Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand: Law Offices of

LAW OFFICES OF
GINA MENDOLA LONGARZO, L LC

400 MAIN STREET
CHATHAM NEW JERSEY 07928
973.635.2901
Gina Mendola Longarzo, Esq.

Attorney ID No. 006752011
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CHERYL JEANNETTE
File No. 40.01.375
CHERYL JEANNETTE, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION: ESSEX COUNTY
Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. ESX-L-1245-15
vs.
Civil Action
TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE, TOWNSHIP
MANAGER KEVIN M. ESPOSITO, YARA SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
ACOSTA, ROBERTA ALMEIDA and JOHN AND JURY DEMAND
AND JANE DOES 1-10.
Defendants.
Plaintiff Cheryl Jeannette, by way of Complaint against Defendants the Township of
Belleville, Township Manager Kevin M. Esposito, Yara Acosta, Roberta Almeida, and John and
Jane Does 1-10 says:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Cheryl Jeannette, residing in the Township of East Hanover, in the State of New
Jersey, was employed by the Township of Belleville [hereinafter, the "Township"] in
various positions at the Township's Municipal Court throughout her 30-plus year career,
including as the Court Administrator from approximately August 2010 to February 21,
2013, when she was served with retaliatory disciplinary charges, suspended and
constructively discharged. Plaintiff is a 51 year old female.

