unbecoming (untruthfulness), hisubordination and Other Sufficient Cause for ?lying? in the complaint filed by Plaintiff on 19 against her immediate supervisor Deputy Chief Guy Thompson and other members of the Administration. Lt. Bulsiewicz investigating her immediate supervisor was also contrary to the Attorney General?s lntemal Affairs guidelines. In 21[Page 0591/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 22 of 34 Trans ID: addition to the demotion, Plaintiff faced an additional penalty of 20 day~suspension for this charge. 77) On 06/ 07/2019 Plaintiff attended a Departmental Hearing in reference to his pending charges for ?Untruthfulness?, during which, under cross-examination, Lt. Bulsiewioz, IA Commander, made the following admissions: (A) she did not follow AG IA guidelines to investigate Plaintiff?s complaint and/or to assess whether to charge the ones he complained about; (B) she failed to question Witnesses; (C) she failed to keep investigative notes and other records as required; (D) she charged Plaintiff with Conduct Unbecoming (lying) because he allegedly made a ?conflicting? statement, yet she never interviewed him as the complainant to clarify the statement in question; (E) she never advised Plaintiff, contrary to AG guidelines, that he Was novvr the target of the investigation in his own complaint on other'of?cers until Plaintiff was detected and charged with other offenses. 78) On 05/ 7/2019, without any cause, Plaintiff was placed on Administrative Leave and sent for a Fitness for Duty evaluation. Plaintiff suspected foul play and recorded his interview with Dr. Betty McLendon, the City During the ?tness for duty evaluation, Plaintiff states that McLendon criticized and lectured him for over an hour basically implying that however ?song the Administration is, Plaintiff should stay in his place and just do his job. She projected Plaintiff will lose in the end and indeed had already lost due to his demotion. 79) Plaintiff ?led a complaint against Dr. Betty McLendon with the State Board of Examiners, File it PSY-2019-05595. In addition to her unethical and biased 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 23 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 conduct during Plaintiff? 3 interview, Dr. McLendon lied in her evaluation report paid for by the City and intentionally misrepresented Plamtiffun?t for duty. Plaintiff provided the State Board with audio recording and transcripts of the interview as evidence in support of his allegation against Dr. McLendon. 80) The Department did not inform Plaintiff or his attorney of Dr. McLendon?s conclusion until 6/25/2019 when Plaintiff received a ?Rice Notice? in the mail notifying him the City Council intended to vote on his-termination (involuntary disability) the very next day on 6/26/2019, without the right to a hearing. Plaintiff believes this was done intentionally by the department because the late notice compromised Plaintiffs right to defend himself, have a public hearing and to have an attorney present with him. The Rice notice issued one day before the hearing violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights to due process. 81) On 06/26/2019, Plaintiff appeared in front of Mayor John Moor, Deputy Mayor Amy Quinn, City Council members Eileen Chapman, Yvonne Clayton, and Jesse Kendle, Sr. Also present in the hearing were City Manager Michael Capabianco and Fire Chief Kevin Keddy. Plaintiff provided the Elected City Of?cials with his complaints filed against the members of the APPD Administration and testi?ed his demotion, charges of and the Fitness for Duty evaluation were acts of direct retaliation against him. Plaintiff requested them to conduct an independent investigation of the matters. Elected City Of?cials advised the Plaintiff they would review the reports and summon the Plaintiff back in don?t of the Council for questioning before deciding on his employment. 82) On or about 7/1/2019 Plaintiff sent letters to the Mayor and City Council members further explaining his current circumstances and requested an independent investigation by the elected of?cials. 23 Page MON-L-000854-20 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 24 of 34 Trans ID: 83) The following day Plaintiff was ordered to report to Headquarters by IA Commander Lt. Bulsiewicz where he was served with additional charges of Inability to Perform Duties and other suf?cient cause (unfit for duty) and then told his employment with the City was terminated immediately pending a departmental hearing allegedly due to McLendon?s report. 84) On or about 7/3/2019 Plaintiff sent a second set of letters to the Mayor and City Council members notifying them of the new charges of Unfit for Duty by Chief Kelso and Plaintiff? arbitrary immediate termination using the 1A process as a means of retaliation in order to circumvent the City Resolution which required a decision by the elected City Officials before Plaintiff could be terminated. Plaintiff again requested an independent investigation into his matters. 85) It is noteworthy that Plaintiff obtained an independent Fitness for Duty evaluation on 7/25/2019 with the report being issued on 10/ 14/20 1 9 conducted by Nicole J. Rafanello, of the Clinical Forensic Consulting Services, LLC, which concluded that Plaintiff does not suffer from a mental or disorder that renders him unable to complete his duties as an officer. 86) On 10/01/2019, Asbury Park City Attorney Steven Gliekrnan failed to appear for a conference hearing regarding Plaintiff demotion at the Office of the Administrative Law Without giving the Plaintiff, his attorney or the Court a notice. 