Oliver Stone has done it again with "W". Like with his movie JFK about President John F. Kennedy and his ultimate assasination, Stone confirms in "W" what many of us thought and believed about George W. Bush. Many of the scenes can be corroborated in Scott McClellan's book What Happened.
If you have not seen "W," I highly recommend seeing it. If you have seen "W," please post your thoughts about the movie in the comment section of this blog. Looking forward to reading your thoughts.
.jpg)
1 comment:
James A. Squicciarini
_______________________________
Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CIVIL DIVISION
James A. Squicciarini PASSAIC COUNTY
Docket No.: L-4765-08
Defendants
Paterson Public Schools
Dennis Clancey
Francis Robina
Dorothy Douge’
James Marra
Steven Rodriguez CIVIL ACTION
Joanne Riviello
Luis Rojas
Muriel Garcia
Mark Sherman
Marc Medley
Joseph Andriulli
State of New Jersey
Ismael Carreras
Michael Glascoe AMENDED COMPLAINT
_______________________________
The Plaintiff, James A. Squicciarini, residing at 27 Village Road, Pompton Plains. Morris County, within the State of New Jersey, states the following:
1. Plaintiff was lawfully employed by the Paterson Public School system as a substitute teacher in March 2000 and on or about December 3, 2001 began to work as a Middle School Math Teacher at Martin Luther King Educational Complex(MLK) within the City of Paterson, Passaic County, New Jersey.
2. Plaintiff was a bono fide resident of the State of New Jersey when this cause of action arose and has so ever since. Plaintiff has been domiciled at 27 Village Road, Pompton Plains. Morris County, within the State of New Jersey since October 11, 2002.
3. All of the named Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in that they have all conducted business or were employed here in the State of New Jersey during the time when all of the below stated events occurred.
A. Defendant, Paterson Public Schools’ main offices are located at 33-35 Church St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
B. Defendant, Dennis Clancy, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 33-35 Church St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
C. Defendant, Francis Robina, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 33-35 Church St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
D. Defendant, Dorothy Douge, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and her office is located at 48 Mercer St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
E. Defendant, Marc Medley, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 48 Mercer St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
F. Defendant, James Marra, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 50-19th Ave., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
G. Defendant, Dr. Michael Glascoe, was employed with the Paterson Public Schools from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and his office was located at 33-35 Church St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
H. Defendant, Steven Rodriguez, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 50-19th Ave., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
I. Defendant, Joanne Riviello, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and she resides at 181-183 Lenox Ave., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
J. Defendant, Luis Rojas, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 33-35 Church St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
K. Defendant, Mark Sherman, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 851 East 28th Street, City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
L. Defendant, Muriel Garcia, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and her office is located at 851 East 28th Street, City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
M. Defendant, Dr. Ismael Carreras, was employed with the Paterson Public Schools from approximately July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and his office was located at 33-35 Church St., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
N. The State of New Jersey resides in the State of New Jersey and is in direct control of Paterson Public Schools.
O. Defendant, Joseph Andriulli, is employed with the Paterson Public Schools and his office is located at 61-127 Preakness Ave., City of Paterson, in the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.
COMPLAINT
FACTS
4. Since receiving a full-time teaching position with Paterson Public Schools(PPS) Plaintiff had witnessed physical and psychological abuse of students and had one case of alleged sexual abuse reported to him.
5. Udetta Chestnut-Garache and Dwayne Maultsbie were permitted by the Administrators of MLK, to teach students racial hatred and bigotry. More specifically telling them that Plaintiff was a racist, calling Plaintiff an “ashy-ass white-boy,” teaching Hispanic students that they were black and that white people hated them too, and making other racially inappropriate remarks to the students about white people. Complaints about such statements by Plaintiff were immediately disregarded.
6. During Plaintiff’s first year at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Complex, M.M. was a student in Plaintiff’s classroom and his father was and still is a City Councilman, William McCoy.
7. Defendant, Mark Sherman would tell Plaintiff that Plaintiff should not allow Mr. McCoy to dictate how to run the classroom.
8. During or around the month of March 2002, Mark Sherman approached Plaintiff and informed him that Mr. McCoy was upset because of the class policy that homework would not be accepted late.
9. Sherman informed plaintiff to talk to Mr. McCoy, but not to allow him to change my policy.
10. Plaintiff spoke to Mr. McCoy and held his ground as instructed.
11. A short time later Sherman approached Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to allow half credit for late homework and at that time he referred to Mr. McCoy as an “overpowered nigger.”
