IONNO & HIGBEE, LLC. SEBASTIAN B. IONNO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID 025992002 140 S BROADWAY PITMAN, NJ 08071 TELEPHONE: (856) 553-6810 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS JOSEPH CARRUTH SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION ~ ATLANTIC COUNTY Docket No: IT) 1-617 Civil Action Plaintiffs, v. GREATER EGG HARBOR REGIONAL | HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF | COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR JURY. EDUCATION, JOHN J. KEENAN, AND __ | TRIAL, DESIGNATION OF TRIAL JOHN DOES 1-25 INCLUSIVE, COUNSEL AND DEMAND PURSUANT | FICTITIOUS NAMED DEFENDANTS, TO RULE 1:4-8 JOINTLY, SEVERALLY, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE | | Defendants. | _ _ : } Plaintiff Joseph Carruth presently residing in, New Jersey, by way of Complaint against Defendants, states: FIRST COUNT 1. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Greater Egg Harbor Regional High School District Board of Education (herein after “BOE”), was an entity created and existing pursuant to law, doing business in the state of New Jersey and was the employer of Plaintiff. 2. Atal relevant times herein, Defendant John J. Keenan (herein after “Keenan”) was an. employee and the superintendent of BOE and Plaintiffs immediate supervisor who unlawfully combined or acted in concert with BOE to engage in the unlawful and discriminatory misconduct referred to herein, which occurred during and in the course and scope of his employment with 1Defendant BOE, which conduct is imputed to the employer/principal, BOE, as a result of BOE having authorized, ratified, condoned, acquiesced in, approved, tolerated, fomented, or aided and abetted the discriminatory misconduct referred to herein, 3. Atal relevant times herein, Defendants John Does 1-25, inclusive, are fictitious names for persons, corporations, or other legal entities, the identities of which are unknown as present, but who are responsible to Plaintiff by reason of their knowing participation in the acts of wrongful termination, and retaliation with Defendant BOE and/or by reason of their aiding, abetting, authorizing, ratifying, condoning, participating in, or conspiring with their Co-Defendants to participate in an commit the wrongfal acts referred to herein, 4, Plaintiff Joseph Carruth (herein “Plaintiff’) had been employed with BOE as principal of Oakcrest High School from approximately November 17, 2014 until approximately July 5, 2016. 5. On or about October 1, 2015, there was a negotiations meeting between the BOE and the teachers association, 6. An Oakerest High School teacher, Joseph Seaman, was the lead negotiator for the teachers association at this time. 7. The October 1, 2015 negotiations had not gone as favorable as planned for Superintendent John Keenan. 8. In fact, lead negotiator Seamen was holding up certain aspects of the negotiations that Keenan desired. 9. As a result, on October 2, 2015, Keenan approached Plaintiff to discuss the issue of Seamen holding out negotiations. 10, Keenan stated to Plaintiff that if they could break Seamen, things would get better and all of the other teachers would fall in line,11. Keenan believed if he could break Seamen and get the other teachers to follow, he would get favorable negotiation terms with the union. 12, This led Keenan to direot Plaintiff to start a bogus disciplinary write up for Seamen, 13. According to Keenan, he had just seen Seamen in the hallway and he was “dressed like aslob.” 14, Keenan stated this write up would be the start of a paper trail for them against Seamen, 15. Keenan disclosed that if ever you wanted to terminate someone you needed to have plenty of negative reviews and a paper trail. 16. However, Plaintiff felt uncomfortable with this action and decided to first investigate what attire Mr. Seamen was wearing in between his classes as Plaintiff believed that Defendant Keenan wanted him to falsify discipline in order to illegally force union concessions. 17. When Plaintiff approached Mr. Seaman in the hallway and exchanged pleasantries, he noticed Seamen was wearing his usual attire of dress shoes, khaki pants, and an untucked collard polo. 18, At that time Plaintiff did not see an apparent violation of the dress code. 19. To be sure, Plaintiff returned to his office and reviewed the teachers’ contract to reacquaint himself with the dress code. 20. Plaintiff did not see an attire violation by Mr. Seamen and was not going to initiate a bogus write up/discipline. 21. Due to the lack of a basis for a dress code violation write up and feeling uncomfortable with the unethical/illegal practice suggested by Keenan, Plaintiff refused to manufacture a bogus write up on Seamen, which constituted protected conduct as defined under New Jersey law.22, On or about October 5, 2015, Keenan visited Plaintiff's office and reminded him to have Mr. Seamen sign off on his write up so he could not deny knowledge of it when evaluations came around, ea Plaintiff advised Mr. Keenan that he was objecting to the illegal and unethical order as he did not see any violation of the dress code when visiting with Mr. Seamen. 24, Mr. Keenan immediately became upset and irate and stated, “I guess I misjudged you.” 25. From the moment Mr. Keenan discovered Plaintiff would not create a fraudulent write up because of Mr. Seamen’s status as a union lead negotiator and to sway negotiations, Mr. Keenan became hostile, discriminatory, and retaliated against Plaintiff. 26. For example, later that same day, Keenan telephoned Plaintiff and berated him about his “Falcon Chant”, 27. The “Falcon Chant” is a weekly newsletter that Plaintiff sent via e-mail to teachers. 