87) On 11/26/2019, representatives of the City of Asbury Park failed to appear for a conference hearing regarding Plaintiff?s demotion for a second time at the Office of the Law. 88) On 12/02/2019, Plaintiff sent a third set of letters to the City elected of?cials notifying them of the unapproved absence of City of?cials from court hearings and requested 24[Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 25 0f 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 departmental hearings for the pending charges as soon as possible. To date, the City has not provided Plaintiff with departmental hearing dates for the pending matters regardless of multiple verbal/written requests by the Plaintiff. 89) The defendants conduct as described above was intentional and designed to bring about the termination of Plaintiff?s employments and violation of his rights. 90) As a result of the actions of the Defendants as aforementioned, Plaintiff has suffered emotional, physical and interference with employment and continued interference with employment, damage to his reputation both personally and professionally. 91) The actions of the Defendants and each of them were in retaliation against Plaintiff for complaining to his supervisors, city of?cials, the County Prosecutor?s of?ce and the Of?ce of the Attorney General about what he reasonably believed to be a violation of the laws, rules and regulations within the State of New Jersey, including Attorney General Guidelines, illegal and fraudulent conduct of members of the APPD, racial pro?ling, violation of civil service regulations, among others. In violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (N .J 3.1% 34:19-1 et seq 50). 92) It is further alleged in the alternative that the Defendants? actions set forth above and speci?cally the action in terminating Plaintiff?s employment constitutes a common law wrongful termination in violation of public policy pursuant to the case of Pierce v. Ortho. 93) The source of public policy include but are not limited to New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines, New Jersey Constitution, civil service laws, rules and regulations, criminal laws of the State of New Jersey, including fraud, official misconduct, falsi?cation of police reports and records and civil service laws relating to police and other laws and regulations in New Jersey among others. 25 Page MON-L-000854-20 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 26 of 34 Trans lD: 94. The defendant Asbury Park is vicariously liable for the actions of the individual defendants and its agents servants and employees pursuant to principles of respondeat superior, Master servant and agency. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants aforementioned, the plaintiff was wrongfully demoted from the position of lieutenant and wrongfully terminated, was subjected to a retaliatory ?tness for duty evaluation, a hostile work environment and was caused to experience severe emotional distress and mental anguish, damage to his personal and business reputation, embarrassment, shock, humiliation, loss of rank, seniority and other bene?ts attendant to his employment as a lieutenant with the Asbury Perl; Police Department including the loss of past and future wages and pension bene?ts and has been caused to incur attorney?s fees and such other damages all to his detriment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatmy damages, including lost past and future wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Dept, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, bene?ts, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. SECOND COUNT (Violation of LAD) 1) Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in Count One of the Complaint and incorporate same herein by reference as if set forth at length herein. 2) The Defendants? actions aforementioned were severe and pe1*vaSiye and created and maintained a hostile Work enviromnent for Plaintiff including the subjecting of Plaintiff to many 26 Page 05I2?li2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 27 of 34 Trans 1D: LCV2020921592 the adverse employment actions and disciplinary actions ?led against him that were motivated by a discriminatory and retaliatory animus due to his race, national origin, religion and his union activity. 3) Further, Plaintiff has continuously been referred to on a number of occasions as a ?terrorist? by his supervisors along with some other racial slurs targeted and demeaning to his race, religion and national origin, which have materially altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiff? work environment and employment. 4) It is further alleged that the Defendants and each of them have retaliated against the Plaintiff for asserting his rights and the rights of others protected under New Jersey?s Law Against Discrimination in the form of creating a hostile work environment ,impcsing adverse employment actions including unauthorized and excessive disciplinary actions suspensions and eventual M'ongful termination ?'om employment. 5. It is further alleged that Plaintiff?s complaints of discrimination and harassment to the Defendants have not been investigated and/or inadequately investigated and the Defendants have deliberately failed to take any remedial action in relation to the same, all in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 6) The above described conduct of the defendants constitutes unlawful discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiff within the meaning of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJ.S.A. 10:5?1 et seq) based upon race, religion and national origin. Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against the Defendants for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Dept. as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, 27 Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 28 01?34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 bene?ts, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. THIRD COUNT (Wrongful Discharge) l) The Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts of the Complaint and incorporate some herein by reference as if set forth at length herein. 2) The disciplinary charges ?led by the Defendants against the Plaintiff which include conduct unbecoming an of?cer, insubordination and un?tness for duty are not supported by the facts and were ?led as a pretext for the discriminatory and retaliatory motive of the Defendants in violation of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N .J .S.A. 10:5~l et. seq.) 3. It is ?nther alleged that the discipline imposed upon the plaintiff was excessive when compared to other similarly situated police officers Within the Asbury Park Police Department for similar and/ or more severe Violations of the police department?s rules and regulations and code of conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Deparhnent, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, bene?ts, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of Suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. FOURTH COUNT (Interference with Economic Advantage) 1) The Plaintiff repeat the allegations of the previous Counts of the Complaint and incorporate same here by reference as if set forth at length herein. zs'lpage 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 29 of 34 Trans iD: LCV2020921592 2) The actions of the Defendants as set forth in the previous allegations of this complaint maliciously interfered with Plaintist ability to seek and obtain employment and advance in rank as a police of?cer with the Defendant APPD and other Departments as well and constitutes the tort of tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Department, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, bene?ts, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. FIFTH COUNT (Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress) 1) Plaintiff repeat the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporate same herein by reference as if set forth at length herein. 2) The actions of the Defendants were egregious, intentional and were such as to be considered outrageous in character and so extreme in character as to go beyond all bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 3) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer signi?cant and severe emotional distress. WHEREFORE, PlaintiEf demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants for compensatory damages, including iost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Department, as well as proper adjustment of his 0521/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 30 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. (Aider and Abettor) 1) Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts of the Complaint and incorporate same here by reference as if set fotth at length herein. 2) The named individual Defendants aided each other and Defendant Asbury Park in the harassment, retaliation, demotion and termination of Plaintiff?s employment as an Asbury Park Police Of?cer. 3) The conduct of individual Defendants violated Plaintiff? 3 rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 ?1 et. seq.) and as such, are each individually liable to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Dept, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, bene?ts, punitive damages, together with interest, attomey fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. SEVENTH COUNT (Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act) 1) Plaintiff repeat the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporate same herein by reference. 2) The actions of the Defendants separately and individually violated Plaintiffs rights under the New Jersey Constitution including his right to freedom of speech on matters of public 30 1P ag 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 3?1 01? 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 concern, the right to petition the government, the right of a public employee to ?le grievances, the right of public employees to union representation, the right to be promoted based upon merit and ?tness, and the right to procedural and substantive due process protected under Article 1, paragraph 1 as well as Article 1 para. 6,13,19, Article 7, sec.2 and the right to privacy and bodily integrity and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of ones person under Article 1 para. 1 and 7. The Defendants and each of them also deprived Plaintiff of his liberty interest in his reputation and his property interest in his public employment as a police of?cer. 3) The acts of the defendants constitute state action or persons acting under color of law and deprived Plaintiff of the free exercise and enjoyment of his constitutional rights by means of threats, intimidation and coercion that violated and continue to violate Plaintiff 3 state constitutional rights, all in Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act NJSA 10:6?2 4) It is further alleged that the named individual Defendants have conspired with each other to deprive Plaintiff of his New Jersey Constitutional rights aforementioned and have conspired to retaliate against the Plaintiff for asserting his New Jersey Constitutional rights by means of threats, intimidation and or coercion through the unlaw?ll demotion of the Plaintiff, improper use of disciplinary suspensions, the internal affairs process and the scheduling of multiple retaliatory Fitness for Duty examinations Without suf?cient or reasonable cause all for the propose of teiminating his employment as a police of?cer with Defendant Asbury Park and to stigmatize him for purposes of preventing him from obtaining employment in the law enforcement ?eld in any other capacity and in any other jurisdiction. 