Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1

WEISBERG LAW
Matthew B. Weisberg, Attorney ID No. 01565-2000
7 South Morton Ave.
Morton, PA 19070
610-690-0801
Fax: 610-690-0880
Attorney for Plaintiff

SCHAFKOPF LAW, LLC
Gary Schafkopf, Attorney ID No. 01224-2000
11 Bala Ave
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610-664-5200 Ext 104
Fax: 888-238-1334
Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SHILPI KUMAR
19 Mount Airy Drive
Morrisville, Pennsylvania 19067
v.

Plaintiff

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY d/b/a
NEW JERSEY SCHOOLS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
and
NEW JERSEY SCHOOLS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
MARIBEL OSNAYO LYTLE, in her
individual capacity and official capacity as a
Director, New Jersey Schools Development
Authority
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
and
JOANNE WALSH, in her individual
capacity and official capacity as a Director,
New Jersey Schools Development Authority
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

DOCKET NO:
JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE (12) JURORS
DEMANDED
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2

and
JANE KELLY, in her individual
capacity and official capacity as a Vice
President, New Jersey Schools Development
Authority
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
and
DON GUARIELLO, in his individual
capacity and official capacity as a Vice
President, New Jersey Schools Development
Authority
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
and
COLLEEN CONELLY, in her individual
capacity and official capacity as a Managing
Director, New Jersey Schools Development
Authority
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
and
MANUEL DA SILVA, in his individual
capacity and official capacity as CEO,
New Jersey Schools Development Authority
32 E. Front Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Shilpi Kumar, by and through her undersigned attorneys, complaining of
Defendants, New Jersey Schools Development Authority, brings the instant action requesting

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 3

judgment in her favor, and against Defendants, and in support thereof, alleges, upon information
and belief, as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Shilpi Kumar, is an adult individual, residing at19 Mount Airy Drive
Morrisville, Pennsylvania 19067. At all times material, Ms. Kumar was employed by
Defendant, New Jersey Schools Development Authority in Trenton, NJ. Plaintiff’s
ethnicity and race is Indian of Asian Origin.
2. Defendant, The State of New Jersey d/b/a New Jersey Schools Development Authority
and/or The New Jersey School Development Authority, hereinafter both referred to as
“NJSDA”, is the State Agency in charge of funding and overseeing the new construction,
modernization and renovation of school facilities projects in 31 New Jersey School
Districts. NJSDA is an independent authority, in but not of the New Jersey Department of
Treasury.
3. Defendant, Maribel Osnayo Lytle, (“Lytle”), is an adult individual who at all times
material was employed by NJSDA as a Director. She is being sued in her individual and
official capacity.
4. Defendant, Joanne Walsh, (“Walsh”), is an adult individual who at all times material was
employed by NJSDA as a Director. She is being sued in her individual and official
capacity.
5. Defendant, Jane Kelly, (“Kelly”), is an adult individual who at all times material was
employed by NJSDA as a Vice President. She is being sued in her individual and official
capacity.

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4

6. Defendant, Don Guarriello, (“Guarriello”), is an adult individual who at all times material
was employed by NJSDA as a Vice President. He is being sued in his individual and
official capacity.
7. Defendant, Colleen Connolly, (“Connolly”), is an adult individual who at all times
material was employed by NJSDA as a Managing Director. She is being sued in her
individual and official capacity.
8. Defendant, Manuel Da Silva, (“Da Silva”), is an adult individual who at all times
material was employed by NJSDA as a CEO. He is being sued in his individual and
official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. Jurisdiction over the matter is conferred upon the Court by 28 USC § 1331, as the cause
of action arises under federal law; and § 1332, diversity.
10. Venue is proper as the facts and transactions involved herein occurred in large part in
this judicial district.
11. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies and obtained a Right to Sue Letter
from the EEOC (Exhibit A).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
12. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
13. NJSDA has created a discriminatory, hostile, and bigoted environment towards the
Plaintiff.
14. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was the only Indian individual in her department.
15. Upon information and belief, the majority of senior management and Executive Staff at
NJSDA are Caucasian.