12. The following day, Plaintiff reported the racist remark to Muriel Garcia and nothing happened.
13. During the fourth marking period of that school year, M.M. told another teacher that he misbehaves in Plaintiff’s class because Plaintiff was white and his father could control Plaintiff. The statement was reported to both Sherman and Garcia and neither of them did anything about the comment.
14. For the record, Mr. McCoy was a good parent acting in a way that he believed was best for his son. At no time did he state to Plaintiff that he was there as a City Councilman and try to use that type of influence over Plaintiff.
15. On or about Spring of Plaintiff’s second full year of teaching(2004), plaintiff had to leave early because he was having difficulty breathing. When He saw his personal Physician that afternoon, the physician stated that the cause of Plaintiff’s difficulty breathing was anxiety. The doctor prescribed Valium for approximately two weeks.
16. After returning to work, both Garcia and Sherman were informed about what had taken place and the doctor’s diagnoses. They were also informed that the racist and harassing statements being made were why I was so anxious.
17. Mark Sherman always stated that he was not getting involved and that Plaintiff had to confront Mrs. Chestnut-Garache on his own. Plaintiff was never referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer by Sherman or Garcia.
18. When Plaintiff finally put the actual complaint in writing he was teamed up on in private by Joseph Savastano, senior union representative, and Ms. Chestnut-Garache in the conference room. Savastano, who had either just become the EEO Officer or took the position shortly later, threatened Plaintiff that she could file harassment complaints because I complained.
19. Soon after, Plaintiff confronted Garache and asked why she would say such things to the children, at that point she answered that she was just calling it how she saw it.
20. On or about May 2005, during an inspection of his personnel file, Plaintiff discovered that his last non-tenured evaluation had been altered after Plaintiff signed the evaluation. He immediately notified Joseph Savastano, a union representative, about the change and indicated his intent to file a grievance and possible a criminal complaint. Savastano represented Plaintiff and both Mr. Savastano and Muriel Garcia assured Plaintiff that the evaluation had been corrected.
21. In September 2005, Plaintiff’s room assignment was changed and he was forced to teach in an old and dusty former woodshop.
22. From September 2005 until June 2006, Plaintiff was forced to teach on one side of the room while Mr. Alfredo Aguilar was teaching another class in the same room. Approximately 50 students were being taught in this room in two different classes with only cabinets between them.
23. From September 2005 until approximately February 2006, Plaintiff made several requests to both Mark Sherman and Muriel Garcia to supply plaintiff with a telephone so that he could call parents when students were misbehaving and so that he could call the office for assistance. Plaintiff’s requests were repeatedly denied.
24. From September 2005 until June 2007, Plaintiff was denied use of a school computer and was forced to provide his own laptop and printer to get the required work done.
25. From September 2005 until June 2006, Mark Sherman continuously assured Plaintiff that there would be walls built in the classroom and these walls were never built.
26. In June 2006, Muriel Garcia assured Plaintiff that there would be no other class in Plaintiff’s classroom the following September.
27. In the end of June 2006, Mark Sherman attempted to humiliate Plaintiff at a vertical math meeting by publicly criticizing Plaintiff for his statements while at the same time praising Mr. Aguilar for identical statements.
28. In September 2006 Alfredo Aguilar’s classroom was reassigned and Martin Rosenberg was assigned to teach his classes in Plaintiff’s classroom at the same time that Plaintiff was teaching students.
29. Martin Rosenberg was known to be soft spoken and it was also known that he had no classroom management experience.
30. From September 2006 until approximately January 2007, Plaintiff had an extremely difficult time teaching because the students on Mr. Rosenberg’s side of the room were so noisy that Plaintiff’s students were having a hard time hearing Plaintiff speak.
31. Plaintiff continually requested that something be done about the disruption on the other side of the room.
32. Throughout the year, Mark Sherman and Muriel Garcia did little to assist Mr. Rosenberg in improving his classroom management skills. Thus, leaving Plaintiff to control both sides of the room.
33. From January 2007 through June 2007, Mr. Rosenberg steadily improved his classroom management skills to the point that Plaintiff considered him to be an excellent teacher.
34. From September 2005 until June 2007, Mark Sherman, Muriel Garcia, and Uddetta Garache-Chestnut(school disciplinarian) refused to give Plaintiff appropriate disciplinary support.