28. Keenan accused Plaintiff of not following the proper format and stated that the newsletter was too positive and uplifting. 29. Plaintiff was told if he did not change the newsletter he would immediately be put on an action plan for discipline. 30. On October 30, 2015, many staff and students wore costumes for Halloween. 31. The teachers had group costume themes and Plaintiff participated with staff by dressing as “Mace Windu” as part of the Star Wars theme. 32. By the end of the day, Keenan had berated Plaintiff for participating with the students and staff. 33. In November of 2015, it came to Plaintif?’s attention that custodians had been told they Were not permitted to speak to him if they had any issues.34. Instead, custodians were directed to only address their issues with the head custodian. 35. Any custodian that was perceived as being friendly to or seen speaking with Plaintiff was given the larger non-desirable assignments, which they believed were punishment. 36. As a result, Plaintiff attended a custodians meeting to make it clear that he has an open door policy and anyone can speak with him at any time, 37. Plaintiff later received a report that custodians were told in spite of what Plaintiff had disclosed, custodians were still not permitted to go to him and doing so would result in a write-up 38. Plaintiff again went to the next custodial meeting and affirmed his prior statements and policy. 39, Later that day, Plaintiff received a call from Keenan and was told that if Plaintiff had an issue with custodians or policy that he needed to address it with Mr. Grossi. 40, In addition, Keenan told Plaintiff that even though he is the principal, he is not permitted to write up custodians or change their policy for any reason, 41. Plaintiff was extremely concemed and confused as to why he was unable to write up custodial staff or change policy even though he was the prineipal at Oakcrest, 42. In mid-December of 2015, Plaintiff inquired whether Keenan had received an e- Christmas Card that he had sent. 43. Keenan began talking about a gift card he had received for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, stating gift cards like that make a great gift. 44, Keenan further discussed there being a location in Atlantic City. 45. Plaintiff responded that he had never been, but inquired again if he had received the e- card,46. Again, Keenan stated he had not, but went on to mention that a gift card to Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse makes a great gift. 47. Plaintiff immediately took this to mean that only a gift card to Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse was acceptable, and in fact required by Keenan, 48. In December of 2015, an issue arose where a parent had children that attended two high schools in the BOE district. 49. At that time, all high school graduations were held on the same date and time, which prohibited the parents from being able to attend both their children’s graduations 50. Asa result, BOE had a meeting to discuss the possibility of staggering graduations to ameliorate the issue. 51. Prior to the meeting, Keenan pulled Plaintiff aside and stated that he was against the staggering and Plaintiff should follow suit 52. During the meeting, Plaintiff was specifically asked about his opinion on the staggering of graduation. 53. Plaintiff honestly disclosed that he was in favor of staggering as this seemed to be a real issue for multiple families in the district. 54, Plaintiff suggested that they have three (3) graduations on the same day; one at 10 am., another at 2 p.m., and the last at 6 p.m. 55. The day after the meeting, Keenan approached Plaintiff and with disgust stated that he heard Plaintiff liked the staggering idea. 56. Keenan continued and inquired who was going to take the 2p.m. time and bake in the hot sun, 57. Plaintiff responded that hopefully each year the schools would rotate the time slots.58. Keenan rebutted that would not be necessary because the sun would not have any cffect on the Plaintiff. 59. This comment was clearly in reference to Plaintiff being African American and was offensive as such a racial discriminatory statement by the Superintendent. 60. In January of 2016, Keenan disclosed to Plaintiff that he did not feel that Plaintiff had what it took to be principal at Oakerest, but should instead go to a charter school, 61. After previous insults, retaliation, and discriminatory marks, Plaintiff immediately noticed a discriminatory and retaliatory undertone and demeanor in the statement. 62. On several occasions Plaintiff became aware of being treated different from other BOE principals by being more restricted and treated unfairly. 63. For instance, during board meetings Plaintiff was told by Keenan that he must sit in the same seat for every meeting, 64. Prior to one meeting, Plaintiff inquired with the other administrators present as to whether Keenan required them to sit in specific seats for meetings. 65. The fellow administrators laughed believing Plaintiff to be joking, however they disclosed that they were not required to have specific seats and could sit where they pleased. 66. Tt was around that time that Plaintiff also inquired with a fellow BOE principal about their ability to write up custodial staff and change their policy, 67. It was disclosed to Plaintiff that this fellow principal was not restricted, but instead were freely granted the ability to control all aspects of the custodial units. 