5) It is further alleged that the defendant David Kelso the current Chief of Police of Asbury Park, defendant Guy Thompson the current Deputy Chief of Police of Asbury Park the and defendant Michael Capobianco the former City Manager of police for Asbury Park as well as the H31 Page 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 32 of 34 Trans 1D: LCV2020921592 defendant Anthony Salerno acting Chief in 2016 all are considered final policymakers Within the defendant Asbury Park and speci?cally within the Asbury Park Police Department for purposes of promotion, demotion, hiring, ?ring, termination, decisions to discipline, the amount of discipline and all other matters relating to the police of?cers under their command Within the Asbury Police Department as a matter of statute anf law. I 6) As such, of the defendant Asbury Park is directly liable for the actions of these defendants while acting in an individual capacity and as the Chief of police, Deputy Chief and City Manager of defendant Asbury Park as ?nal policymakers for the Asbury Park Police Department thereby constituting an official policy, practice and/or custom of the defendant Asbury Park. 7) It is further alleged, that the Asbury Park Police Department has a long- standing policy, practice and custom of retaliating against police of?cers such as the plaintiff who engage in union activity, and that otherwise aSSert their New Jersey Constitutional rights similar to the plaintiff and have acquiesced in a longstanding custom and practice and policy of the utilizing of the internal affairs processes and procedures as an instrument and tool of retaliation against of?cers asserting their rights under New Jersey?s Constitution similar to plaintiff. As such, defendant Asbury Park is directly liable under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act to the plaintiff 8) As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s violation of the plaintiff New Jersey civil rights and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, plaintiff has been the wrongfully demoted and terminated from employment as a police officer, excessively discipline Subjected to multiple ?tness for duty evaluations, has been caused to suffer severe emotional distress and mental anguish, embarrassment shock humiliation, damages to his personal and business reputation, loss of the past and future wages and pension bene?ts and such other damages all to his detriment. SZIPagye MON-L-000854-20 05/21/2020 2:04:22 PM Pg 33 of 34 Trans ID: LCV2020921592 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants jointly severally and in the alternatiVe for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Department, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, bene?ts, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just. EIGHTH COUNT (John Does 1?10) 1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporate same herein by reference. 2. At the aforesaid time and place, the Defendant, John Does 1~1 ?ctitious name(s) . (hereinafter referred to as John Doe), were an unknown person or persons authorized to do business in the State of New Jersey, whose actions caused and/or contributed, directly or indirectly, to damages suffered by the Plaintiff. 3. The Plaintiff alleges that an insuf?cient amount of time has passed within which to determine the identity of any other individuals who may be responsible in whole or in part for damages suffered by Plaintiff. For the purpose of the within Complaint, said individuals have been nominated as John Doe 1-10. The Plaintiff, pursuant to the Rules of Court for the State of New Jersey, reserves the right to amend the Within Complaint relative to additional Defendants when, and if, the identity of said individuals or business entities becomes known. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against Defendants, ohn Does lull] for damages, punitive damages plus interest, attorney?s fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 33 Page 2:04:22 PM Pg 34 of 34 Trans iD: LCV2020921592 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by a jury on all issues herein. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL David R. Castellam?, Esquire, is hereby designated as trial counsel in this matter. CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 4:51 I, David R. Castellani, Esquire, by certifying, pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:5?1, that to the best of my knowledge, the claims raised herein are not the subject of any other action pending in any Court of the 31ij ect of any arbitration proceeding, and no such other action or arbitration is contemplated. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punislmlent for perjury. Dated: May 21, 2020 34lPage