35. Plaintiff specifically claims that the actions described in paragraphs above were done to punish Plaintiff for threatening to report Sherman and Garcia’s their unlawful change of Plaintiff’s 2005 evaluation.
36. Plaintiff further claims that Garcia and Sherman disregarded Plaintiff’s reasonable requests for more disciplinary assistance so that he could better maintain his stress levels and that they intentionally caused greater anxiety to Plaintiff’s in an effort to get Plaintiff to quit.
37. These actions actually caused Plaintiff to make to requests for a transfer in January and May 2007. The requests were made to Ismael Carreras(Assistant Superintendent), Dr. Glascoe ( Paterson State Superintendent, July 1, 2005 until June 30, 2008), and Luis Rojas and they were denied.
38. Dr. Carreras and Dr. Glascoe refused to speak with Plaintiff and told Plaintiff to either show documentation or he would not consider any of my complaints.
ASSAULTS AND OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
39. Plaintiff witnessed Ada Downing, MLK’s In-School Suspension Teacher, beat children with a ruler wrapped with green electrical tape. Plaintiff specifically saw Downing hit K.S.J. with the ruler while K.S.J. spelled out a curse word. K.S.J.’s
Hand was swollen and bruised.
40. Alex Kennedy, a special education teacher at MLK, was harassed by Ada Downing after he reported a parent to DYFS after he witnessed some sort of abuse by that parent.
41. Plaintiff witnessed R.B., a special education student, being punched around by Ms. Coy's Teaching Assistant after he called her by her first name. On another date, this same Teaching Assistant made fun of R.B. when he misspelled a word and a child from a much lower grade was able to spell the word correctly. This was reported to Mark Sherman, Assistant Principal at MLK. In this incident, Mark Sherman seemed concerned and later went to Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that the Teaching Assistant in question was being transferred. He the told Plaintiff should not feel guilty because she was being transferred for other reasons not related to Plaintiff’s reporting her.
42. On or around February 2006, Plaintiff witnessed Udetta Garache smack R.A., a 6th grade male student, across his face for sucking his teeth at her.
43. On or around March 2006, Plaintiff was informed by an entire class of students that Dwayne Maultsbie hit S.W., a 7th grade resource(special needs) student above her knee with a plastic bat. The swelling directly above S.W.’s knee was apparent through her blue jeans.
44. Over the years, Plaintiff was forced to pass students who did not make any effort to pass the class. This was done under the guise of law.
45. On or around May 2007, Plaintiff was assaulted by Udetta Garache by throwing a half empty bottle of Mountain Dew at his face striking him in the cheek. This was reported to Mrs. Garcia, Sherman and Dr. Carreras, Assistant Superintendent.
46. On or around May 2007, Plaintiff reported many of the above named acts of violence to the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office via their website. To which Plaintiff did not receive any contact from any investigator until the end of June 2007. When Plaintiff received this phone call, Plaintiff was asked if there was anything Plaintiff would like to add and Plaintiff informed the caller that he was teaching a class and it was not a good time. The caller, Carl Seltous from the State Department of Education, called back on or around December 2007. At that time he had confirmed that there were previous accusations made to the Division of Youth and Family Services regarding MLK and stated that he had also verified that one of Plaintiff’s claims had been reported. At that time Plaintiff informed him as to the accusation against Mark Sherman which took place after the initial report.
47. In May 2007, a student was assaulted by a substitute teacher. After being sent out of Plaintiff’s room with Mr. Pius, a resource teacher, a male 7th grade student returned to Plaintiff’s class with welts on his forearm from being assaulted with a rubber band by a substitute. This was reported to DYFS and not to administrators.
48. On one of the last days of the 2006-2007 school year, Plaintiff was talking to a male student about planning ahead for high school when Mark Sherman’s name came up. N.R., a female 8th grade student at that time, alleged to Plaintiff that Mark Sherman had placed his one arm around her and ran his other hand across her chest. On this same day, Plaintiff spoke to another teacher(hereafter known as “Victim 2”) in order to get advice as to how to handle it. She informed me that she had found a missing 8th grade student coming out of Mark Sherman’s closed door after being missing for some time on several occasions. These statements were immediately reported to Muriel Garcia, who told Plaintiff that she would take care of it. In September, after believing that Muriel Garcia didn’t follow up on the accusation, Plaintiff reported this incident to the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office.