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 5

16. During her tenure with NJSDA, Plaintiff was subjected to racial discrimination and
harassment by various senior members.
17. Plaintiff had been working for NJSDA for almost eleven years since February 17, 2009.
She was hired as a Benefit Specialist in Human Resources.
18. Over time, Plaintiff’s responsibilities in the HR department expanded and Plaintiff
completed various professional trainings and certifications. However, Plaintiff was
consistently denied any promotion or an opportunity to advance in any senior role
despite her increased obligations and trainings.
19. In or around 2016, both Payroll Specialist and the Deputy Director of HR were out on
extended period of leave and Plaintiff assumed the role and responsibilities of both
functions to ensure coverage.
20. When the Payroll Specialist eventually resigned in late 2016, Plaintiff assumed the job
duties of a payroll specialist in addition to her current responsibilities as Benefit
Specialist. Because of this, Plaintiff asked for a more senior role in the department but
was denied. Instead, management decided to hire a payroll specialist.
21. Since Plaintiff wanted to continue mastering the payroll job, Defendants Walsh, Lytle
and Kelly hired a new Benefits Specialist from outside who after being rigorously
mentored and trained by Plaintiff, resigned after just one month. Hence, Plaintiff
continued to perform two jobs – Payroll Specialist and Benefit Specialist for almost two
plus years. As her responsibilities continued to increase, instead of giving her a more
senior role, Defendants Kelly, Lytle and Walsh had Plaintiff train two lower level HR
employees to perform some of her job functions. Plaintiff continued to perform two

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6

jobs, plus kept training and mentoring two HR colleagues for the remaining part of year
2017.
22. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s request for a senior role angered Defendants’
Kelly and Lytle which resulted in them treating Plaintiff poorly and they started
retaliating against her more.
23. Throughout the years, Plaintiff was consistently treated with hostility by Director,
Deputy Director and the VP. For example, Plaintiff would try to plan yearly lunches
with her coworkers for the Indian holiday, Diwali. However, she was told that she
should not use work time for an Indian holiday.
24. In June 2017, HR Director Defendant Walsh retired, and another recruitment manager
resigned in November 2017, leaving Plaintiff with even more responsibilities. It was
advised not to socialize with her Indian colleagues at her workstation by Defendant
Lytle.
25. Shortly thereafter, Defendants’ Kelly and Lytle further harassed Plaintiff for no reason
and tried to have her suspended without pay. This request for suspension was
overturned by then CEO Charlie McKenna because, upon information and belief, there
was no basis to discipline Plaintiff.
26. In or around December 2017, Plaintiff was one of four people working in HR
Department. Everyone in HR except Plaintiff was given a promotion and a raise by
Defendant Kelly, VP of HR
27. In February 2018, there was an opening for a Deputy Director of HR in the department.
Being qualified for the position, plaintiff applied for that position and was denied the
role despite that she was already performing the duties of that position. Defendant Lytle

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7

ended up giving the position to an external candidate, who was un-qualified for the job
and was terminated within 6 months.
28. In or around October 2018, Plaintiff made a formal complaint against Defendant Lytle
for discrimination in promotions and opportunities and retaliation. In that complaint she
also expressed the retaliatory and threatening actions and statements of Defendant
Kelly.
29. From in or around October 2018 through in or around August 2019, Plaintiff performed
all the functions of the HR department along with training and mentoring 4 new HR
employees. The roles performed by her included of – Payroll, Benefits, Deputy Director
and Director.
30. In or around October 2018, Plaintiff learned that she had been approved for a raise by
current CEO Lizette Delgado and Defendants Lytle and Guarriello had failed to give it
to her. Following an internal investigation into this incident by the CEO Lizette
Delgado and Chief of Staff, Plaintiff was given a Title Change from Human Resources
Specialist Grade 16 to Senior HR Generalist -Grade 16 (wrongfully referred to as
promotion) and a $10,000 raise.
31. In July 2019, Defendant Da Silva and the executive committee laid off almost 30 newly
hired employees for non-qualification, Plaintiff was the only qualified HR person left in
the department who was already performing functions of an HR Director from last one
year. Defendant Da Silva, appointed Colleen Connolly (friends with Executive
members) who had a designation of Managing Director –Program Operations and had
no background, training, experience or qualification in the Human Resources as Acting

