MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 1 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

EXHIBIT
A
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 2 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

..

BACKES & HILL, LLP

Michael J. Conlan, Esq.
Attorney I.D. # 014071993 ' ..
3131 Princeton Pike
Building 5, Suite 114 ..
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
(609) 396-825 7
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Veyis Sucsuz

VEYIS SUCSUZ, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, MERCER COUNTY

v. Docket No.: MER-L- /0? 3~/ (

NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC Civil Action
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY;
JOHN J. ROSENFELD; MICHELE COMPLAINT AND JURY
BROWN; FRED COLE; ANNE DEMAND
CARDELLO; AND JOHN DOES 1-
10,

Defendants.

PlaintiffVeyis "David" Sucsuz, by and through his attorneys Backes & Hill, LLP,

by way of Complaint, hereby alleges, as follows:

PARIIES

I. Plaintiff Sucsuz is an individual having the address of 77 Winding Way,

Princeton, New Jersey 08540-8809, who was fonnerly employed by defendant New Jersey

Economic Development Authority.

2. Defendant New Jersey Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") is a

public body, corporate and politic, constituting an instrumentality of the State of New

Jersey established and created under the provisions of the New Jersey Economic

Development Authority Act that creates public-private partnerships to assist businesses and
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 3 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

nonprofit organizations with access to capital, including tax-exempt and taxable bond

financing, loans, loan guaranties, and business and tax incentives, with offices located at

36 West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey.

3. Defendant John J. Rosenfeld is the EDA Director of Bonds and Incentives,

and at all relevant times was plaintiff's immediate supervisor.

4. Defendant Michele Brown was at all relevant times the Chief Executive

Officer of the EDA.

5. Defendant Fred Cole is thti EDA's Sr. Vice President, Operations/EEO

Officer.

6. Defendant Anne Cardello is the EDA' s Human Resources Director.

7. Defendants John Does 1 - 10 are named herein in the event that such

presently unknown individuals who may have liability to plaintiff are identified during

. discovery.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Plaintiff Sucsuz was employed by the EDA from September 30, 2002

through September 26, 2014.

9. Plaintiff started in the ED A's Loan Closing Division as a legal assistant.

In 2007, he was promoted to Finance Officer in the Bonds and Incentives Division where

he was responsible for reviewing and processing applications for various funding and

incentive programs.

10. The Finance Officers in the Bonds and Incentives Division draft project

summanes regarding the funding/incentive applications, which among other things,

2
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 4 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

indicate whether the applicants met all of the qualifications of the particular

funding/incentive programs (the "Project Summaries").

11. The Project Summaries were reviewed and edited by John J. Rosenfeld

(Director of Bonds and Incentives, and plaintiff's immediate supervisor), Tim Lizura

(Chief Operating Officer and President), Michele Brown (Chief Executive Officer), Susan

M. Mania (Director), and Maureen Hassett · (Senior Vice President, Finance and

Development) before being sent to the EDA Board, which is charged with approving

qualified funding/incentive applications.

12. When an applicant was seeking funding or tax incentives to locate some or

all of its business in New Jersey instead of another state, it would have to show that the

costs associated with the New Jersey location were higher in order to qualify. The

application included a template in an EXCEL spreadsheet comparing the costs of the two

proposed I ocati ons.

13. · When plaintiff presented a project summary showing that New Jersey was

the less expensive location, he was told that "it was not written well," and plaintiff was

directed to go back and question the applicant about the costs. If the applicant confirmed

the costs in the application, which would cause it to be disqualified for EDA funding or

incentives, Mr. Rosenfeld, would ask plaintiff to change the costs in the EXCEL

spreadsheet so that the applicant could be deemed qualified. Because plaintiff refused to

comply with such .requests Mr. Rosenfeld would become frustrated and angry with him.

Mr. Rosenfeld would then make the changes himself.

14. Applicants seeking funding or tax incentives to locate some or all of its

business in New Jersey instead of another state were also required to provide data to the

3
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 5 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

EDA that was used to calculate the net economic benefit such a re-location would bring to

New Jersey. When the analysis showed little or no net economic benefit to New Jersey,

Mr. Rosenfeld would ask plaintiff to change the inputs to the calculation to make it show

such a benefit. Plaintiff refused to take such improper action, so Mr. Rosenfeld would do

it himself.