49. In addition to this the following incidents had been witnessed by Plaintiff in relation to Mark Sherman:
A. After reporting that a male student, R.T., was stabbed with a pencil by a female student, J.C., after R.T. grabbed J.C.’s butt, Mark Sherman told Plaintiff that he would not be suspending either of them and then added stated that J.C. had a nice figure and that he understood why R.T. touch her like he did.
B. Plaintiff was recently informed by N.C., J.C.’s cousin, that Sherman told her to zip up her shirt because she had no cleavage to look at.
C. During a 6th grade class in the 2006-2007 school year, Plaintiff witnessed Mark Sherman with his forehead pressed up against a student’s forehead for an extended period of time.
D. Mark Sherman is presently married to one of his former high school students.
50. On or around September 2007, while reporting the sexual abuse allegation against Mark Sherman to the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, Plaintiff was asked if Plaintiff had written the previous letter about abuse at MLK. The Plaintiff affirmed that Plaintiff had written that report. At that time the detective informed Plaintiff that his office was not concerned about the initial reporting because there were no broken bones or other serious injuries. Furthermore, the detective never followed up on the sexual abuse allegation as he had ensured me he would.
51. Plaintiff requested a transfer in January 2007 based on allegations of a hostile environment that was created by Defendants Sherman and Garcia.
52. On or about May 2007, Plaintiff reported being assaulted by Uddetta Chestnut-Garache in an email and in a request for a second transfer, Plaintiff’s transfer was denied and the district refused to investigate Plaintiff’s complaint.
53. Muriel Garcia and Mark Sherman were Plaintiff’s direct supervisors from December 1, 2001 until June 30, 2007.
54. In September 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to School 26 in Paterson Public Schools. The administrators seemed very fair and professional at School 26.
55. In October 2007, Plaintiff was informed by another teacher, Patrice Speroni, that she heard about my reporting things via the internet while I was at MLK and from that point on this teacher made every effort to make Plaintiff miserable at work.
56. The administrators at School 26 did a great job at trying to discourage said teacher’s improper conduct.
57. Plaintiff claims that the behavior of Speroni at School 26 was caused by the intentional spreading of rumors by employees/administrators at MLK and that said behavior on the part of Ms. Speroni was a continued harassment on the part of the district intended to cause Plaintiff further anxiety and designed to get Plaintiff to quit.
58. In June 2008, Plaintiff received a letter from Luis Rojas indicating that his Academic Support Teacher position had been eliminated and that Plaintiff would be working at School 24.
59. In June 2008, Plaintiff went to School 24, on his own time, to introduce himself to the administrators. Plaintiff found James Marra and Steven Rodriguez, two Vice Principals at School 24, in the parking lot so he reintroduced myself to Mr. Marra and to Mr. Rodriguez. The parties discussed the fact that Plaintiff wanted to ensure that he would not walk in cold to the school in September. At that time Mr. Marra stated that Plaintiff was doing the right thing and recommended that Plaintiff call and make an appointment to meet with Joanne Riviello, principal of School 24.
60. The principal of School 26 made an appointment for Plaintiff to meet with the administrators at School 24 for a day that the district was having an in-service for teachers. When plaintiff arrived for the meeting, all three administrators began to verbally attack Plaintiff for being too honest, when asked personal questions. The following are examples of things Plaintiff was attacked over:
A. Plaintiff had a law degree and intended to start looking for a new job.
B. Plaintiff had been a victim of child molestation.
C. Plaintiff was in the process of getting divorced.
D. Plaintiff reached out to parents of students and created a personal relationship with them and their families.
E. Plaintiff would have social events for the families of students, thus reaching out to the community.
F. Hired students with the permission of his previous administrator, Mark Sherman, to help him around the house.
G. Plaintiff used the Cha-Cha Slide to teach geometric translation.
H. Plaintiff received personal fulfillment by doing all of the above things.
I. Plaintiff had witnessed and reported other staff members for abusing children.
61. The following day, Plaintiff requested that his transfer be rescinded because Mrs. Riviello stated that she was close friends with Mark Sherman for over 30 years and that it was inappropriate for Plaintiff to work with her under the circumstances.
62. After hearing about Plaintiff’s request, Mrs. Riviello, Mr. Marra, and Mr. Rodriguez signed a letter stating that they were disturbed by all of the above in paragraph 38 and that they did not think that Plaintiff should be working in the Paterson School District. This letter contained obvious misquotes and some lies.
