THE LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS A. ZAYAS R901 Kennedy Bou Tek: (201) 977-2900 North Bergen, Nal. 07047 Pax: (201) 546-5947 ayas@eayaslnwtinn.com April 7, 2015 Clerk, Civil Law Division Hudson County Superior Court 583 Newark Avenue Jersey City, NJ. 07306 Re: Carmelo Garcia v. Dawn Zimmer, et al. Docket No.: HUD-L-3818-13 Our File Now: 200119 Dear Sit/Madam: Enclosed please find an original and one (1) copy of Plaintiff's revised second amended complaint, pursuant to Judge Sarkisian's Order dated April 6, 2015. Please disregard the previous second amended complaint that was Federal Expressed to the court yesterday. Kindly stamp the Complaint as “filed” and return a conformed copy to me in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office, Sincerely, /sf Louis A. Zayas LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQiis LAZ/js ce: Thomas Abbate (via e-mail) Victor Afanador (via e-mail) Judge Barry Sarkisian, J.S.C. (via fax w/o enclosures)LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS A. ZAYAS, LLC 8901 Kennedy Boulevard, 5" Floor North Bergen, N.J. 07047 Counsel for the Plaintiff Carmelo Garcia Tel: (201) 977-2900 CARMELO GARCIA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW Plaintiff. LAW DIVISION: HUDSON COUN DOCKET No:3818-13 DAWN ZIMMER, In her Individual and IL ACTION Official Capacity as Mayor of Hoboken; JAKE, STUVIER, In His Individual and Official, =~) SECOND AMENDED COMPLA\ Capacity as former Executive Director of the Hoboken Authority; STAN GROSSBARD; —} the CITY OF HOBOKEN; DANA WEFER, In) her Individual and Official Capa ) Housing Authority Chairwoman; DAVID ) MELLO, In his Individual and Official Capacity as the Vice-Chairman to the Hoboken Housing Authority and City of Hoboken City Councilman ; HOBOKE] HOUSING AUTHORITY; Defendants, Plaintiff, CARMELO GARCIA, by and through his attomey, LOUIS A. ZAYAS. ESQ,, of the Law O s of Louis A. Zayas, LLC, alleges the following upon information and belief: PARTIES 1 Plaintiff Carmelo Garcia (“Plai ff” or “Director Garcia”) is a Hispanic and long-term resident of Hoboken, New Jersey. Plaintiff's the former Executive Director of the Hoboken Housing Authority.2. Defendant Mayor Dawn Zimmer (“Mayor Zimmer”) is a white citizen residing in the City of Hoboken, New Jersey. Defendant Zimmer is the duly-elected mayor of Hoboken. Mayor Zimmer is sued in her official and individual capacity for purposes of effecting the compensatory and punitive damages demanded by Plaintiff. 3. Defendant Chi nan Jake Stuvier (Chairman Stuvier) is a white citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman on the Hoboken Housing Authority (“HHA”) Board of Commissioners. Chairman Stuvier is sued in his official and individual capacity for purposes of effecting the compensatory, and punitive damages demanded by the Plaintiff. 4, Defendant Stan Grossbard is a white citizen of New Jersey, residing in Hoboken/ Grossbard and is sued in his individual capacity for purposes of effectuating the compensatory, and punitive damages demanded by Plaintiff, 5. Defendant Chairwoman Dana Wefer (“Chairwoman Wefer”) is a white citizen of the State of New Jersey. Defendant Wefer serves as Chairwoman of the Hoboken Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Chairwoman Wefer is sued in her official and individual capacity for purposes of effecting the compensatory and punitive damages demanded by Plaintiff. 6. Defendant Vice-Chairman David Mello (“Vice-Chairman Mello”) is a white citizen of the State of New Jersey. Defendant Mello serves as a Vice-Chairman of the Hoboken Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the City of Hoboken City Councilman, Vice-Chairman Mello is sued in his official and individual capacity for purposes of effecting the compensatory and punitive damages demanded by Plaintiff.7. Defendant Hoboken Housing Authority (“HHA”) is public entity created by virtue of, and pursuant to, New Jersey law. The HMA is sued for purposes of effecting the compensatory and punitive damages demanded by Plaintiff. 8. Defendant City of Hoboken (“City”) is public entity created by virtue of, and pursuant to, New Jersey law. ‘The City is sued for purposes of effeeting the compensatory and punitive damages demanded by Plaintiff. FAC 9. The Hoboken Housing Authority is an autonomous ageney created by state law and subject to N.S.A. § 40A:12A “Local Redevelopment and Housing Law,” which oversees the development and maintenance of federally-subsidized, low-income residential buildings in Hoboken. Political interference in its day-to-day operations, od. including personnel decisions and the awarding of government contracts is prohibit 10. Pursuant to NJ.S.A, § 40A:12A, the HHA hires an Executive Director to manage and oversee the entire agency. The HHA board is made up of seven members whom implement policy and oversee the Executive Director. The HHA Commissioners are appointed by the governor (1), the mayor (1) and City Couneil (5), The commissioners