I 5. Another requirement of this program was that the applicant had to show that

the competing out-of-state location was legitimate and comparable to the proposed New

Jersey site. On a couple of occasions, plaintiff notified Mr. Rosenfeld that the" competing"

out-of-state locations were simply not real, but Mr. Rosenfeld did not want to know about

it, and they were approved anyway. Plaintiff complained about these phantom locations to

Susan Mania, Margaret Pili ere, and other executives who attended meetings when these

applications were discussed.

I 6. Mr. Rosenfeld also "qualified" many film production companies for tax

credits even though they did not meet the requirement that 60% of their production costs

had to be spent in New Jersey. When plaintiff complained, Mr. Rosenfeld became angry

and yelled, "you don't know anything!" Plaintiff also complained that Mr. Rosenfeld was

qualifying companies that did not meet the production cost requirement to Susan Mania,

Maureen Hassett, Kathy Stucy, Barbara Pierce, Laura Rivkin, Esq., Donna Arons, Esq.,

and Elizabeth Renaud-Roffman, Esq.

17. Another example of plaintiff raising objections to the improper actions of

EDA's management occurred when a non-profit healthcare organization applied for a grant

under the Grow New Jersey program in effect at that time even though non-profits were

precluded from receiving such grants. Plaintiff went to Mr. Rosenfeld's supervisor, Susan

4
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 6 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

M. Mania, and another EDA director, Lori A. Matheus, and pointed out that the applicant

was not qualified because of its non-profit status. Plaintiff also indicated to Susan Mania,

in Lori Matheus' presence, and separately to John Rosenfeld, Kevin McCullough and Sudi

Solomon, Esq., that the project summary did not mention the applicant's non-profit status.

Instead of rejecting the application, EDA management simply presented it to the EDA

Board without disclosing the fact that the applicant was a non-profit, and it was approved.

18. One time, a private school applied to refinance a conventional construction

loan with tax exempt debt. In order to do this, the school was required to show that the

new. construction was built using "prevailing wage" labor. When plaintiff pointed out to

Mr. Rosenfeld that the school could not meet that requirement, all references to

"construction" were removed from the project summary, and it was approved by the EDA

Board. Plaintiff complained about this to Susan Mania and Margaret Pili ere.

19. Another private school that applied for a similar tax exempt debt was

required to show that as a result of the refinancing, at least one new full-time job would be

created at the school within the next 2 years. The applicant informed plaintiff that no new

jobs would be created. Mr. Rosenfeld demanded that plaintiff convince the applicant to

change its application to meet the job creation requirement. Plaintiff refused, so the

Business Development Officer, Tejinder Gill, persuaded the applicant to amend its

application to falsely state that there would be a new job created. Plaintiff complained to

Margaret Pili ere (Tejinder Gill's supervisor) and Susan Mania about this.

20. Later, at an internal meeting with EDA executives and managers, Mr.

Rosenfeld, knowing that the "new job" was not real, asked plaintiff to describe the new

position for the group. Plaintiff replied by saying, "What job? You know that the applicant

5
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 7 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

was forced to artificially create it." A number of EDA managers and executives were

present at this meeting including: Susan Mania, Maureen Hassett, Timothy Lizura,

Michele Brown, Lisa Coane, John Rosenfeld, and Margaret Piliere. Nevertheless, none of

the EDA executives or managers present at the meeting objected to application, so it was

advanced and approved by the EDA Board.

21. In retaliation for complaining about the fact that applicants were receiving

funding or tax credits when they did not meet the requirements, Mr. Rosenfeld became

hostile towards plaintiff. Plaintiff was also viewed negatively by Susan Mania, Maureen

Hassett, Timothy Lizura, and Michele Brown for his refusal to "play along" with their

scheme to hand out funding and tax credits whether the applicants were qualified to receive

them or not.

22. Mr. Rosenfeld, along with Timothy Lizura, Maureen Hassett, and Elizabeth

Renaud-Roffman, Esq. began to: make remarks to plaintiff that he perceived to be

discriminatory; single him out for unwarranted criticism in meetings; and fabricate "fault"

with plaintiff's writing and communication skil!s.