2. The Township is the public entity and governmental body organized pursuant to the law
of the State of New Jersey. The Township funds, staffs, supervises and otherwis
controls the operations of the Township's Municipal Court. The Township's princip
place of business is 152 Washington Avenue, Belleville, New Jersey, with its Municip
Court located within the Township's municipal building.
3. The Township is a civil service jurisdiction regulated by the State's civil service laws
N.J.S.A. Title 11A and N.J.A.C. Title 4A, and the New Jersey Civil Service Commission.
4. The Township is a public employer, as defined pursuant to the New Jersey Law Agains
Discrimination [hereinafter, the "NJLAD"] and the New Jersey Civil Rights Ac
[hereinafter, the "NJCRA"] and as provided pursuant to the Laws of the State of Ne
Jersey. Defendant Township is liable for the acts of the Defendants alleged herein eithe
as the direct employer of Plaintiff, the direct-acting party, and/or as a responsible p
for the acts of its employees under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. All action
alleged against Defendant Township were carried out under the color of state law.
5. Defendant Kevin M. Esposito is or was at all relevant times the Township Manager an
appointing authority of the Township with administrative authority over the Townshi
Municipal Court. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity. All action
alleged against Defendant Esposito herein were carried out by Defendant Esposito unde
the color of state law and as an officer, agent or official of the Township. This Defendan
is listed herein based upon his specific, individual acts of civil rights violations
harassment and retaliation directed at Plaintiff and/or his failure to prevent Defendant
Acosta and Almeida from engaging in conduct that was obviously harassing an
2
demeaning in nature toward Plaintiff. This Defendant is also listed herein based upon hi
acts and failure to act (when action was required), which created a hostile wor
environment, and such hostile work environment has caused harm to Plaintiff. Th
actions of the other individually named Defendants herein were with the knowledge o
acquiescence of Defendant Esposito or as his employee(s) and/or agent(s).
6. Defendant Yara Acosta is or was at all relevant times an employee of the Township
serving in various positions in the Township's Municipal Court, and is being sued in he
individual and official capacity. All actions alleged against Defendant Acosta here
were carried out by Defendant Acosta under the color of state law and as an officer, agen
or official of the Township. This Defendant is listed herein based upon her specific
individual acts of civil rights violations, harassment and retaliation directed at Plaintiff
which created a hostile work environment, and such hostile work environment has cause•
harm to Plaintiff. The actions of the other individually named Defendants herein wer
with the knowledge or acquiescence of Defendant Acosta or as her agent(s).
7. Defendant Roberta Almeida is or was at all relevant times an employee of the Township
serving in various positions in the Township's Municipal Court, and is being sued in he
individual and official capacity. All actions alleged against Defendant Almeida herei
were carried out by Defendant Almeida under the color of state law and as an officer
agent or official of the Township. This Defendant is listed herein based upon he
specific, individual acts of civil rights violations, harassment and retaliation directed a
Plaintiff, which created a hostile work environment, and such hostile work environmen
has caused harm to Plaintiff. The actions of the other individually named Defendant'
3
herein were with the knowledge or acquiescence of Defendant Almeida or as he
agent(s).
8. All of the Defendants have been listed herein based upon their specific, individual acts o
civil rights violations, harassment and retaliation directed toward Plaintiff and/or the
failure to prevent co-workers, superiors and subordinates of Plaintiff from engaging
conduct that was obviously harassing and retaliatory in nature toward Plaintiff
Defendants are also listed herein based upon their direct acts and the failure to act whe
action was required, which created a hostile work environment and caused harm t•
Plaintiff.
9. All of the individual Defendants engaged in a conspiracy and acted jointly to subjec
Plaintiff to retaliatory acts and an intolerable, abusive, and hostile work environment
Defendants also violated Plaintiffs rights, liberties, and protections guaranteed by th
Constitution of the State of New Jersey. The purposeful misconduct of all of th
Defendants has caused great harm and injury to Plaintiff.
10.Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 10 are or were at all relevant times employe•
or appointed by the Township and/or were elected officials in the Township. These Jo
and Jane Does also include persons who are or were agents of the Township or whos
conduct was intended to further the unlawful and/or harassing and retaliatory efforts o
these Defendants. Said Defendants are fictitiously named herein inasmuch as the
current identities are unknown to Plaintiff.
11.These fictitiously named Defendants are listed herein based upon their acts of performin
overt violations of civil rights, of punishing Plaintiff for the lawful exercise of her civi
4
rights, of failing to report acts of clear deprivation of Plaintiff's civil rights and/o
creating a hostile work environment. Any and all allegations against any of th
specifically named Defendants should be deemed to include and list these fictitious)
named Defendants automatically by reference. As the true identities of these Defendant
are made known to Plaintiff, said John and Jane Doe Defendants shall be designated b
proper name.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12. Plaintiff had a 30-year civil service career as an employee of the Township. She beg
her employment in November 1982 as a Clerk Typist in the Belleville Police Department
After transferring to the Township Municipal Court in 1984, Plaintiff became a Senio
Clerk Typist in 1987, was promoted to Assistant Violations Clerk in 1993, and then w.
promoted to Violations Clerk in 1995. The Township appointed her as the Deputy Co
Administrator in 2004.
13. Plaintiff then enrolled in the Municipal Court Certification Program, a lengthy an•
challenging process which required her to pass both written and oral examinations
While waiting for her Certification to be finalized, Plaintiff assumed a position as Co
Administrator in or around August 2010 when the position became vacant. Plaintiff the
obtained her Certification from the Municipal Court Administrator Certification Board
October 2010. After glowing recommendations, including from the Honorable Patrici.
K. Costello A.J.S.C. who stated that she was "very experienced and very well qualified,'
Plaintiff was made permanent in the position in December 2011. During her time
5
Court Administrator, Plaintiff also served as the Vice-President of the Essex Coun
Municipal Court Administrators Association.
14. Although Plaintiff maintained a stellar work record devoid of any discipline for over 3
years, the Township strummed up numerous inflated, inappropriate, and retaliato
disciplinary charges against her in response to her complaints about inappropriat
conduct by Township employees and a sexually hostile work environment.
15. By way of background, when Plaintiff took on the position of Court Administrator in o
around August of 2010, she assumed supervisory power over Defendants Robert.
Almeida and Yara Acosta, who became the provisional Assistant Violations Clerk an ei
provisional Deputy Court Administrator, respectively.
16.Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta are in their mid-thirties. Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acos
regularly made comments to Plaintiff that, once she was gone, they would no longer d e
things the "old" way. They continuously commented that Plaintiff was "behind th
times."
17.Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta have both, during work hours, eagerly flaunted the intimat
details of their sexual relationships with other Township employees, for which they hav
been rewarded by the Township with preferential treatment, including selectiv
enforcement of policies and promotions', thereby creating a "quid pro quo" sexuall
hostile work environment.
18.By way of example, Ms. Acosta and Ms. Almeida both openly dated Belleville Polic
Department [hereinafter, "Department"] employees and openly boasted about the natur
Upon information and belief, the Township manipulated and/or circumvented the civil service rules in order t
promote Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta over other qualified individuals who were eligible for the subject positions.
6
of these relationships, including sharing their methods of engaging in sex acts. Plainti
even repeatedly caught Ms. Almeida and a Department employee "making-out" durin
work hours in the Municipal Court hallways.
19.The most shocking instance occurred in 2009, when Ms. Almeida intentionally expose
her breast to Plaintiff and excreted breast milk on her. In response, then-Co
Administrator, Mary Andrews, filed a complaint against Ms. Almeida with former To
Manager Victor Canning. As a supervisor, Plaintiff actively participated in th
investigation and consistently informed Interim Township Manager Kevin Esposito abou
Ms. Almeida's inappropriate conduct at work. Following the investigation, Ms. Almeid
was hardly disciplined as the Township permitted her to serve her discipline at he
convenience and, upon returning from her short suspension, transferred her to the Coda
Enforcement Department and subsequently transferred her back to the Municipal Co
and promoted her to Acting Deputy Court Administrator while Ms. Acosta was out o
maternity leave.2
20. In or around August 2010, Plaintiff also assisted in an investigation into Ms. Acosta
pertaining to a situation in which she conducted an improper background check on a co
worker. This incident eventually resulted in the issuance of a Preliminary Notice o
Disciplinary Action [hereinafter, "PNDA"] imposing a minor suspension on Ms. Acosta
a far lesser punishment than was later sought against Plaintiff for an allegedly simil.
infraction. The Township afforded Ms. Acosta special favoritism, allowed her to sery
2
Ms. Almeida subsequently transferred to the Municipal Court under Plaintiffs supervision.
7
this suspension with pay during her maternity leave in 2011, and promoted her to Depu
Court Administrator upon her return.
21. By contrast, the Township has not afforded the same lenient treatment to non-sexuall
willing employees like Plaintiff, reserving such faVoritism for those who engage in sexu
or dating relationships with Township employees. Instead, shortly after Plaintiff assume
the Court Administrator position and began to assist in the investigations into Ms
Almeida and Ms. Acosta, the Township retaliated against Plaintiff by reducing h
salary.3
22. After her salary was reduced, Plaintiff approached then Township Manager Canning wi
her concerns over this groundless salary reduction. In response, he threatened that, if sh
were to continue voicing grievances to anyone, she would never be promoted t
Municipal Court Administrator on a permanent basis. Because Plaintiff complied,
approximately December 2011, she was made permanent in the position.
23. Thereafter, Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta's campaign of hostility against Plaintiff
retaliation for her participation in their internal disciplinary matters intensified, Despit
Plaintiff's supervisory role, both women blatantly refused to follow her instructions an
verbally bullied her with derogatory remarks and offensive names, such as "puta," whic
loosely translates to "slut" or "whore" in Spanish. Ms. Almeida also repeatedly tol
Plaintiff that she was going to perform sexual acts on Plaintiff's young son.
3
Plaintiff frequently worked on weekends and was falsely accused of abusing the Township's overtime policy.
fact, Plaintiff, as the only licensed Court Administrator, was often unexpectedly summoned by supervisors an
officers to set bail and sign warrants during weekends amidst the haste of law enforcement investigations
Nonetheless, upon information and belief, Mayor Kimble inexplicably ordered then-Township Manager Canning t
reduce Plaintiff's salary.
8
24. Nevertheless, Plaintiff reported Ms. Almeida's continued misconduct and inappropriat