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 8

Director of HR, resulting in Plaintiff reporting to her. It was communicated that this
was temporary until the hiring process for new HR Director was initiated.
32. In September 2019, position for a Director of HR became available. Plaintiff was told
by Defendants Da Silva Connolly (that the position would be posted internally and
externally). Plaintiff advised Defendant Connolly and Defendant Da Silva of her intent
to apply for the position via an email and hard copy on October 4th 2019. Plaintiff also
requested a meeting with Defendant Silva to discuss the role. However, her requests to
meet with him were ignored. After submitting her intent , Plaintiff suffered an increased
amount of harassment, hostility and ill-treatment from Defendants Connolly, Guarriello
and Da Silva. She formally complained to the EEO Director Manuel Castillo about this
harassment, discrimination and hostility towards her.
33. Plaintiff was advised after a month on or around November 6, 2019, that the position
was for external candidates only and she could not apply for that job/promotional
opportunity – Plaintiff was denied an opportunity to advance second time and by the
same executive committee.
34. In November 2018, Defendant Lytle was terminated by the CEO Lizette Delgado.
Upon information and belief, part of the reason for her termination was failing to give
Plaintiff her raise after it had been approved by the CEO
35. In or around February 2020, Plaintiff filed a charged of discrimination with the EEOC
for racial discrimination and management retaliation.
36. Shortly thereafter, on March 6, 2020, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
37. Plaintiff’s termination was an act of discrimination and retaliation without any business
purpose or justification.

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 9

38. The actions of Defendants have caused Plaintiff to suffer shame, embarrassment, and
financial loss.
COUNT I
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 U.S.C. §1981 AND §1983-HARASSMENT,
DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
ON THE BASIS OF ETHNICITY AND RACE
39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth at length
herein.
40. As a result of Defendants actions as aforesaid, Defendants have denied Plaintiff the
right to the same terms, conditions, privileges and benefits of their employment
agreement with NJSDA, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
41. Such violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
42. Defendants have caused Plaintiff to suffer humiliation and embarrassment, emotional
distress, and have sustained damages for which recovery of compensatory damages
may be had pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
43. Said hostile environment and discrimination against Plaintiff was pervasive and severe.
44. Said hostile environment and discrimination against Plaintiff have affected Plaintiff to
her detriment.
45. Said hostile environment, discrimination, harassment and retaliation would
detrimentally affect a reasonable person under similar circumstances.
46. Said discrimination and harassment has caused a hostile work environment.
47. Said discrimination, and harassment has exacerbated the already hostile work
environment to the point of a crisis.
48. Said violations were done intentionally and/or knowingly with malice or reckless
indifference and warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 10

49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiff has suffered the
damages and losses set forth herein and have incurred attorneys' fees and costs.
50. Plaintiff is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary
damages as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory acts and misconduct, unless and
until this Court grants the relief requested herein.
51. The wrongful acts and conduct of Defendants were done with deliberate indifference to
the statutory and constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
52. The foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
53. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination against Plaintiff, Defendants have
violated Title VII.
54. Said violations were done with malice and/or reckless indifference and warrant the
imposition of punitive damages.
55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of Title VII, Plaintiff has
suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorney’s fees and
costs.
56. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary
damages as a result of Defendants discriminatory acts unless and until this Court grants
the relief requested herein.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD)
57. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

 Case 3:20-cv-13927-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 11

58. The above acts and practices of Defendants constitute unlawful discriminatory
employment practices under the LAD.
59. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory acts, Plaintiff has suffered and shall continue
to suffer monetary damages and damages for mental suffering and humiliation unless
and until the Court grants relief.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against Defendants
individually, jointly and/or severally, in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand
($75,000.00) Dollars, together with interest, costs, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and such
other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, plus injunctive relief.
Plaintiff additionally prays to be compensated with a rate of pay and other benefits and
emoluments of employment to which she would have been entitled had he not been subjected to
the aforesaid, including but not limited to, an award of front, back and lost pay, compensatory
damages for future pecuniary loss, and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court
deems just and proper
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial as to all issues so triable herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
WEISBERG LAW
BY: /s/ Matthew Weisberg
MATTHEW B. WEISBERG, ESQ

SCHAFKOPF LAW, LLC
BY: /s/ Gary Schafkopf
GARY SCHAFKOPF, ESQ.

DATED: 10-5-2020

DATED: 10-5-2020