63. Riviello, Marra, and Rodriguez were Plaintiff’s direct supervisors from July 1, 2008 until September 1, 2008. While plaintiff never had to report to them because of the time of the year, their harassing behavior caused Plaintiff to request the transfer be cancelled and their later comments to Dennis Clancy motivated Clancy to decide to transfer me to a school that is unfit for any type of legitimate school work.
64. In August 2008, Plaintiff reached out to the Interim State Superintendent, Dennis Clancy, in the hopes that he would be willing to investigate all of the Plaintiff’s former complaints. Dr. Clancy made an appointment with Plaintiff through his secretary for August 29, 2008.
65. On August 29, 2008, during a meeting between Dr. Clancy and Plaintiff, with Masha Federman, Esq. present. Dr. Clancy stated to Plaintiff that he didn’t care if the student had been sexually assaulted by Mark Sherman and that he would call the police on Plaintiff if Plaintiff continued to have contact with former students via written electronic communications. Clancy stated that since the Prosecutor refused to investigate Mark Sherman, he would not do anything either.
66. During this conversation, Clancy was informed by Plaintiff that Plaintiff had serious anxiety issues which required him to take 37.5 milligrams of Paxil per day.
67. Dr. Clancy stated that he was doing Plaintiff a favor by not making Plaintiff go to work in School 24 and informed Plaintiff that his secretary would call him with Plaintiff’s new assignment prior to Tuesday’s return to work. Approximately 10 minutes after leaving Clancy’s office, Clancy’s secretary called and informed Plaintiff that he would be going to School 10 on the following Tuesday and that Plaintiff’s assignment would be 6th Grade Math. School 10 has a reputation for being the worst School in Paterson, but Plaintiff saw this as a challenge to improve the school.
68. It is Plaintiff’s contention that Clancy and Rojas conspired to send Plaintiff to School 10 to maximize Plaintiff’s anxiety levels and to punish Plaintiff for continuing to make an issue by reporting the previous unlawful acts of Paterson personnel.
69. On September 2, 2008, Plaintiff reported to School 10 for work at approximately 8:10am. Later in the day, Mr. Marc Medley informed Plaintiff that Victim 2 would be taking over as the Social Studies Teacher for the 7th and 8th Grades. After telling Mr. Medley that Plaintiff believed that Victim 2 would probably prefer to retire than come to a challenging school, Mr. Medley informed Plaintiff that Paterson Public Schools uses School 10 as a dumping ground to punish teachers and try to get them to either quit or retire early.
70. During Plaintiff’s first days of work, Plaintiff informed both Mr. Medley and Mrs. Douge that he had issues with anxiety and that I was taking Paxil. Plaintiff explained that he thought it was necessary to receive administrators’ support in the area of discipline.
71. Also on September 2, 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to teach both math and science for the 2008-2009 school year. Plaintiff immediately informed Mr. Medley that he was not qualified to teach science and that the law required that teachers in the middle grades be highly qualified to teach each subject being taught. Mr. Medley told Plaintiff that he had to teach Science and that Plaintiff needed to know it.
72. After protesting the assignment and being ignored by both Mr. Medley and Dr. Douge’, the principal of School 10, Plaintiff was forced to write a letter to Dr. Clancy asking him to intervene. Soon after, Plaintiff was told that he would not be teaching science.
73. During a telephonic conversation, on or about September 26, 2008, Clancy claimed that he had never received a request to intervene. At that time, Plaintiff was forced to use e-mail to ensure an affordable solution as to the claim that Clancy did not receive information.
74. Dr. Clancy never requested that the emails stop during a 6 week period of emails being sent. Plaintiff considered this to be tacit approval.
75. During the month of September, the temperatures in the classrooms reached 90-plus degrees. For over a week the district refused to allow any teachers to use air conditioners or fans in their classrooms, while other schools in the district had window air conditioners installed and were also using fans. On or about September 12, 2008, after Plaintiff left messages with Dr. Clancy’s secretary and Plaintiff reported the issue to the Division of Youth and Family Services, the administrators at School 10 informed the teachers that they could use fans, so long as they were plugged directly into a wall outlet. But the teachers were still refused air conditioners.
76. On September 12, 2008 Dr. Douge and Mr. Medley decided to condense the four 6th grade classes into three classes. This was done without any planning or arranging the schedule to accommodate the change. Immediately upon realizing that they did not make new schedules, Plaintiff was forced to take the initiative and make temporary schedules for the 6th grade classes.