23. Mr. Rosenfeld also started assigning most of the difficult work to plaintiff,

and giving all of the easier bond work to others. Mr. Rosenfeld also began withholding

work, and then giving it to plaintiff at the last minute so he would have less time to

complete his assignments.

24. In the fall of20 13, plaintiff was assigned to help review business loss claims

in connection with the federal Superstorm Sandy Fund. He was told by Meridith Marshall,

Sara Maffey Duncan (Deputy Director of the Office of Recovery), and Linda Kellner

(Director of the Office of Recovery) to simply deny the applications of certain applicants

6
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 8 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

. who were constantly contacting and complaining to the EDA staff assigned to this project.

Plaintiff complained to them and Lori Matheus when he. discovered that some of those

applicants were actually qualified to receive relief funds. Plaintiff refused to deny those

applications, so he was removed from the project.

25. In late January 2014, there was a meeting attended by plaintiff, John

Rosenfeld, Tim Lizura, Michele Brown, Maureen Hassett, Susan Mania, Lisa Coane,

Gabriel I. Chacon, Esq. and others at which plaintiff expressed concern about the

advancement to, and approval by, the EDA Board of applications that did not meet the

qualifying criteria. Mr. Rosenfeld later criticized plaintiff for speaking his mind at the

meeting.

26. Upon information and belief, shortly thereafter, in early February, a meeting

occurred that was attended by Mr. Rosenfeld, Ms. Mania, and Fred Cole, EDA Sr. Vice

President, Operations/EEO Officer, and possibly other managers for the purpose of

formulating a plan to terminate plaintiff for his whistleblowing and his refusal to "rubber

stamp" funding/incentive applications.

27. On April 8, 2014, Mr. Rosenfeld provided plaintiff with his annual review

for 2013. · It was the first negative annual evaluation plaintiff received in 12 years of

working at the EDA. Plaintiff had never before been rated at less than "Meets

Expectations," but this time he was told he "Needs Improvement," and it was the first time

he ever received a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP").

28. Plaintiff realized that he was being "set up" for termination because he had

previously attended training sessions given by Mamta Patel, Esq. from the Attorney

General's Office, at which EDA managers were instructed about how to "paper the file" of

7
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 9 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

employees who they planned to terminate in order to make it easier for her office in the

event the employee then brought a lawsuit.

29. On April 15, 2014, plaintiff met with Mr. Rosenfeld, and EDA's Human

Resources.Director, Anne Cardello, to discuss the PIP, which did not go into effect until

May 5, 2014.

30. The PIP indicated that plaintiff's "[t]ailure to improve [his]job performance

by the dates indicated above [i.e., June 30, 2014] will result in disciplinary action, up to

and including termination."

31. Soon thereafter, the EDA posted a job opening for Finance Officer. On

April 30, 2014, an EDA intern who had recently finished college was interviewed for the

position.

32. In late April2014, plaintiff met with Fred Cole, EDA Senior Vice President,·

Operations!EEO Officer to discuss Mr. Rosenfeld's harassing and discriminatory conduct.

Mr. Cole advised plaintiff to file a formal written complaint.

33. Accordingly, on May 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a Discrimination Complaint

Processing Form with the EDA claiming retaliation, and discrimination. Plaintiff attached

a 7-page, typewritten addendum describing the incidents that he considered to be of a

discriminatory and retaliatory nature.

34. On May 28, 2014, plaintiff met again with Mr. Rosenfeld and Ms. Cardello

to discuss the PIP. Plaintiff was informed that his performance was improving.

35. In early June 2014, plaintiff flied a complaint similar to the one filed with

EDA with both the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") and

the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights.

8
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 10 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

-.

36. On June 10, 2014, plaintiff received a letter from Fred Cole indicating that

he would be investigating the allegations made in the Discrimination Complaint Processing

Form that he filed with the EDA.

37. On July 23, 2014, plaintiff met with Mr. Rosenfeld, Maureen Hassett, and

Anne Cardello regarding the PIP. Plaintiff provided them with evidence, including writing

samples, showing that he was in compliance with the PIP.