then vote for the chairman or chairwoman, Formally, Mayor Zimmer's role is limited to appointing one commissioner to the HHA, but also has the political influence to recommends appointments to the Governor and City Couneil, whieh generally approve her recommendations. Thus, the HHA Board is often influenced or controlled by the mayor of Hoboken.11. On September 1, 2010, HHA hired Director Garcia, the first Hispanic to serve in that capacity, to a five-year employment contract after successfully serving as a deputy executive director. Director Garcia’ employment contract, which ended on August 31, 2015, was expected to be extended in the absence of any legitimate work related deficiency, When Executive Director Garcia accepted employment with the HHA, he was not required to support any politician or subscribe to any political policy or belief. To be sure, HHA prohibits political influence in the government affairs of the HHA. 12, Executive Director Garcia's duties and responsibilities included overseeing the day-to-day operations of the HHA, including but not limited to, the award of contracts to profes jional vendors attempting to do business with the HHA, 13. The day-to- lay operations of the HHA are delegated to the executive director, who is given managerial business discretion to exercise his judgment and implement HHA policy. 14. The HHA Executive Director is the appropriate appointing authority for purposes of hiring of HHA employees, vendors and independent contractors. 15, Throughout his employment with the HHA, Director Garcia has performed his duties and responsibilities in an exemplary manner, receiving numerous awards and commendations for himself and the HHA, 16, Beginning in 2012, Director Garcia’s employment was threaten and later terminated by the HHA because he vocally refused to participate in and repeatedly objected to Mayor Zimmer’s unlawful efforts, through her poli al supporter on theHHA Board of Commissioners, to advance her political agenda and discriminatory policies within that organization, 17, Inoraround September 2002, Mayor Zimmer and her family moved to Hoboken from Manhattan. Soon after mo ng to Hoboken, Mayor Zimmer, her husband, Stan Grossbard and political allies, most of whom are white and affluent, sought to transform Hoboke to a white community to reflect their own political, class, and ethnic backgrounds. 18. To carry out her vision of a Hoboken, Mayor Zimmer with the participation of her husband and political supporters on the City Couneil and other government agencies, sought to implement an unwritten and unlawful policy of systematically replacing members of Hoboken’s “Old Guard,” a group predominantly composed of working class and long-term Hoboken residents of African American, Italian, and Hispanics background, and displacing them with mostly white, affluent individuals from outside of Hoboken, commonly referred to as the “New Guard.” 19. Within political circles in Hoboken, Mayor Zimmer is perceived as representing the interest of and receiving political support from the New Guard, whereas the Old Guard is seen as antagonistic to her policies, By replacing the Old Guard with the New Guard, Mayor Zimmer has been able to execute her policies throughout the City Hall and elsewhere, 20. To execute her unlawful and discriminatory policies, Mayor Zimmer relies upon a political patronage system that rewards her political supporters, who are mostly white and affluent, while punishing her political opponents, who are mostly minorities, and working class.21. Mayor Zimmer's policies were first executed in City Hall, For example, when Mayor Zimmer first became mayor, she surrounded herself with New Guard appointinents, which were all white with the exception of one, Angel Alicia, the first Hispanic Director of Public Safety that Hoboken ever had, Although Mayor Zimmer initially kept Ange! Alicia as a leftover from the previous administration, she later fired him because of his association as an Old Guard and race/ethnicity. 22, In January 2, 2014, a Hudson County jury found that Mayor Zimmer unlawfully discriminated against Angel Alicia on basis of his race and ethnicity when she fired him in April 2011. ‘The jury awarded Angel Alicia over $1.2 million, including punitive damages because of Mayor Zimmer’s particularly egregious conduct. 23. ‘Throughout Mayor Zimmer’s Administration, she has selectively targeted Old Guard employees and minorities for harsher treatment than members of the New and affluent, Guard, who are predominantly w ‘or example, Mayor Zimmer's unfair {treatment of Old Guard and minorities was the object of complaints by the President of the Hoboken Branch of the NAACP and the Hoboken Chief of Police. Despite their complaints of unfair treatment and discrimination, the City of Hoboken and Mayor Zimmer failed to take any remedial action to stop it. 24. Mayor mer's policies are unlawful because they (1) condition government benefits, privileges and rights based on political affiliation and belief: and (2) unlawfully discriminate against individuals on the basis of race and ethnicity, whether as it concems their employment or housing 25. Mayor Zimmer's unlawful policies are not limited to City Hall, Through her political appointments and support of her allies on other municipal agencies inHoboken, Mayor Zimmer is enabled carry out her unlawful policies in such government agencies as the Hoboken Board of Education, Hoboken Zoning Board, Hoboken Planning Board, and the Hoboken Housing Authority. 