77. Plaintiff received the wrong pacing chart at the beginning of the year and was later chastised by Dr. Douge for not being far enough along in the correct pacing chart.
78. When Plaintiff was finally given the proper teacher schedule, there were no student schedules and Plaintiff was again forced to take care of this himself.
79. Mr. Medley refused to provide the materials needed for hanging artifacts of learning from September 2, 2008 until October 6, 2008. Two days after receiving the paper, Plaintiff was verbally criticized for not having any artifacts of learning on the walls.
80. On October 7, 2008, the district math coach came to teach a sample lesson so that Plaintiff could better teach the students. In the middle of this lesson, Marc Medley pulled Plaintiff from the classroom and began to publicly criticize Plaintiff in front of students and staff.
81. On October 7, 2008, Plaintiff was informed that he had to have all 50+ students complete a 300 math test online by the end of the month. Plaintiff’s classroom only has 4 computers for use by the students.
82. Plaintiff was refused access to violence and vandalism reporting forms on two occasions by both administrators and the secretaries.
83. In October 2008, a student threatened to stab Plaintiff in the eye with a pencil and Plaintiff was forced to keep the student in his room immediately following his sending her out of his room. This student was not punished in any way for her actions.
84. In or around the beginning of October 2008, a student, J.S., informed Plaintiff that he was going to assault a cafeteria worker. Plaintiff wrote up J.S. and J.S. was immediately returned to his class.
85. On or about November 3, 2008, J.S. threw a book in the direction of Plaintiff and then made a threatening statement toward Plaintiff as he violently punched through the glass window of the door.
86. On November 13, 2008, J.S. returned to school and began to curse out Plaintiff after Plaintiff inquired as to why he was back in school a day early. He then threatened Plaintiff by stating “I will punch you in your shit.” He was immediately kicked out of the class.
87. Between September 2, 2008 and November 13, 2008, Plaintiff had complained several times about the condition of School 10. There is mold on the walls and ceilings, chipping paint throughout the building, cockroaches, and a generally poor quality of air.
88. On or about October 7, 2008, Plaintiff’s doctor doubled Plaintiff’s prescription of Paxil from 37.5mgs per day to 75mgs, the maximum dose for this type of anxiety medication.
89. Soon after, Plaintiff wrote an email to Clancy stating that Plaintiff’s anxiety medication had been doubled and that he wasn’t getting as upset my there actions anymore.
90. On October 16, 2008, Plaintiff requested that the district supply him with an air purifier for the classroom via an e-mail to Luis Rojas. On or about October 17, 2008, Plaintiff was told by Mr. James Ruff, head of the Facilities department, that Plaintiff could not use an air purifier in his classroom, not even at his own expense.
91. While inside of the building, Plaintiff’s eyes would become irritated and heavy and his breathing would become labored. These symptoms worsened over time. On November 10, 2008, Plaintiff requested a transfer from human resources because of the fact that he was becoming ill in the building and Plaintiff informed Luis Rojas in the transfer request that he had an upcoming doctor’s appointment.
92. On November 12, 2008, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Grizzante and advised that Plaintiff should be transferred to a healthier work environment because of Plaintiff’s illness within the building. Dr. Grizzante advised Plaintiff that his asthma had worsened and that he had lost 20% of his air flow since Plaintiff’s last visit in the spring.
93. On November 13, 2008, due to Dr. Grizzante’s statements, Plaintiff decided that he would wear a dust mask to protect his lungs while in the School 10 building. When Dr. Douge asked Plaintiff to take off the mask, Plaintiff responded that he needed it for his breathing problems. She then told Plaintiff to go up to his classroom, not to pick up his homeroom from outside and that she would call for him after she inquired with downtown as to the permissibility for wearing the mask.
94. When Plaintiff was requested to return to Dr. Douge’s office, Dr. Douge ordered Plaintiff to take off the mask or leave the building and to return after he had a doctor’s note. Plaintiff first said that he would not leave and later decided to take off the mask. No legitimate reason was given to Plaintiff to support why Plaintiff was ordered to take off the mask and Plaintiff contends that it was Dr. Douge’s intent to harass Plaintiff and cause him further illness.
95. After returning to his classroom, Plaintiff was harassed and threatened by a student, J.S., and Plaintiff told J.S. and A.M. that they needed to go to the office because they were using foul language and Plaintiff stated that he did not have to be treated like this in his classroom.