68. On another occasion, Plaintiff met with the Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) President, Ann Stringer,69. Plaintiff and Ms. Stringer, who is also African American, met to review for a public meeting with parents in regards to why Oakcrest had terminated a vice principal and replaced that individual with two part time teacher disciplinarians. 70. After preparing the agenda and discussing the meeting, both Plaintiff and Ms. Stringer were seen together by Keenan, 71. Keenan was infuriated by this and accused Plaintiff of working with Ms. Stringer against him, 72. In addition, Plaintiff was accused by Keenan of working with the African American parents, Thomas Dawson, and African American band president against Keenan. 73. This racial discrimination and retaliation continued through the school year. 74. On or about April 6, 2016, Keenan informed Plaintiff that he was no longer permitted. to write teacher evaluations because they were too positive, even though Plaintiff followed the taught and required formats, which was again a directive to write bogus evaluations which contained false information. 75. Plaintiff's evaluations were of similar quality of fellow supervisors and contained truthful information as Plaintiff once again objected to the illegal directives of Defendant Keenan. 76. Shortly after, Plaintiff received his final year evaluation, 77. With the arrival of Plaintiff to the BOE, they also adopted a new form of evaluations known as the Marshall evaluations, 78. The inventor of this system was invited in and taught about how to properly use the system and the goals behind it. 79. In this system, you write down what you observe throughout the year and then create an opinion based on the totality for the mid-year and final reviews.80. At the beginning of the year, Plaintiff was assigned 3 goals by Keenan. 81. Plaintiff met at least two (2) of three (3) assigned goals for that year, but Keenan disagreed and gave Plaintiff no credit. 82. For example, one of the goals to be met was to have 90% of teachers use technology in the classrooms at least one a month. 83. Keenan in the beginning of the year stated he assigned these goals because the supervisors would ensure it happened and would be an easy initial goal for Plaintiff to meet. 84. In fact, this goal was met, but Keenan gave no credit because he stated it was more of a reflection on supervisors than on Plaintiff, which was a further act of discrimination and retaliation 85. Keenan gathered a list of negative and false issues throughout the year to post in Plaintiff's evaluation. 86. This allowed Keenan to not grant the points necessary to meet the minimum standards required by the BOE. 87. As a result of falsifying and providing an inaccurate and negative evaluation, Keenan was able to unilaterally seek Plaintiff's termination which was motivated by a discriminatory and retaliatory animus. 88. Even upon termination, Keenan ensured Plaintiff would not receive compensation for his unused vacation days. 89. This conduct is consistent with the pattern and practice of Keenan to discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff throughout his time with BOE. 90. In fact, Plaintiff was subjected to the exact practices described by Keenan in October of 2015 on how to terminate and remove teachers and administrators who would go against Keenan.99. As a direct and proximate result of the above described conduct Plaintiff's rights under CEPA have been violated. 100. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly, severally, and in the alternative, for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, reinstatement, punitive damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as is just and equitable. SECOND COUNT 101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-100 as though set forth fully herein. 102, Plaintiff's ultimate treatment, hostile work environment, and dismissal were a result of the Defendant’s hostility and retaliation against Plaintiff in response to his protected class and exercise of protected conduct, which was done in clear violation of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et. seq. (“LAD”). 103. Plaintiff's rights under the LAD to be free from reprisals for being in a protected class as defined by the LAD was violated in a most egregious manner which conduct was knowing and intentional and as a result of which the Plaintiff has been damaged. WHEREFORE, Plaintifis demand judgment against Defendants, jointly, severally, and in the alternative, for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, reinstatement, punitive damages, interest, attomey’s fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as is just and equitable. THIRD COUNT 104, Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-108 as though set forth fully herein. 105. Defendant also failed to meet its obligations pursuant to N.J.8.A. 34-19-7 as it failed to properly display or annually distribute the Conscientious Employee's Protection Act and/or whistleblower policy. iLWHEREFORE, Plaintifis demand judgment against Defendants, jointly, severally, and in the alternative, for compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, reinstatement, punitive damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as is just and equitable. IONNO & HIGBEE, LLC Attomeys for the Plaintiffs BY: 4b, eZ TIAN B. IONNO. 