and sexually explicit behavior during work hours. Yet, the Township took no correctiv
action to remedy this misbehavior.4
25. Plaintiff was also involved in bringing discipline against Ms. Acosta for her ongoin,
misconduct, including improperly setting a defendant's bail outside the bail guidelines,
required by the New Jersey Statewide Bail Schedule. After the Essex Coun
Prosecutor's Office returned the matter to the Township for disciplinary charges, Plainti
drafted charges and submitted them to Township Manager Esposito who refused to issu
a corresponding complaint. Plaintiff reported this to Chief Judge Frank Zinna o
February 7, 2014. Thereafter, Judge Zinna insisted that charges be brought against Ms
Acosta, which were issued shortly thereafter. Although she was served with a PNDA o
or around February 19, 2013, upon information and belief, she never served an
suspension.
26. In retaliation, Ms. Almeida filed a bogus complaint of racial discrimination an•
harassment against Plaintiff on February 15, 2013.
27. As a result, on February 21, 2013, based on this false complaint and without a prope
investigation, as required by the Revised General Ordinance of the Township
Belleville, Chapter II, Section 2-3.3(a)(8), Town Manager Esposito issued a PND
against Plaintiff charging her with conduct unbecoming and discrimination.5 Th
4
The worsting environment was so miserable and sexually sodden that several Municipal Court employees
transferred out in 2011.
5
Town Manager Esposito prematurely served the charges on Plaintiff on the same date that he conducted a shoddy
one-sided, cursory investigation.
9
Township then immediately suspended Plaintiff without pay without first holding
mandatory Loudermill hearing.
28. These retaliatory charges were based solely upon Ms. Almeida's unsubstantiate
complaints in further retaliation against Plaintiff for her involvement in the investigation
against Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta and Plaintiff's reporting of her inappropriat
behavior. They falsely claimed that she made various racially discriminatory marks an
denied Ms. Almeida's request for time off. However, Plaintiff never made the raciall
derogatory comments alleged by Ms. Almeida.
29. Additionally, Ms. Almeida's alleged request for time off was not properly submitted an
was not unilaterally denied by Plaintiff as claimed. Furthermore, Ms. Almeida's c1
that Plaintiff refused to allow her to take the day off because it was a "court day,'
patently untrue. In fact, Plaintiff regularly allowed employees to take off on court days
specifically including Ms. Almeida on numerous occasions. Finally, Plaintiff actuall
approved Almeida's requests for compensatory time on the very days she claime
Plaintiff denied her vacation request.
30. While Plaintiff was out on suspension, the Township further retaliated against her b
using her absence as an opportunity to hunt for any possible justification to issu
additional retaliatory disciplinary charges against her. As a result, the Township issued
PNDA dated March 18, 2013, charging Plaintiff with disclosing confidential informatio
to an unauthorized source as far back in 2009. Specifically, the Township charge
10
Plaintiff for providing a former Essex County Corrections Officer with his own crimin
disposition at his request.6
31. While Plaintiff was facing bogus, retaliatory disciplinary charges, Ms. Almeida, who i
younger than Plaintiff, was rewarded with yet another promotion and increase in pay
after being placed in Plaintiff's position as Court Administrator.? Moreover, MS. Acos
who was facing serious charges for improper actions regarding the setting of
defendant's bail, was not suspended and was allowed to continue working with full pay
Upon information and belief, Ms. Acosta received little, if any, discipline and h
remained in her position uninterrupted. However, at the same time, Plaintiff
suspended without pay and forced to pay to keep her certifications and accreditation
current out of her own pocket.
32. As a result of the onslaught of retaliatory charges and continued disparate treatment, o
May 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Tort Claim against the Township, Townshi
Manager Esposito, Ms. Acosta and Ms. Almeida alleging violations of the New Jerse
Law Against Discrimination, including for discrimination, harassment, hostile wor
environment, and retaliation.
33. Amazingly, shortly thereafter, in an effort to bolster the pending baseless disciplin
charges and continue to retaliate against Plaintiff, the Township then issued a thir
PNDA, dated July 15, 2013, charging Plaintiff for failing to balance the Municipal Co
Bail Account, even though the Bail Account had never been properly balanced by he
6
Incredibly, the Township sought to suspend Plaintiff for 30 days in contrast to the nominal sanction imposed o
Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta for similar actions.
7
It should be noted that Ms. Almeida lacks the necessary Certification to be made permanent in this position.
11
predecessor. In fact, Plaintiff had requested permission from the Township
approximately October 2012 to open a new Bail Account so as to ensure the previo
errors did not continue indefinitely and to allow the prior errors to be corrected over time.
34. Plaintiff was forced to defend herself against the numerous retaliatory charges at
disciplinary hearing conducted over three days in February and March 2014. She calle
five witnesses (Annemarie Krusznis, Annette Luzzi, Debra Capitelli, Gina Cicarelli, an
Gabrielle Gallagher), all of whom testified that Ms. Almeida spoke about inappropriat
sexual topics while at work, that Plaintiff tried to correct her actions but she refused t
comply, and that they never heard Plaintiff make any racist comments at work.
Moreover, several of the witnesses voiced their concern about retaliation for testifying
Plaintiff's favor in light of an ongoing pattern by the Township of retaliating agains
those who speak out against the Tovvnship.8
35. In sharp contrast, the Township's witnesses offered inconsistent and fabricated testimony
Indeed, Ms. Almeida's testimony contradicted her prior statements, and the Township'
other two witnesses admitted to discussing the matter with Ms. Almeida and/or receivin
Ms. Almeida's complaint prior to being interviewed by the Township's investigator.
Most disturbing was Mrs. Almeida's attempt to support the charges with blatant perjure
testimony, alleging that Plaintiff made racially discriminatory comments, as no othe
witness, even those offered by the Township, supported such statements.9
8
Indeed, Ms. Luzzi was denied a salary increase previously promised to her after telling Township Manager
Esposito that Plaintiff committed no misconduct.
9
Ms. Almeida even went so far as to fabricate a story that Plaintiff grabbed Police Officer Angelo Quinn's genital'
while at work, a claim which Officer Quinn steadfastly denied.
12
36. Although the Township's hearing officer found that the claims of racial discriminatio
were unsupported, based on Ms. Almeida's perjured testimony, he sustained the charg
of conduct unbecoming. He recommended a 180-day suspension as well as Plaintiff
demotion to a non-supervisory position, with a concomitant reduction in salary.
Accordingly, Plaintiff was legally entitled to back pay for the days she was suspende
without pay over the recommended 180-day suspension.
37. The Township accepted the hearing officer's recommendation, but increased the sanctio
to a demotion of four levels below Municipal Court Administrator.
38. In light of the severe ongoing harassment and consequences imposed against her by th
Township, including the decision to discipline her over and above the hearing officer'
findings and to demote her four levels, Plaintiff had no choice but to resign on Septembe
2, 2014, as she could not continue to work in the hostile work environment created b
Ms. Almeida and Ms. Acosta, who would have become her supervisors.
39. Thereafter, despite Plaintiffs notification of her resignation, the Township continued t
harass and retaliate against her. Indeed, the Township served her with a RICE Notice o
November 21, 2014, seeking to discuss "discipline" and the "possible termination"
Plaintiff even though she was no longer an employee. The Township is clearly graspin
at any possible way to further retaliate against Plaintiff.
40. To date, Plaintiff has never been served with a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action
despite the Township's representations on November 25, 2014 and December 19, 2015
that same will be forthcoming.
13
41. Furthermore, the Township failed to promptly pay monies owed to Plaintiff at the time o
resignation on September 2, 2014. Specifically, Plaintiff was legally entitled to back pa
for the days she was suspended without pay over the recommended 180-day suspensio
adopted by the Township.10 She was also entitled to her rightfully earned vacation an
compensatory days for a combined total of approximately $101,654.39. The Townshi
did not forward any payments until six months later. on March 13, 2014, when it sent
check in the amount of only $17,976.58 improperly calculated by using an incorrect rat
of pay, withholding her accumulated time, and failing to pay interest.
42. Plaintiff is also entitled to full health insurance benefits for life pursuant to the
Township's Employee Manual, as she resigned from the Township's employ with ove
25 years of service within Public Employee Retirement System [hereinafter, "PERS"]
Consistent with the Employee Manual, the Township continued Plaintiff's health car
benefits after she resigned on September 2, 2014. [Exhibit A.] However, after learnin
that Plaintiff intended to file suit against the Township, the Township abruptly an•
wrongfully terminated her health insurance benefits, effective April 1, 2015, and places.
her on COBRA11 status.
43. Specifically, on or around March 11, 2015, Plaintiff received a COBRA notice, date•
March 6, 2015, which notified her that her coverage under the Township's grou
insurance plan would end on March 31, 2015 due to the end of her employment, and tha
10
Plaintiff was placed on an unpaid suspension on February 21, 2013 and was not reinstated until the Townshi
adopted the hearing officer's decision in late August 2014 and imposed a six-month suspension. Plaintiff w
therefore owed approximately $100,000 in back pay and $38,000 for her accumulated time, upon her resignation o
September 2, 2014, minus healthcare premiums and unemployment benefits paid by the Township.
11 The Federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
14
the Township would no longer pay the premium on her group health insurance (thou
she would be allowed to elect continuation coverage for eighteen (18) months). Fo
Plaintiff to continue her family's present coverage in the Township's group plan, Plainti
would be required to pay a total monthly premium of $2,927.33. The monthly cost o
single coverage for Plaintiff is $1,183.10. Plaintiff must enroll by May 31, 2015 to b
eligible for COBRA continuation coverage; however, Plaintiff can ill afford the amoun
of the total monthly premium and will likely lose the health care coverage that w
guaranteed to her for life under the Township's Employee Manual.
44. This COBRA notification is even more evidence of bad faith and retaliation on the part o
Defendants given the clear and explicit language contained in the Township's Employe
Manual, the fact that the Township regularly pays lifetime health insurance benefits t
former employees with 25 years in PERS who have resigned, and the explici
representations made by Defendant Esposito and the Township attorney that Plainti
would receive such benefits because she had acquired 25 years of service upon he
resignation. Moreover, Plaintiff recently underwent major surgery requiring continuin
medical care, and the improper and vindictive denial of her health insurance benefits i
thus harming her greatly.
45. Moreover, Plaintiff has requested her personal items left in her work area at th
Municipal Court on several occasions.12 However, the Township used this opportunity t
further harass Plaintiff, requiring that she show identification after working there for ove
12
Plaintiff accumulated numerous personal belongings over her 30-year career, including, inter alia, a microwave,
desk fan, a label maker, yearbooks, a multitude of personal and sentimental knick-knacks and decorations, counties
personal photographs, framed seals and certificates.
15