26. With regard to the HHA, Mayor Zimmer considered the HHA as an important government agency to implement not only her unlawful political patronage policy, but also to implement her discriminatory housing policies by displacing minorities from their homes in order to make room for mostly white, affluent individuals. 27. Because the HIHA represents thousands of mostly minority residents (Old Guard members), which generally do not support Mayor Zimmer or her policies, Mayor Zimmer pereeives them as a discrete political group obstructing the implementation of her political and discriminatory housing policies in Hoboken. 28, Beginning in May of 2012 and continuing to the present, Mayor Zimmer sought to execute her unlawful and discriminatory policies by taking control of the HHA. and exerting undue influence over the day-to-day operations of the HHA. This includes, but not limited to, awarding government contracts, making personnel decisions, and construction projects based on political affiliation, Such unlawful influence and interference, which Plaintiff repeatedly complained about, violates state civil and 5 (Theft by Extortion), § 2C:27-2 (Bribery), NLS.A. § 2C and N.LS.A. § 2C:30-2 (Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official). 29, To carry out Mayor Zimmer's unlawful policies with the HHA, she needed to control not only the HHA Board of Commissioners, but also HHA Director Garcia, In the event Director Garcia refused to support her policies, Mayor Zimmer and her political supporters on the HHA would resort to a pattern of threats, harassment,intimidation and extortion to force his resignation or, in the alternative, replace him with a political supporter. 30. Initially, Mayor Zimmer, her husband and political supporters on the HHA. threaten and coerced Director Gareia to support Mayor Zimmer's policies in the HHA. On or about May 8, 2012, for example, Mayor Zimmer explicitly asked Director Gareia to support her policies in the HHA, including replacing Board Commissioner Jean Rodriguez, the longest serving HHA board member, as Chairwoman of the HHA because she did not support Mayor Zimmer's policies in the HHA, 31. Mayor Zimmer also (old Director Garcia that Chairwoman Rodriguez’ son was a Hoboken employee who was facing disciplinary charges. ‘The clear implication of that remark by Mayor Zimmer was that if Chairwoman Rodriquez voluntarily stepped down, her son would not get fired. When Chairwoman Rodriguez refused to stepped down as HIA Chairwoman and make space for a pro-Mayor Zimmer supporter, her son's employment was terminated from the City of Hoboken, 32, Not only did Director Garcia verbally expressed his objection in removing Chairwoman Rodriguez, in particular, but he refused to politically support Mayor Zimmer's policies as to the HHA, in general. 33. Grossbard, who serves as Mayor Zimmer's political adviser, acts as a liason between the Mayor Zimmer and Hoboken with the HAA to communicate and coordinate Mayor Zimmer’s policies within the HHA. Grossbard conspired with Mayor Zimmer and Chairman Stuvier to threaten Director Garcii s employment because of protected speech and refusal to politically support Mayor Zimmer’s policies directed atthe HHA. Ina lunch meeting in 20013, Grossbard threaten Director Garcia that unless he implemented Mayor Zimmer's policies his employment with the HHA. was at risk. 34, Chairman Stuvier acting in concert with Mayor Zimmer and Grossbard admitted to Director Garcia that unless he politically supported Mayor Zimmer's policies his employment was at risk. Director Garcia told Chairman Stuvier that he refused to go along with any such illegal undertaken or corrupt the workings of the HHA. 35. On several occasions, Director Garcia complained to Mayor Zimmer and the HHA that they were violating the state law and HHA regulations, including N jes and her §40A:12A-17, Direotor Garcia repeatedly objected to Mayor Zimmer's pol overt threats 36, Despite the Mayor Zimmer’s threats to his employment and the chilling effect those threats made on his protected activities, Director Garcia continued to express. his opposition to and refusal to participate in Mayor Zimmer's scheme to use the HHA as. ‘a means to advance Mayor Zimmer’s political and racially motived discriminatory policies and/or reward her political allies. 