38. In early September 2014, plaintiff was given another performance review

by Ms. Cardello and Mr. Rosenfeld, which was critical of work that occurred prior to the

PIP. Plaintiff's performance after the effective date of the PIP, i.e., after May 5, 2014, was

not addressed at this review.

39. On September 19, 2014, Fred Cole wrote to the Director of the Division of

Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action, Mamta Patel, Esq. requesting "a 60 day extension

of time for completion of the investigation and issuance of the final letter of determination"

regarding Mr. Sucsuz' s complaint.

40. After plaintiff received a copy of Mr. Cole's request for more time to

complete his investigation, he received a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC, notifying

him that it was closing its file on his complaint, for the following reason:

Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that

the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This
does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statute.
No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as
having been raised by this charge.

41. Several days later, on September 26, 2014, plaintiff was terminated by the

EDA for allegedly failing "to improve performance following a performance improvement

9
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 11 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

plan .... " Plaintiff was given a termination letter signed by Ms. Cardello, requesting that

he sign a release of his employment claims against the EDA.

42. On that same date, plaintiff was also presented with a sealed envelope

containing a letter, dated September 25, 2014, from the EDA's CEO, Michele Brown,

claiming that Fred Cole concluded his investigation (there was no mention of his request

for a 60-day extension made only six days prior), and concluding that none of plaintiff's

claims could be substantiated.

43. Ms. Brown advised plaintiff in her letter that "State Policy prohibits

retaliation against any employee who alleges that he or she was the victim of discrimination

or harassment, provides information in the course of an investigation into claims of

discrimination or harassment, or opposes a discriminatory practice."

COUNT ONE
CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS

44. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations contained in each

paragraph of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.

45. New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (''CEPA") makes it

unlawful for employers to take adverse employment action against employees who

disclose, object to, or refuse to participate in actions that the employees reasonably believe

are in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law.

46. As set forth herein, plaintiff complained to his immediate supervisor, as well

as other members of the EDA management team about his good faith belief that certain

applicants were getting approved for funding, grants or tax credits in violation of the

criteria set forth in the applicable rules and regulations.

10
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 12 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

47. In addition, plaintiff refused his supervisor's requests that he improperly

alter data used in the cost/benefit and net economic benefit analyses in order to qualify

funding/incentive applicants that were otherwise unqualified. Plaintiff also refused his

supervisors' directives to deny certain federal Superstonu Sandy Relief Fund applicants

who were entitled to receive such funds.

48. In retaliation for his whistle-blowing and refusal to participate in actions he

reasonably believed to be in violation of program rules and regulations, plaintiff was

harassed by his supervisor John Rosenfeld, given unwarranted negative reviews, denied

promotions and raises in salary that were given to 'co-workers in the same position, and

was ultimately terminated by the EDA.

49. The reasons given by EDA management for his termination were pretextual.

50. Therefore, the EDA and defendant Rosenfeld are in violation ofCEPA, and

plaintiff has been damaged.

COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY'S LAW AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION (WRONGFUL TERM)NATION- RETALIATION)

51. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations contained in each

paragraph of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.

52. It is a violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (the "LAD")

to tenuinate an employee contrary to a clear mandate of public policy.

53. As set forth herein, plaintifffiled discrimination/retaliation complaints with

the EDA, the EEOC and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights.

54. As retaliation for filing those complaints, the EDA wrongfully terminated

11
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 13 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

him.

55. Defendants' actions against plaintiff are in violation of the LAD.

56. As a result, plaintiff has suffered damages.

COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY'S LAW AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION (AGE DISCRIMINATION)

57. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations contained in each

paragraph of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.

58. The LAD makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or discriminate

against an employee based upon his or her age.

59. Plaintiff, who was fifty-one years old at the time of his termination, was

well-qualified for his position of Finance Officer, having served in that position for about

seven years without a negative review until April 2014, when the decision was made by

EDA management to fire him because of his age.

60. Plaintiff was told by Mr. Rosenfeld on several occasions that you "can't

teach an old dog new tricks."