30 years and that she appear to collect her belongings at a time when her harassers woul
be present to witness her humiliation. Then, to add insult to injury, the Township h
refused to allow Plaintiff to inspect her work area to ascertain whether all of her person
belongings, which were boxed outside of her presence by an unknown individual, wer
properly retrieved and maintained.
46. Critically, the retaliatory disciplinary charges against Plaintiff have spawned
investigation into her Court Administrator Certification by the New Jersey Municip
Court Administrator Certification Board [hereinafter, the "Board"], which has negativel
impacted her ability to obtain comparable employment.
47. The widespread sexual favoritism evidenced by the foregoing events, and th
disproportionate punishment imposed on Plaintiff, communicated a harmful message t
Plaintiff that engaging in sex with Township employees and/or supervisors was
perquisite to avoiding retaliation, to receiving promotions, to benefitting from th
promise of complete investigations, and to retaining her job. The Township ignore
Plaintiff's 30-year career and previously untainted employment performance and instea
retaliated against her because she refused to overlook and condone her subordinates'
sexual activity with Township employees and made valid complaints of a sexually hostil
work environment. The Township refused to take prompt, corrective action in respons
to Plaintiff's repeated complaints and, instead, issued eight separate charges against he
in retaliation for her cooperation in investigations exposing Ms. Acosta's and Ms
Almeida's inappropriate behavior in the workplace and Plaintiff's valid voicing o
concerns regarding the existence of a "quid pro quo" sexually hostile work environment.
16
48. As a result of Plaintiff's overall opposition to the Defendants' endorsement of a sexuall
hostile workplace, the Township retaliated against Plaintiff by serving her wi
unwarranted and unsupported disciplinary charges, improperly suspending her, demotin
her, constructively terminating her, and taking other adverse employment action agains
her.
49. As a result of the continued harassment, Plaintiff has been diagnosed with severe anxie
requiring her to take medication and receive regular treatment from a psychiatrist an
psychologist. Moreover, her health has severely deteriorated as a result of the stress an
anxiety caused by Defendants' actions.
COUNT I
(Harassment on the Basis of Sex in Violation of NJLAD)
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation made previously herein.
51. Plaintiff has endured a sexually hostile work environment wherein she was regul 1
subjected to sexually explicit and harassing comments and conduct by Defendant
Almeida and Acosta.
52. Moreover, Defendants Almeida and Acosta both engaged sexual relationships with othe
Township employees and were rewarded with preferential treatment, including unevenl
enforced discipline and promotions, thereby creating a "quid pro quo" sexually hostil
work environment.
53. The conduct and comments were severe and pervasive enough to make a reasonabl
woman believe that the conditions of her employment were altered and that the workin
environment was intimidating, hostile and abusive.
17
54. Plaintiff complained to upper level management, including Township Managers Cannin
and Esposito, about the sexually hostile work environment, harassment, retaliation, an
disparate treatment to which she was subjected. However, no action was taken agains
culpable parties who were protected by the Township, which directly condoned an
participated in the misconduct by allowing the foresaid conduct to continue and by failin
to conduct a proper and swift investigation of Plaintiff's complaints. Plaintiff has thu
been continually subjected to a hostile work environment and ongoing acts of retaliation.
55. Defendants are liable for the acts of its employees pursuant to the doctrine of Respondea
Superior. Moreover, the custom, policy, and practices of the employer caused Plaintiff t
be harmed.
56. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants in violation of the NJLAD, N.J.S.A.
10:5 -1, et seq., Plaintiff has been deprived of her employment rights and other rights
has lost wages and benefits, and other emoluments of the position. Plaintiff has sustaine
injury to her reputation and employability. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue t
suffer emotional distress, pain, and suffering, and physical effects due to the hostile wor
environment. Further, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain an attorney to vindicate he
rights. Additionally, Plaintiff has been otherwise injured and will continue to be injured.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally agains
Defendants for compensatory damages for injuries, including physical injuries an
emotional distress, damages for reputational and career development injury
consequential damages, incidental damages, punitive damages on account of Defendants'
actual participation in and/or willful indifference to the discrimination and harassmen
18
committed against Plaintiff, attorney's fees and costs of suit, injunctive relief requirin
remediation of Defendants' discrimination, harassment and retaliation throu
affirmative action, the restoration of her paid, lifetime health insurance benefits, and th
return of her personal belongings, and any other relief deemed by the Court to b
equitable and just.
COUNT II
(Harassment and Discrimination on the Basis of Age in Violation of NJLAD)
58. Plaintiff is 51 years old and was one the oldest, most senior employee within th
Township's Municipal Court. Plaintiff worked for the Township for over 30 years.
59. Shortly after assuming the position of Court Administrator in or around August 2010
Plaintiff was regularly subjected to ageist comments from Defendants Almeida an
Acosta, both of whom are in their mid-thirties. Defendants even plotted her departur
from the position, stating that when she was gone, they would no longer do things th
"old" way.
60. The conduct and comments were severe and pervasive enough to make a reasonabl
person believe that the conditions of her employment were altered and that the workin
environment was intimidating, hostile and abusive.
61. Plaintiff, as a 51-year-old, is a member of a protected class under NJLAD. Plaintiff w
performing well in her position as Municipal Court Administrator prior to her suspensio
and constructive discharge. The Township suspended Plaintiff without pay an
19
constructively terminated her. The Township replaced Plaintiff with Ms. Almeida, wh
is many years younger than Plaintiff.
62. As a result of a fabricated, retaliatory complaint of discrimination by Ms. Almeid
Plaintiff was suspended without pay on February 21, 2013. Almost immediatel
thereafter, Ms. Almeida replaced Plaintiff in the position of Court Administrator
allowing Ms. Acosta to move up to the position of Deputy Court Administrator
Critically, Ms. Almeida has not earned her Court Administrator Certification.
63. Defendants therefore violated Plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the NJLAD. Defendant
committed unlawful employment practices by allowing discriminatory and harassin
comments about Plaintiff because of her age. Moreover, Plaintiff was replaced by
younger employee, who was one of her harassers. Age is not a bona fide occupation
qualification for any position sought by Plaintiff.
64. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants in violation of the NJLAD, N.J.S.A.
10:5-1, et seq., Plaintiff has been deprived of her employment rights and other rights
has lost wages and benefits, and other emoluments of the position. Plaintiff has sustaine
injury to her reputation and employability. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue t
rights. Additionally, Plaintiff has been otherwise injured and will continue to be injured.
20
actual participation in and/or willful indifference to the discrimination and harassmen
equitable and just.
COUNT III
(Retaliation in Violation of NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d))
66. Plaintiff repeatedly complained her supervisors, Township Managers Canning an
Esposito, about the sexually hostile work environment, harassment and retaliation sh
faced at the hands of Ms. Almeida and Acosta. Plaintiff also repeatedly complaine
about the "quid pro quo" favoritism and disparate enforcement of rules and disciplin
against Defendants Acosta and Almeida due to the sexual relationships in which the
engaged in with Township employees.
67. Thereafter, Plaintiff was subjected to intensified on the job harassment, threats
humiliations, unwarranted and fabricated disciplinary charges which resulted in
retaliatory suspension, demotion, and Plaintiffs constructive termination. By refusing t
properly investigate or remediate Plaintiffs complaints of a hostile work environment
failing to comply with its own policies, initiating fabricated, unsupported discipi
charges, and increasing the penalty against Plaintiff over the hearing officer'
21
recommendation, resulting in Plaintiff's constructive termination, and even cancelling he
lifetime health insurance benefits, Defendants retaliated against her for complaining ti
Defendants about a sexually hostile work environment.
68. There was a causal connection between her complaints and these adverse employmen
actions.
69. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants in violation of the NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5
12(d), et seq., Plaintiff has been deprived of her employment rights and other rights, h.
lost wages and benefits, and other emoluments of the position. Plaintiff has sustain•
injury to her reputation and employability. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue t.
rights. Additionally, Plaintiff has been otherwise injured.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally again
Defendants for compensatory damages for injuries, including physical injuries an•
actual participation in and/or willful indifference to the discrimination and retaliatio
remediation of Defendants' discrimination, harassment and retaliation through affirmativ
action, the restoration of her paid, lifetime health insurance benefits, and the return of he
personal belongings, and any other relief deemed by the Court to be equitable and just.
22
COUNT IV
(Aiding and Abetting Violations of the of NJLAD)
71. Defendants Township Manager Esposito, Almeida and Acosta violated Plaintiff's right
guaranteed by the NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. These individual Defendant
committed unlawful employment practices by knowingly giving substantial assistanc
and encouragement to the unlawful conduct by aiding and abetting the harassment an
retaliation of Plaintiff because of her complaints about a sexually hostile wor
environment.
72. The individual Defendants acted deliberately and with malicious animus and exhibited
reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiff's right through their purposeful actions
willful misconduct and evil motive and are all upper-level management and/or agents o
the Township.
73. Moreover, the custom, policy, and practice of the employer caused Plaintiff to be harmed.
74. Accordingly, the individual Defendants are liable as is Defendants' employer, which wa
responsible for the conduct of its agents and employees.
75. Defendants' acts were wrongful, without basis in law or in fact, arbitrary, capricious
unconscionable, contrary to law and otherwise erroneous.
76. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants in violation of the NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5
1, et seq., Plaintiff has been deprived of her employment rights and other rights, has los
wages and, benefits, and other emoluments of the position. Plaintiff has sustained inj
to her reputation and employability. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffe
23
emotional distress, pain, and suffering, and physical effects due to the hostile wor
rights. Additionally, Plaintiff has been otherwise injured.
Defendants for compensatory damages for injuries, including physical injuries an 41
actual participation in and/or willful indifference to the discrimination and retaliatio
remediation of Defendants' - discrimination, harassment and retaliation throug
affirmative action, the restoration of her paid, lifetime health insurance benefits, and the
equitable and just.
COUNT V
(New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1, et seq., Violation

of Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution)
78. Defendants have engaged in adverse employment actions and retaliation based upo
Plaintiff's lawful exercise of her valid right to speak out and expose official misconduc
and violations of law, her right to file complaints and seek redress and her right to engag
in protected speech.
79. The retaliation for the exercise of these rights by Plaintiff includes, but is not limited to
disparate treatment; the maintenance of a hostile work environment; the refusal t

24
investigate or remediate her claims of a hostile work environment; petty acts o
harassment designed to alienate her and frustrate her career progress; unwarranted an
unsupported disciplinary charges, and a retaliatory suspension, demotion and constructiv
termination and other adverse employment actions.
80. Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional right to freedom of speech as guaranteed b
Article I, paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution. Defendants' conduct was in direc
retaliation for Plaintiffs conduct which is protected by the New Jersey Constitution.
81. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1
to 10:6-2, which creates a state law cause of action for violations of an individual's stat
constitutional and statutory rights. N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c) provides a remedy against publi
Defendants for a person who demonstrates that he or she "has been deprived of an
substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of thi
State." Such person "may bring a civil action for damages and for injunctive or othe
appropriate relief." N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c).
82. All actions alleged against Defendants were carried out under color of state law.
83. The Defendants are liable for the acts of their employees pursuant to the doctrine o
Respondeat Superior.
84. As a direct result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has been deprived o
employment rights and other rights, has lost wages and seniority benefits, and othe
emoluments of the position denied. Plaintiff has sustained injuries to her reputation an
to her employability. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering.
25
Further, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain an attorney to vindicate her rights
Additionally, Plaintiff has been otherwise injured.
85. Defendants' acts were discriminatory, wrongful, without basis in law or in fact, arbitrary
capricious, unconscionable, contrary to constitutional and administrative law an
otherwise erroneous.
actual participation in and/or willful indifference to discrimination and retaliatio
equitable and just.
COUNT VI
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
87. As set forth in preceding paragraphs, Defendants have subjected Plaintiff to unwarranted
unsupported and retaliatory disciplinary charges; disproportionate discipline;
inappropriate increase in disciplinary penalty; disparate treatment; the creation o
hostile work environment; the refusal to investigate her claims of a hostile wor
26
environment; increased surveillance; petty acts of harassment designed to alienate he
and frustrate her career progress and ultimately ensure her constructive termination-
wrongfully cancelled her lifetime health insurance benefits after Plaintiff underwen
major surgery; refused to return her irreplaceable personal belongings; and other advers
employment actions. Plaintiff has thus been deliberately targeted for humiliation an•'
harassment. Indeed, Plaintiff has been forced to seek treatment with a psychiatrist an•
psychologist and her health has severely deteriorated as a result of the stress and anxie
caused by Defendants' actions.
88. Plaintiff's various complaints went unheeded, and she was continually subjected t•
demeaning, harassing, and distressing behavior by Defendants.
89. Defendants intentionally imposed verbal and mental abuse on Plaintiff, forced hert •
endure a hostile, abusive, and embarrassing work environment, and caused her to suffe
severe mental and emotional distress. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result o
the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages
including but not limited to, severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment
physical harm, and severe anxiety manifesting itself in physical and psychologic.
symptoms.
90. All of the Defendants did intentionally, maliciously, and/or in gross and wonton disregar
of the safety and well-being of Plaintiff, cause Plaintiff to sustain severe emotional upse
and injury.
91. The Department is responsible for the actions of its employees pursuant to the doctrine o
27
to her employability. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering
93. Defendants' acts were discriminatory, wrongful, without basis in law or in fact, arbitrary
capricious, unconscionable, contrary to constitutional and administrative law an
otherwise erroneous.
28
COUNT VII
(Repleven)
95. Plaintiff seeks to recover possession of her personal property which was unlawfully take
and detained and to recover damages for such taking and retention.
96. Plaintiff has made multiple demands from Defendants for the return of her property, an
Defendants have refused to deliver same. Defendants have also refused to allow Plainti
to inspect her work area in which she accumulated personal belongings over a 30-ye
career, many with sentimental value which are irreplaceable.
97. The chattels unlawfully taken and detained by Defendants are described
particularity, supra. However, Plaintiff has accumulated personal belongings over a 30
year career and cannot possibly list all such items without an inspection of her work are
to determine if all items have been retrieved and maintained.
98. Accordingly, due to Defendants' refusal to allow Plaintiff to inspect the items unlawfully
detained, there may be additional property which must be returned.
99. Defendants are responsible for the actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine o
29
Defendants for a writ of repleven as well as for compensatory damages for injuries
including physical injuries and emotional distress, damages for reputational and caree
development injury, consequential damages, incidental damages, punitive damages o
account of Defendants' actual participation in and/or willful indifference t.
discrimination and retaliation committed against Plaintiff, attorney's fees and costs o
suit, injunctive relief requiring remediation of Defendants' discrimination, harassmen'
and retaliation through affirmative action, the restoration of her paid, lifetime heal
insurance benefits, and the return of her personal belongings, and any other relief deeme•
by the Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT VIII
(Conversion)
101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation made previousl
herein.
102. Defendants have converted property owned by Plaintiff for their own uses an•
purposes and deprived Plaintiff of the possession and use thereof.
103. Specifically, Defendants have refused to pay Plaintiff approximately $101,654.0 •
in back pay for the time she was improperly suspended without pay and her accumulate
time due pursuant to the hearing officer's decision on her disciplinary matter despite he
repeated requests for same. Instead, Defendants waited until March 13, 2015 to provid
30
Plaintiff with a check in the amount of only $17,976.58 for her back pay only at
wrongly reduced rate.
104. The payments owed to Plaintiff have not been paid but instead were retained b
Defendants in an unauthorized fashion. Accordingly, the wrongful actions of Defendan
constituted conversion of Plaintiffs property.
105. Defendants have also willfully refused to return all of Plaintiff's personal prope
that Defendants have unlawfully retained. Defendants have also refused to allo
Plaintiff to inspect her work area in which she accumulated personal belongings over
30-year career, many with sentimental value which are irreplaceable.
106. The personal property owed to Plaintiff has not been returned but instead has bee
retained by Defendants in an unauthorized fashion. Accordingly, the wrongful actions o
Defendants constituted conversion of Plaintiffs property.
107. In addition, the Township wrongfully discontinued Plaintiff's lifetime coverag
under the Township's group health insurance plan and placed her on COBRA statu
effective April 1, 2015, thereby wrongfully retaining the premium costs. This impro•
action also constitutes a conversion of Plaintiffs property.
108. Plaintiff has therefore been deprived of her property and funds by the actions o
Defendants who have assumed an unauthorized dominion and control over Plaintiff'
property and funds which should be paid on Plaintiff's behalf for Plaintiff's benefit.
Defendants have acted wrongfully and maliciously by withholding property and fund
that lawfully belongs to Plaintiff.
31
109. The actions and conduct of the Defendants were egregious and malicious an
were done with willful and wanton disregard of the rights of Plaintiff.
110. Defendants are responsible for the actions of their employees pursuant to th
doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
32
COUNT IX
(Unjust Enrichment)
herein.
113. Defendants have refused to pay monies earned by Plaintiff and owed to her for th
time she was improperly suspended without pay and her accumulated time pursuant t
the hearing officer's decision on her disciplinary matter. The Township instead waite
until March 18, 2015 to issue her a check in the amount of only $17,976.58, not th
approximately $101,654.39 which she is owed. Plaintiff has not been properly pai
despite having legitimate expectations and clear rights to back pay for her imprope
suspension without pay and her accumulated time.
114. Defendants have also willfully refused to return property that lawfully belongs t
Plaintiff in breach of her property rights.
115. Defendants have also wrongfully and intentionally discontinued Plaintiff's heal
insurance benefits, to which she is entitled for life under the Township's Employe
Manual, and have improperly retained the premium monies rather them apply the
toward Plaintiffs health insurance costs.
116. Defendants have therefore received wrongful benefits at Plaintiff's expense, an
retention of these benefits by Defendants is manifestly unjust.
117. The failure of Defendants to remunerate Plaintiff has unjustly enriche
Defendants. The failure of Defendants• to return Plaintiff's property has also unjustl
enriched Defendant.
33
118. These actions constitute an unjust enrichment to the Defendants at Plaintiff
expense.
119. The actions and conduct of the Defendants were done with willful and wanto
disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
120. Defendants are responsible for the actions of their employees pursuant to th
doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
emoluments of the position denied. Plaintiff has sustained injuries to her reputation an SI
Further, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain an attorney to vindicate her rights.
WBEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally again
34
COUNT X
(Woolley v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284 (1985) Claim)
herein.
123. By resolution dated August 22, 2006, the Township adopted an Employee Manu
to provide for personnel policies and procedures. By its terms, the Employee Manual i
applicable to and must be distributed to all Township employees, including Plaintiff.
124. The Employee Manual, when fairly read, provides that certain benefits are
incident of employment with the Township.
125. Under the section "Health Insurance Policy," the Employee Manual discusse
health insurance coverage for employees who retire, take a leave of absence or otherwis
leave Township employment. The Employee Manual clearly and explicitly provides tha
"[e]mployees who . . . have 25 years of service with PERS/PFRS,I3 may continue t
receive paid health insurance coverage."
126. This provision is legally binding as a contract and enforceable.
127. The Township clearly intended to be bound by the "Health Insurance Policy
provision of the Employee Manual, as it regularly provided lifetime health insuranc
benefits to Township employees with 25 years of service with PERS/PFRS.
128. Plaintiff, who worked for the Township for over 30 years, had the requisite 2
years of service with PERS and thus was entitled to lifetime health insurance benefit
paid for by the Township.
13 PFRS is New Jersey's Police and Firemen's Retirement System.
35
129. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the clear and explicit "Health Insurance Policy
provision of the Employee Manual. In addition, certain Township officials an
employees repeatedly assured Plaintiff that she was entitled to lifetime health insuranc
benefits.
130. The Township, however, breached the "Health Insurance Policy" provision of th
Employee Manual by discontinuing Plaintiff's paid health insurance benefits six (6
months after she resigned and placing her on COBRA status effective April 1, 2015.
131. The fact that the Township discontinued Plaintiff's paid health benefits aft
Plaintiff filed the instant suit is further evidence of the Township's bad faith and ill-wil
toward Plaintiff.
132. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach of the "Health [nsuranc
Policy" provision, Plaintiff has been deprived of employment rights and other rights, ha
lost wages and seniority benefits, and other emoluments of the position denied. Plainti
has sustained injuries to her reputation and to her employability. Plaintiff has als
suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering. Further, Plaintiff has been compelled t
retain an attorney to vindicate her rights. Additionally, Plaintiff has been otherwis
injured.
36
COUNT XI
(Promissory Estoppel Claim)
herein.
134. The Township's Employee Manual clearly and definitely promises tha
"[e]mployees who . . . have 25 years of service with PERS/PFRS, may continue t
receive paid health insurance coverage."
135. In addition, Township officials repeatedly promised Plaintiff that she would b
entitled to lifetime, paid health insurance coverage should she resign or retire from th
Township.
136. This promise was made with the expectation that Plaintiff would rely on th
promise.
137. Plaintiff did in fact rely on the promise when she resigned on September 2, 2014.
138. Plaintiff incurred a detriment of a definite and substantial nature in reliance o
that promise.
37
Defendants for compensatory damages for injuries, including physical injuries an•
committed against Plaintiff, attorney's fees and costs of suit, injunctive relief requiring
38
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Please take notice that Plaintiff, CHERYL JEANNETTE, demands a trial by jury.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1
I hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, that the present matter in controversy is not the subjec
of any other action pending in any court, nor is any other action or arbitration proceedin
contemplated.
LAW OFFICES OF GINA MENDOLA