37. Despite her lack of authority to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the HHA, directly through her political supporters on the HIMIA resorted to a pattern of threats, intimidation, harassment and extortion directed at Director Garcia to compel his cooperation to implement Mayor Zimmer policies or replace him with someone who would support her policies. 38. Additionally, the Mayor Zimmer, Grossbard and Chairman Stuvier also threaten and otherwise retaliated against Director Garcia because of his speech and refusal to join or implement Mayor Zimmer's unlawful and discriminatory policies.39. Despite Mayor Zimmer and the Defendants’ threats to his employment, Director Garcia continued to object to and refused to participate in Mayor Zimmer's unlawful policies in the HHA because he reasonably believed they were unlawful, both. civilly and criminally; in violation of N.LS.A. § 40A:12A-I7, and NJ.S.A. § 20:27-12 (corruption of a public resource) 40. rector Garcia disclosed to outside law enforcement agencies the aforementioned illegal activities in an effort to report Mayor Zimmer’s violation of law. r example, Director Garcia wrote to and met with members of HUD, Department of ‘Community Affairs, the New Jersey Atorney General's Office, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Office of the Inspector General complaining of Mayor ‘Zimmer's unlawful political influence and control over the HHA, and his reasonable: belief that Mayor Zimmer’s conduct violated civil and criminal laws. 41. The Defendants were all aware of the actions that Director Gareia was engaged in such protected activities, including the filing of a lawsuit in Superior Court bring to light the Defendants’ wrongdoing. 42. Asa result of Director Garcia’s refusal to participate in and objection to the implementation of Mayor Zimmer’s policies in the HHA, Mayor Zimmer had to replace Director Zimmer with someone who shared her political agenda and policies. Gareia 43. In August 13, 2013, Director Gareia filed a civil rights lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court alleging the aforementioned discriminatory and retaliatory practi -s by Mayor Zimmer and her political supporters. In that lawsuit, Director Garcia complained that Mayor Zimmer and her political supporters engaged in unlawfulviolations of law, pattern of retaliation and discriminatory conduct, which he reasonably believed violated civil and criminal state statues, N.J.S.A. § 40A-12A, and N.LS.A. § 2C:27-12. In particular, N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-12 makes the corruption of public resources @ crime under New Jersey law. 44, Furthermore, Director Garcia reasonably believed and alleged in that lawsuit that he was unlawfully discriminated against by Mayor Zimmer and the HHA because of his race and ethnicity, as well as opposition to Mayor Zimmer's dis inatory housing policies designed to replace minorities in Hoboken and replace them with white and affluent 45. In that lawsuit, Director Garcia alleged that Mayor Zimmer, her husband, the HHA, and the former HHA, Jake Stuvier engaged in violations of law, including but not limited to, unlawful violations of HHA rules and regulations; discriminatory and al and wronging, including but not retaliatory employment practices, and other cri limited to, N § 2C:16-1a(3) (Bias Intimidation), Harassment under N.LS.A. § 20:33-4 46. In addition to the filing of the lawsuit, Director Garcia continued to report and complaint of Mayor Zimmer’s unlawful policies and violation of law by complaining about her conduct to the HHA, the Housing and Urban Development, and other law enforcement agencies. 47. _ Inhis lawsuit, Director Garcia complained about (1) Mayor Zimmer's conspiracy with her husband and former HHA Chairman Stuvier to carry out her political patronage policies in the HHA; (2) Mayor Zimmer through her political supporters on the HHA and elsewhere to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the mMHHA; (3) Mayor Zimmer and the HHA efforts to award governmental contraets to Mayor Zimmer's political supporters; and (4) creating a hostile work environment to force Director Garcia’ forced resignation or termination 48, Instead of taking remedial action afler the lawsuit was filed to stop the wrongful, if not eriminal, actions taken by Mayor Zimmer and her political supporters, the HHA embarked upon an unprecedented campaign to retaliate against Director Garcia for fi ng the lawsuit and disclosing the widespread allegations of corruption and government malfeasant within the HHA. 49, In response to the filing of Director Garcia’ lawsuit, a protected activity under New Jersey's Constitution, the Defendants escalated their pattern of threats, intimidation and harassment of Director Garcia, 50, In January 2014, Mayor Zimmer and her political supporters took control over the HHA by appointing three (3) political supporters to its board, Chairwoman rector Garcia’ lawsuit Wefer, David Denning, and James Sanford. Before the filing of | in August 2013, Mayor Zimmer did not effectively control the HHA board. Since January 2014, however, Mayor Zimmer had a majority control of the board. 