6l. The EDA posted a job opening for plaintiff's position, and interviewed a

much younger former intern who had recently graduated from college.

62. On September 26, 2014, plaintiff was terminated.

63. The purported basis for plaintiff's termination, his alleged "failure to

improve performance following a performance improvement plan (PIP)" was pretextual.

64. Upon information and belief, the EDA replaced plaintiff with the much

younger former intern.

12
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 14 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

65. Accordingly, the EDA violated the LAD, and plaintiff was damaged.

COUNT FOUR
VIOLATIONS OF NEW JERSEY'S LAW AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION (AIDING and ABETTING)

66. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations contained in each

paragraph of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.

67. Conduct that aids and abets unlawful discrimination/retaliation is prohibited

under the LAD.

68. Defendants Rosenfeld, Brown, Cole, and Cardello were plaintiffs

supervisors at the EDA.

69. After plaintiff filed discrimination/retaliation complaints with the EDA, the

EEOC and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, defendants Ms. Cardello and Mr.

Rosenfeld aided and abetted the EDA's improper retaliation against plaintiff for filing

those complaints by performing a bogus review of plaintiff's work. The purported purpose

of the review was to follow up on plaintiff's progress under the PIP, but instead they

criticized work by plaintiff that occurred prior to the implementation of the PIP. Plaintiffs

performance after the effective date of the PIP, i.e., after May 5, 2014, was not addressed

at this review.

70. Moreover, Mr. Rosenfeld advised plaintiff that you "can't teach an old dog

new tricks," during his performance reviews.

71. After plaintiff filed discrimination/retaliation complaints with the EDA, the

EEOC and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, defendants Ms. Brown and Mr. Cole

aided and abetted the EDA's improper retaliation against plaintiff for filing those

13
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 15 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

complaints by falsely claiming that tbe EDA's investigation of those claims had been

completed and that none of plaintiff's claims could be substantiated. In fact, Jess tban a

week before, Mr. Cole admitted tbat he needed 60 more days to complete his investigation

and issue the final letter of determination.

72. Thereafter, defendant Ms. Cardello aided and abetted tbe EDA's improper

retaliation against plaintiff for ftling the discrimination complaints by signing his

termination letter, dated September 26, 2014, which she knew contained the false statement ·

that plaintiff was being terminated failing "to improve performance following a

performance improvement plan .... "

73. As a result of these improper actions by defendants Rosenfeld, Brown, Cole,

and Cardello, which aided and abetted the EDA's unlawful discrimination and retaliation

against plaintiff, they caused damage to plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Veyis "David" Sucsuz demands judgment against

defendants, seeking an award of:

(a) Compensatory damages for loss of wages, benefits, pension, pain,

suffering, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional harm;

(b) Compensatory damages for improperly withheld salary increases and

promotions;

(c) Reinstatement;

(d) Damages for harm to reputation and career development;

(e) Punitive damages;

(f) Costs of suit, including attorneys' fees and costs; and

(g) Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

14
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 16 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

' '

JURY DEMAND

PlaintiffVeyis "David" Sucsuz demands a trial by jury as to all issues.

DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE

Pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:10-2(b), demand is made that defendant

disclose to plaintiffs attorney whether or not there are any insurance agreements or policies

under which any person or firm carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy

part or all of ajudgment which may be entered in this action or indemnify or reimburse for

payments made to satisfy the judgment and provide plaintiffs attorney with true copies of

those insurance agreements or policies, including, but not limited to, any and all declaration

sheets. This demand shall include and cover not only primary coverage; but also any and

all excess, catastrophe and umbrella policies.

15
 MER-L-001083-15 03/01/2018 7:00:25 PM Pg 17 of 17 Trans ID: LCV2018384488

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4:25-4, the Court is advised that Michael J.

Conlan, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel.

BACKES & HilL, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

11. /.
Dated:/~/")
,. . .-· By: ~
Michael J. Conlan, Esq.

RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4:5-1, the undersigned attorney hereby certifies

that to the best of his knowledge the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other

action pending in any court and is likewise not the subject of any pending arbitration

proceeding. At the present time, no other parties that should be joined in this action are

known and no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated.

16