4) Datea: ULE! DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. a Dildo, A L SEBASTIAN B. IONNO DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Plaintiffs hereby designate Sebastian B. lonno, Esquire as trial counsel in this matter. m br bl ~ SEBASTIAN B. IONNO CERTIFICATION 12The undersigned counsel certifies that there are no other actions or arbitrations pending or contemplated involving the subject matter of this controversy at e, and there are no additional known parties who should be joined to the present action at this time. I certify the foregoing to be true. I am aware if the aboveis willfully false, I am subject to punishment. RULE 1:4-8 DEMAND, Plaintifs and their counsel hereby demand, pursuant to Rule 1:4-8, that the Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees, or attomeys provide any and all facts and documents upon which they base any contention that this Complaint was instituted or continued in whole or in past for improper reasons, or that the claims are, in whole or in part, frivolous ) a jut basis C lay pr fact. f . oe ox hin IL SEBASTIAN B. IONNO 13Appendix XTI-B1 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT —[Pxwwenrsyre" “Lier Loo Clea (cls) GxGIex No. Use for initial Law Division | AMOUNT: Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c), _ [GverPaywenT: if information above the black bar is not completed or attorney's signature is not affixed Baron NuMeER: ATTORNEY PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUNBER COUNTY OF VENUE Sebastian B. lonno, Esquire {986) 959-6810 Atlantic FIRM NAME (Fappiesbe) DoGKET eR oe ‘OFFICE ADDRESS 1 DOCUNENT TPE 140 South Broadway yk ; COMPLAINT Suite § go Pitman, Nd 08071 anti JURYOEMAND Yes No TNANE OF PARTY (og, John Doe, Pla) GAPTION Joseph Carruth Greater Egg Harbor Regional High School, etal CASETYPENUMBER | HURRICANE SANDY (See revere sie for isting) | RELATED? 1S THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? Oyes No ae C1YES WENO | ie YoUHavE CHECKED-VES."SEE NWS. 2889/27 AND APPLICABLE CASELAW. REGAROING YOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT RELATED CASES PENDING? ves Wo 1DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES (arising out of same wansacon or occurence)? 1 None Uwovonn Lanene en eke SR Meee nada (CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, PASTOR TE VES, IS THAT RELATIONSHIP: RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP? HE cuctovenene.ovee Cy Frenomecion C] Omen (explain) Yes No DB Fawua, Ci Busness DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTOFFEESBYTHELOSINGPARTY? lM Yes No USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL GASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED DISPOSITION [CAI “holies 1-cleieaeendiaseiiaianl Udbaianosithintenesiabaimninial GI) oes No ‘WIL an nTERPRETER BE NEEDED? TF VES, FOR WAT UNGUNGE? Dyes MNo | certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b). moron Data Lf wae Effective 10/01/2016, CN 10817 page 1 0f2CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (cis) Use fo intial pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.) Track! - 150 days’ discovery 451 NAME CHANGE 475 FORFEITURE 302 TENANCY 399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Constueton) ‘502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt cotton matters ony). 505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (including detarstory judgment actions) 506 PIP COVERAGE 510 UM or UIM CLAIM (coverage ives ony) 511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. 512 LEMON LAW. 801 SUMMARY ACTION 802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS AGT (summary action) 999 OTHER (brety describe nature of acson) Track ll - 300 days’ discovery 308 CONSTRUCTION 500 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD) 599 CONTRACTICOMMERCIAL TRANSACTION 503N AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY (non-verbal threshold) 803Y AUTO NEGLIGENCE ~ PERSONAL INJURY (verbal thrsnela) 805 PERSONAL INJURY 810 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE 621 UM or UM CLAIM dncudes Boal injury) 690 TORT OTHER ‘Track Il - 450 days' discovery (005 CHIL RIGHTS 301 CONDEMNATION 502 ASSAULT AND BATTERY 604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 606 PRODUCT LIABILITY 607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE 608 Toxic TORT, 600 DEFAMATION 818 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT ( 617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION 618 LAWAGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES ‘Track IV ~ Active Case Management by Individual Judge / 450 days’ discovery 158 ENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION 308 MT. LAUREL 508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL 513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION 514 INSURANCE FRAUD 520 FALSE CLAIMS ACT TO1 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS ‘Multicounty Litigation (Track IV) "A) CASES. 271 ACCUTANEISOTRETINOIN 292 PELVIC MESHBARD 274 RISPERDAUSEROQUELIZYPREXA 203. DEPUY ASR HIP IMPLANT LITIGATION 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 205 ALLODERM REGENERATIVE TISSUE MATRIX 282 FOSAMAK 206 STRYKER REJUVENATE/ABG II MODULAR HIP STEM COMPONENTS| 285 STRYKER TRIDENT HIP IMPLANTS. 257 MIRENA CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE 285 LEVAQUIN 20) OLMESARTAN MEDOXOWIL MEDICATIONSIBENICAR 287 YAZYASMINOCELLA 4300 TALC-BASED BODY POWDERS 289 REGLAN S01 ASBESTOS 260 POMPTON LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION 623 PROPECIA 201 PELVIC MESHIGYNECARE If you beliove this case roquires a track other than that provided above, please indicate the reason on Side 1, inthe spaco under “Case Characteristic, Please check off each applicable category [] Putative Class Action [1] Title 59 Etfecve 100172016, CN 10517 page 2 of 2