96. Soon after sending the students to the office, Mr. Medley came to Plaintiff’s classroom and informed Plaintiff that he needed to report to the office. Plaintiff complied.
97. Upon entering the office of Dr. Douge, Plaintiff requested that Mrs. Nunez be replaced as the union representative by the Paterson Education Association’s 2nd Vice President, Vera Schemley. Dr. Douge asked Ms. Nunez to go cover Mrs. Schemley’s class and ask her to come to the office.
98. Plaintiff contends that the intent of the Defendants in their actions described above was to harass Plaintiff, to cause him more anxiety, to retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting hazardous conditions within the school and to discriminate against Plaintiff for his disability, more specifically his anxiety, asthma, and his allergies.
99. Plaintiff also claims that his request to have an air purifier or to wear a dust mask was reasonable and that Defendant’s Douge, Medley, and Mr. Ruff refused to grant Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation by denying Plaintiff both solutions to his disability, more specifically his asthma and allergies to mold and cockroaches.
100. While Plaintiff was alone with Dr. Douge, Mr. Medley and Francis Robina, the Assistant Director of Security, Plaintiff began to grow uncomfortable because they kept insisting that Plaintiff talk to them without his union representative. After a couple of minutes, Plaintiff told the three of them that he was stepping out of the office until his representative got there. To which Dr. Douge stated that Plaintiff could not leave and then ordered Mr. Robina to prevent Plaintiff from leaving. At that point Mr. Robina put his arms out and pushed Plaintiff back with his open hands. When Plaintiff tried to walk around Mr. Robina, Mr. Robina closed the door and forcefully grabbed Plaintiff using both arms, his hands, and his chest to prevent Plaintiff from leaving the room. Mr. Robina also identified himself as a retired police officer which indicated to Plaintiff that Robina may be armed.
101. After Plaintiff indicated to Mr. Robina and Mrs. Douge, twice, that his actions were unlawful, Plaintiff was ordered to collect his things in his classroom and then leave the building.
102. Robina and Douge then instructed a security guard, Paul, to escort Plaintiff to his room to get his personal belongings. Both Paul and Plaintiff made three trips upstairs to retrieve Plaintiff’s personal belongings.
103. On the first trip, Plaintiff brought to his car he brought his car an air conditioner.
104. On their second trip, Plaintiff brought the chair he brought with him to the school to his car.
105. After climbing the stairs to the third floor for the third time, Plaintiff informed Paul that he needed a break form climbing the stairs and that he was going to sit down for a few minutes. Paul said that this was fine.
106. After a few minutes of sitting in a student’s chair, a police officer came into the room and asked Plaintiff to leave.
107. At that time, Plaintiff informed the officer that he had been assaulted and unlawfully restrained. To which the officer responded that she was not in the building for Plaintiff and that he would need to get another officer to take the report.
108. Plaintiff left the building as requested by the police.
109. When Plaintiff returned home later that day, Plaintiff found an unstamped envelope addressed to Plaintiff from Dr. Clancy in his mailbox. The letter in the envelope stated that Dr. Clancy found Plaintiff’s behavior to be insubordinate, belligerent, and unsafe. Dr. Clancy denied Plaintiff due process by refusing to speak to Plaintiff or allow Plaintiff a chance to present his side of the story.
110. Plaintiff felt both threatened and violated by all of the parties involved.
111. On or about November 17, 2008, Defendant Francis Robina filed criminal complaints against Plaintiff accusing him of making a false police report and for criminal coercion.
112. Plaintiff was completely honest when he reported the incident to the police and he filed the criminal complaint as instructed by both the officer on duty and by the Municipal Court Clerk.
113. On or about December 1 or 8, 2008, Defendant Riviello signed a criminal complaint for harassment claiming that Plaintiff served her with process at her home with intent to harass.
114. Plaintiff had Riviello served with process at her home by a third party, above the age of 16, without any interest in the claim and said service was made as promulgated by Court Rules.
115. Defendant Andriulli conspired with other Defendants and denied Plaintiff a promotion to Teachers Assistant to the Principal at Kennedy High School, which Plaintiff was best qualified.
116. The denial of this promotion was based on his previous whistle blowing activities.
117. On or about September 26,2008, Defendant Clancy stated to Plaintiff that he was denied the promotion based on his outspokenness about issues in the district. Clancy went on to state that Andriulli wanted someone who would accept things as they were.