LONG • 0, LLC
By:
GINA E LA LONGARZO, ESQ.
Attorneys for
Dated: April 9, 2015 CHERYL JEANNETTE
PROOF OF MAILING
I hereby certify that an original and copy of the within Complaint, Designation of Tri.
Counsel and Jury Demand was filed with the Clerk of Essex County as deputy Clerk of th
Superior Court of Essex County, New Jersey.
LAW OFFICES OF GINA MENDOLA

LONGARZ , LLC
By:
GINA itDb A LONGARZO, ESQ.
Attorneys for
Dated: April 9, 2015 CHERYL JEANNETTE
39
EXHIBIT A
TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE
EMPLOYEE MANUAL
Health Insurance Policy:
Employees and their immediate family members are provided health insurance coverage
administered by Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The complete benefit plan is on file in the
Township Manager's Office and a Summary Plan Description will be provided to all employees.
Benefits levels for non-unionized employees are subject to change at the discretion of the
township.
Health insurance coverage for employees on a Leave of Absence, or for an employee who leaves
Township of Belleville employment will terminate at the end of the month in which the Leave
begins or employment is terminated. Employees who wish to continue health insurance
coverage for themselves or their dependents under the Township of Belleville group plan may do
so by taking advantage of the COBRA provision for a period of up to eighteen months or for a
dependent child 36 months by paying the monthly premium in advance at the existing group rate,
for each month of continued coverage. For more information, consult the Township Manager.
(Employees who retire with 15 years of service of the Township of Belleville, and are age 62, or
have 25 years of service with PERS/PFRS, may continue to receive paid health insurance
coverage. Employees receiving retiree health benefits must notify the Township Manager in
writing, with proof of enrollment, when they become eligible for Medicare Part A and B.)
Employees who retire with less than 15 years service to the Township may continue health
benefits coverage for themselves or their dependents under the Township of Belleville group
plan by taking advantage of the COBRA provision for a period of up to eighteen months by
paying the monthly premium in advance at the existing group rate, for each month of continued
coverage. For more information, consult the Township Manager.
Dental Benefits Policy:
Employees and their immediate family members are provided dental insurance coverage
administered by Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The complete benefit plan is on file in the
Township Manager's Office and a Summary Plan Description will be provided to all employees.
Benefit levels for non-unionized employees are subject to change at the discretion of the
Township.
Dental insurance coverage for employees on a Leave of Absence, or for an employee who leaves
Township of Belleville Employment will terminate at the end of the month in which the leave
begins or employment is terminated. Employees who wish to continue dental insurance
coverage for themselves or their dependents under the Township of Belleville group plan may do
so by taking advantage of the COBRA provision for a period of up to eighteen months by pay the
monthly premium in advance at the existing group rate, for each month of continued coverage.
For more information, consult the Township Manager.
15
RELEASE AND WAIVER
This Release and Waiver is hereby given thi day ofjialf2018.
BY: The Releasor, Cheryl Jeannette, referred to as "I" or "Plaintiff',
TO: The Releasee, Township of Belleville, Kevin Esposito, Yara Acosta, and Roberta
Almeida, including all of its and their agents, former and present elected officials, appointed
officials, volunteers, employees, and/or assigns; individually and in their official capacity, referred
to hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as "You" or "Your" or "Defendant(s)."
1. Release. I hereby, irrevocably and unconditionally, release and forever give up any and all
claims and rights which I may have against Defendants, with the understanding that the effect of
this RELEASE is to waive all of my claims against Defendants, either present or future substantive
claims arising out of any of the events raised in this litigation, including those that I am not
presently aware of, and those that are not specifically mentioned in the Complaint filed on
Plaintiffs behalf or in this RELEASE, resulting for any conduct of any official, agent, or employee
of the Releasee, and which has occurred up to and including the date of this RELEASE. It is my
understanding that all Defendants and their agents also specifically release any claims or counter-
claims they could have asserted against Plaintiff, including present or future substantive claims
arising out of any of the events raised in this litigation, including those that they are not presently
aware of, and those that are not specifically mentioned in the Answers filed on Defendants' behalf,
resulting in any conduct of any official, agent, or employee of the Defendants, and which has
occurred up to and including the date of this RELEASE. I am also specifically releasing the
following claims:
A. Any and all claims as set forth in the civil action entitled Cheryl Jeannette v.
Township of Belleville, et. al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
County, Law Division, Docket Number ESX-L-1245-15, including any claims
not plead therein or any claims cognizable or allowable pursuant to
amendment against Defendants, including any claims for litigation costs and
attorneys fees as may be cognizable or allowable by court rule or by statute.
B. All claims between the parties through the date of this Release for damages,
including reimbursement of costs for litigation; for expenses incurred for any
administrative, criminal or civil matter; any and all legal fees; and medical
expenses, that Plaintiff would have been entitled to recover pursuant to any
state or federal statute and/or federal or state constitution; pursuant to
Page 1 of 6
antidiscrimination laws or any other employment related tort, pursuant to any
prior agreement of the parties; pursuant to any Township Ordinances; or
pursuant to the New Jersey Court Rules, and including any claim arising for
Plaintiff's employment up to and including the date of this Release.
C. All claims by Plaintiff for personal injury, mental and emotional distress, pain
and suffering, medical bills, loss of income, defamation, loss of reputation,
negligence, state common law estoppel claims, any additional equitable relief
other than what has been set forth herein, attorneys fees, reimbursement for
litigations expenses, and punitive damages against Defendants.
D. Any and all claims against Defendants, both known and unknown up to the
date of this Agreement, including but not limited to:
a. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;

b. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 and 1966;
c. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1991, as amended;
d. The Older Workers Benefits Protection Act;
e. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended;
f. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
g. The Medical Leave Act of 1993;
h. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974;
i. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination;
j. The Conscientious Employee Protection Act;
k. The New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1, et. seq.; and
1. Any other Federal, State, or Local law, whether statutes, executive
order, regulation, or common law, including all suits in tort or contract,
including wrongful discharge, breach of contract, infliction of
emotional distress and defamation.
2. Payment. I am acknowledging that I am being paid a total of $235,000.00 in full and final
payment for making this RELEASE. Said payment shall be paid within 30 days of the execution
and delivery of this Release by Plaintiff. Payment shall be made payable to the Law Offices of Gina
Mendola Longarzo in trust for Cheryl Jeannette, and shall be conditioned on the receipt of a
completed type written Form W-9 and Child Support Judgment Search, Said payment shall be
further conditioned upon the receipt of an executed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. As a
special settlement benefit and in consideration of the Release executed by Plaintiff herein, the
Township shall pay Plaintiff this one-time settlement payment for alleged tort damages
attributable to purported physical illness within. Plaintiff agrees that she is solely responsible for
the payment and reporting of federal, state and/or local taxes with respect to the Settlement
Page 2 of 6
Amount, and she agrees to waive any such claims against the Township for any liability for the
reporting or payment of applicable taxes.
In addition, Plaintiff will be entitled to health benefits for life, to be paid for by the
Township, for retired employees who have 25 years of service as governed by the Township
Employee Manual which provides in pertinent part, "Employees who retire with 15 years of
service of the Township of Belleville and are age 62, or have 25 years of service with
PERS/PFRS, may continue to receive paid health insurance coverage." At the time of her
resignation in good standing from the Township, Plaintiff had over 30 years of service with the
Township and with PERS. Nothing contained herein shall serve to enlarge or otherwise alter the
benefits as provided to retired employees under the Township Employee Manual.
It is understood and agreed that the payment of $235,000.00 and health benefits are
inclusive of any claims that Releasor may have for attorney's fees and is being paid to her in
return for her releasing her employment claims against Releasee including her claims for
damages based upon medical injuries, pain and suffering and mental anguish. These payments
will be made without any deductions for federal or state income tax.
3. Understanding of the Parties. This lawsuit is being settled, Plaintiff is receiving adequate
compensation and Plaintiff hereby agrees that Plaintiff is not seeking anything further including any
other payment from Defendants.
4. No Admission as to Liability or Damages. I hereby agree that the Defendants including all of
its agents, former and present elected officials, appointed officials, volunteers, employees, and/or
assigns, have not admitted to any liability, nor has any party to the lawsuit in question admitted to
any wrongdoing or negligence, or to any violations of any federal or state laws, or statutes, or
Township Ordinances, and it is the intention of the parties to this RELEASE to enter into said
settlement solely for the purpose of amicably resolving any and all matters in controversy or in
dispute, and to avoid the further expenditure of attorneys fees and other costs that would result from
continued and protracted litigation in this complex employment-related matter.
Furthermore, Plaintiff hereby agrees that the Plaintiff is solely responsible for the payment of all
attorneys' fees and costs payable to Plaintiff's own attorney, and Plaintiff hereby agrees that none of
the parties to this settlement is considered to be a "prevailing party" under either federal or under
state law, such that each party herein, including Plaintiff, hereby waives and releases its claim
against Defendants for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to any state or federal law or pursuant to
the state court rules, and each party to this settlement hereby agrees to be responsible, upon signing
this RELEASE, for the payment of its own attorneys fees and expenses.
5. Taxability. Plaintiff hereby agrees that no representation has been made by the Defendants as to
either the taxability or non-taxability of this settlement, and Plaintiff hereby waives any and all
Page 3 of 6
claims against Defendants or their counsel or against her own counsel who has advised her to seek
the advice of an accounting expert in this regard in the event that the federal or state authorities
deem this settlement or any portion thereof to be taxable, and upon such occurrence Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff alone, is solely responsible for the payment of any such taxes Plaintiff would have
incurred. Plaintiff agrees and acknowledges that she shall be solely responsible to pay State and
Federal taxes, Social Security and other contributions or other taxes or penalties as may be due on
said settlement funds, if any, and hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless and promptly
reimburse Releasee with regard to any payment of federal or state taxes, social security
contributions or other contributions or any other taxes or penalties assessed against Releasee by any
government agency including the Internal Revenue Services arising out of the settlement payment.
6. Press. All parties herein involved, including Plaintiff, hereby acknowledges that the resolution
of this lawsuit and the monetary payment made herein is a matter of public record pursuant to the
decisional law of this state, and may not be protected by OPRA in the event that a third party,
including the media, makes a proper OPRA request for such information and/or a copy of this
RELEASE.
In the event that Plaintiff or any party to this lawsuit or their authorized representative is asked
questions by the press and/or media as to the present status of said lawsuit, the parties or their
authorized representatives may only reply that "the case has been amicably resolved." The Parties
or their authorized representatives may additionally reply with words to the effect that "by entering
into settlement of this matter both Plaintiff and Defendants have not admitted to any liability or to
any wrongdoing or to any violations of state or federal law or a rule or regulations, and that the
basis for the settlement between the parties is purely economic so as to avoid protracted litigation
and further expenditure of costs and attorneys' fees," and that any statement made to this effect will
not be considered in violation of this provision.
7. Entire Agreement. Plaintiff hereby agrees that the foregoing represents the entire Agreement
between the parties, and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings, written or oral, if any
between the parties.
8. Review of Release. Plaintiff further acknowledges that she is represented by Counsel of her
choice, Gina Mendola Longarzo, Esq., and Plaintiff hereby agrees and certifies that Plaintiff has
read the entire RELEASE, that Plaintiff fully understands the terms and conditions as outlined in
the RELEASE, that Plaintiff has conferred with her attorney and has asked all relevant questions of
her attorney concerning the terms and conditions of this RELEASE and settlement, and that
Plaintiff has voluntarily signed said RELEASE in agreement with all the provisions contained
herein.
9. Who is Bound. Plaintiff agrees and certifies that Plaintiff is hereby bound by this RELEASE.
Anyone who succeeds to Plaintiff's Rights and to Plaintiff's responsibilities, such as Plaintiff's
Page 4 of 6
heirs, administrators, or the executor of Plaintiff's Estate, is also bound. To the extent that Plaintiff
possess a statutory or common law claim for reimbursement of attorneys fees, costs, or
disbursements associated with the prosecution of this action pursuant to the decisional or common
law of this state and the United States or pursuant to any state or federal statute, it is also Plaintiff's
intention that Plaintiff's attorney also be bound by this RELEASE to Plaintiff's claim for
reimbursement of attorneys fees, costs, or disbursements. This RELEASE is also made for the
Defendants, its officers', agents', and employees' benefit and for the benefit of all who succeed to
Defendants' rights and to the Defendants' responsibilities, such as any of Defendants' agents, elect
officials, appointed officials, volunteers, and employees, or the heirs or the executor of said elected
officials', appointed officials', volunteers', agents', and employees' Estate.
10. Severability. If any portion of this RELEASE shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for
any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court finds that
any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable by that by limiting such provision it
would become valid or enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written, construed
and enforced as so limited.
11. Mutual Non-Disparagement. The Parties agree that no party will make any disparaging
statements, either written or oral, regarding another party's actions either related to the claims
asserted in the Litigation or otherwise. The Parties agree not to defame, disparage or demean
each other in any manner whatsoever. By agreeing to this provision, Defendants are not
accepting liability for statements made by current or former non-supervisory employees made
outside the scope of their employment. In response to all inquiries from Plaintiff's prospective
employers, Defendants shall provide only Plaintiff's dates of employment, last position held, and
last salary while employed by or with Defendants and will state that there was a "mutually
agreeable separation" if asked about why Plaintiff left the Defendants' employ.
12. Older Worker Benefit Protection Act of 1990: Plaintiff understands that she has been given
a period of twenty-one (21) calendar days to review and consider this Agreement before signing
it. She also understands that she is free to use as much of the twenty-one (21) day period as she
wishes or considers necessary before deciding to sign this Agreement. Plaintiff may revoke her
signature on the Agreement within seven (7) calendar days of signing it by delivering written
notice of revocation to Natalia R. Angeli, Esq. If Plaintiff has not revoked her signature to this
Agreement by written notice received within the seven (7) day period, it becomes effective
immediately thereafter.
Page 5 of 6
STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
ss )
COUNTY OF UNAk.
I certify that on , 2018, CHERYL JEANNE!
personally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that she:
(a) is named in and personally signed this document; and
(b) signed and delivered this document as her act and deed.
An Attorney at Law of the State of New Jersey
Page 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, all the terms of this Release and Waiver are hereby agreed to by the
Township of Belleville as of the date set forth below:
WITNESS THE TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE
By:
Name. rrIefi-51 Name: ivl 0.1,44A rit ik,j,,,
Title:`—jc;,—,-If 10t, Title: rn As ,,—
Dated: , 2018 Dated: 9 I // , 2018

Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand: Law Offices of

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand: Law Offices of

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LAW OFFICES OF

GINA MENDOLA LONGARZO, L LC

Gina Mendola Longarzo, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CHERYL JEANNETTE, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff Cheryl Jeannette, by way of Complaint against Defendants the Township of

Jane Does 1-10 says:

Jersey, was employed by the Township of Belleville [hereinafter, the "Township"] in

constructively discharged. Plaintiff is a 51 year old female.

Court located within the Township's municipal building.

as the direct employer of Plaintiff, the direct-acting party, and/or as a responsible p

acquiescence of Defendant Esposito or as his employee(s) and/or agent(s).

with the knowledge or acquiescence of Defendant Acosta or as her agent(s).

failure to prevent co-workers, superiors and subordinates of Plaintiff from engaging

Defendants also violated Plaintiffs rights, liberties, and protections guaranteed by th

Constitution of the State of New Jersey. The purposeful misconduct of all of th

Defendants has caused great harm and injury to Plaintiff.

current identities are unknown to Plaintiff.

named Defendants automatically by reference. As the true identities of these Defendant

While waiting for her Certification to be finalized, Plaintiff assumed a position as Co

Municipal Court Administrators Association.

years, the Township strummed up numerous inflated, inappropriate, and retaliato

disciplinary charges against her in response to her complaints about inappropriat

conduct by Township employees and a sexually hostile work environment.

provisional Deputy Court Administrator, respectively.

been rewarded by the Township with preferential treatment, including selectiv

hostile work environment.

work hours in the Municipal Court hallways.

Manager Victor Canning. As a supervisor, Plaintiff actively participated in th

Enforcement Department and subsequently transferred her back to the Municipal Co

pertaining to a situation in which she conducted an improper background check on a co

worker. This incident eventually resulted in the issuance of a Preliminary Notice o

Disciplinary Action [hereinafter, "PNDA"] imposing a minor suspension on Ms. Acosta

Court Administrator upon her return.

were to continue voicing grievances to anyone, she would never be promoted t

Municipal Court Administrator on a permanent basis. Because Plaintiff complied,

approximately December 2011, she was made permanent in the position.

action to remedy this misbehavior.4

a corresponding complaint. Plaintiff reported this to Chief Judge Frank Zinna o

harassment against Plaintiff on February 15, 2013.

investigation, as required by the Revised General Ordinance of the Township

against Plaintiff charging her with conduct unbecoming and discrimination.5 Th

mandatory Loudermill hearing.

derogatory comments alleged by Ms. Almeida.

was not unilaterally denied by Plaintiff as claimed. Furthermore, Ms. Almeida's c1

specifically including Ms. Almeida on numerous occasions. Finally, Plaintiff actuall

Plaintiff denied her vacation request.

to an unauthorized source as far back in 2009. Specifically, the Township charge

disposition at his request.6

remained in her position uninterrupted. However, at the same time, Plaintiff

current out of her own pocket.

Law Against Discrimination, including for discrimination, harassment, hostile wor

environment, and retaliation.

Plaintiff's favor in light of an ongoing pattern by the Township of retaliating agains

those who speak out against the Tovvnship.8

Ms. Almeida's complaint prior to being interviewed by the Township's investigator.

testimony, alleging that Plaintiff made racially discriminatory comments, as no othe

witness, even those offered by the Township, supported such statements.9

of conduct unbecoming. He recommended a 180-day suspension as well as Plaintiff

demotion to a non-supervisory position, with a concomitant reduction in salary.

without pay over the recommended 180-day suspension.

to a demotion of four levels below Municipal Court Administrator.

at any possible way to further retaliate against Plaintiff.