COUNT I:
Plaintiff repeats each and every accusation above and Plaintiff asserts all of the fol lowing claims against Defendants Paterson Public Schools, Rojas, Sherman, Clancy, Medley, Douge, Riviello, Marra, Rodriguez, Glascoe, Carreras, Andriulli and Garcia:
118. Plaintiff alleges, based on the above facts, that he was harassed in violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act(CEPA).
119. Plaintiff asserts that the above named defendants conspired to harass Plaintiff and that it was the intent of the above named defendants to harass Plaintiff through overwhelming Plaintiff at his place of employment.
120. Plaintiff also claims that defendants intentionally refused to make necessary repairs in the building in an attempt to cause Plaintiff discomfort which would further their conspiracy to harass. Furthermore, Defendants were willing to place the children in danger in order to further their conspiracy.
120. Plaintiff alleges that it was the intent on Mr. Luis Rojas, director of human resources, and Dr. Clancy to conspire to harass Plaintiff by transferring Plaintiff to one of the worst schools in the district, School 10.
121. Plaintiff alleges that both Dr. Clancy and Muriel Garcia ignored reports of alleged molestation in order to protect their careers. Furthermore, it is alleged that Muriel Garcia used the name of Senator Robert Menendez in an effort to intimidate Plaintiff and public officials performing an investigation. On or about May 2006, Muriel Garcia tried to get Plaintiff to back off from reporting the events of the last few years by informing Plaintiff that she was good friends with the Senator and that he was a weekly guest at her house for dinner.
122. All of the events above that took place within the statute of limitations are intended to be the cause of this complaint under CEPA.
123. All events that fall outside of the statute of limitations are intended as supporting evidence and/or to demonstrate the history of events leading up to the cause for the complaint.
124. Plaintiff contends that all of the individual acts of harassment named above constituted one continuous act by Defendants as a whole.
125. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Clancey was acting as an agent of the State of New Jersey and in the States interest when he acted as stated above.
126. Plaintiff states that he was denied a promotion in retaliation for his whistle blowing activities in violation of CEPA.
COUNT II.
Plaintiff repeats each and every accusation above and makes the following claims against Defendants Robina, Douge, and Paterson Public Schools:
127. Plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of assault and unlawful restraint by Defendants Robina and Douge and that such restraint was in direct relation to the district’s attempts to punish Plaintiff in violation of the CEPA.
128. Plaintiff also claims that the said assault was intended to benefit the interests of Paterson Public Schools and the State of New Jersey.
COUNT III.
Plaintiff repeats each and every accusation above and Plaintiff asserts all of the following claims against Defendants Paterson Public Schools, Rojas, Sherman, Clancy, Medley, Douge, Riviello, Marra, Rodriguez, Glascoe, Carreras Marra, Riviello, Rodriguez and Garcia:
129. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff’s disabilities so that Plaintiff could continue to be employed at School 10.
130. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff’s disabilities so that Plaintiff could have continued to be employed at School 30/MLK.
131. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was transferred from School 26, a location where Plaintiff was comfortable and his anxiety was somewhat under control to School 24, where the administrators, Marra, Riviello, and Rodriguez conspired with other Defendants to make efforts to cause Plaintiff greater levels of anxiety in an effort to get Plaintiff to quit. This retaliation was based both on discrimination against Plaintiff for his disability and retaliation for blowing the whistle on their coworkers.
132. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations and discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disabilities, more specifically his anxiety issues.
COUNT IV.
Plaintiff repeats each and every accusation above and Plaintiff asserts all of the following claims against Defendants Paterson Public Schools, State of New Jersey, Riviello, and Robina:
133. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff in an attempt to intimidate him into dropping this civil complaint and other criminal complaints.
134. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were acting in their own interest and in what they believed was in the best interest of Paterson Public Schools and the State of New Jersey.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDENTS AND THAT THIS COURT:
A. Find Defendants liable for the above named acts and violations of Plaintiff’s rights under CEPA and the Law Against Discrimination.
B. Award Plaintiff $1,500,000 dollars in actual damages and $8,500,000 in punitive damages.
C. Order Defendants to cease all future harassment.
D. Award Plaintiff Fees and Costs of litigation.
E. Award Plaintiff Attorneys’ Fees, if and when Plaintiff hires an attorney to take over this case.
F. Grant any other relief that the Court deems proper.
Post a Comment