51. Asa-result of takeover of the HHA board, Mayor Zimmer, by and through. her political supporters, participates in all personnel decisions and the award of professional contracts with little, if any, political opposition, The take-over the HHA also provided Mayor Zimmer the opportunity to award HHA contracts to her political supporters, such as lawyers, accountants, and public relations companies. 1252. Mayor mmer and the City of Hoboken is, in effet, a joint employer along with HHA, supposedly an autonomous government agency, for purposes of participating in personnel decisions 53. Because of the filing of his lawsuit and association with the Old Guard, the Defendants conspired to threaten Director Garcia’ employment and, thus, his. involuntary resignation by making baseless accusations involving alleged criminal activity and unfair criticism bearing on his professional reputation, while simultaneously obstructing the legitimate business of the HHA, which was still recovering from the damaging effects of Hurricane Sandy. 54, 1g lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court, the Defendants needed to fabricate or exaggerate problems at the HHA as a pretext 10 terminate Director Garcia's employment and thus cover-up their true unlawful intentions to retaliate, humiliate, and discriminate against him, 55. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Defendants directly and indirectly created unreasonable obstacles and distractions at the HHA to interfere with Director Gareia’ work performance and then unfairly blame him for the very problems the Defendants had caused, By fostering a hostile and intolerable environment for Director Garcia, the Defendants scheme to force his resignation or replace him with a Mayor ‘Zimmer political supporter. 56. For example, Chairwoman Wefer repeatedly harassed, intimidated and threatened Director Gareia regarding his work performance, including falsely accusing and portraying Director Garcia of official misconduct and other misconduct bearing on his professional competence and reputation, 1357. For example, on May 25, 2014, Chairwoman Wefer retaliated against Director Gar by defaming or otherwise portraying him in a false light to the public by accusing Director Garcia of criminal activity in the Sunday edition of The Hoboken Reporter. According, to Chairwoman Wefer: “When you're handling taxpayers money, the rent money that belongs to the residents, you really want fo avoid even the appearance of improprieties and these contracts and contributions ate extremely questionable “Pm expres ng serious concerns about whether the HHA is following the proper procurement laws or breaking bidding laws, and about whether it’s proper for campaign contributions to come from businesses the HHA is doing business with. But 1 think it’s very evident that there's a conflict of interest there.” 58, imilarly Vice Chairman Mello echo similar negative remarks against n public suggesting that Director Garcia was not performing his duties as executive director in a competent manner and was also engaged in criminal activities, 59. Chairwoman Wefer’s public statements to the media were part of the Defendants* cheme to not only threaten Director Garcia’ employment, but also punish and discredit him as a victim of unlawful discrimination, whistleblower and vocal eritic immer. of Mayor 60. The Chairwoman Wefer” press statements were intended to humiliate him in public and destroy his profe: ional reputation. 61. The Defendants’ relentless attacked on Director Garcia was intended to deflect attention from his allegations in the lawsuit conceming Mayor Zimmer’s unlawful and discriminatory policies in the HHA, including the mass displacement of minorities to 14make room for wealthy, white residents and award government contracts to her political supporters. 62. Director Garcia complained (o the HHA and others about Chairwoman We and Vice-Chairman Mello unlawful and continuous retaliation. Despite his complaints, the HHA took no remedial action to stop it. 63. The Defendants also used politically allied bloggers to retaliate against Director Garcia by defaming and disparaging him because of his failure to support Mayor Zimmer's policies and create adverse public opinion against him. 64, Defendants further threaten Director Garcia’ employment and retaliated ent. For against him by reporting the above baseless criminal allegations to law enfore: example, Chairwoman Wefer contacted law enforcement to complain about Director Garcia's illegal activities, knowing or should have known that they were false. 65. Notwithstanding the lack of any probable cause to believe any crime was ‘committed, the Defendants sought to create the perception that Director Garcia had been ‘engaged in wrongdoing to retaliate against him by damaging his professional reputation, creating unnecessary stress to him and his family. 66. ince the chances of any criminal wrongdoing by Director Garcia was extremely unlikely to be proven (precisely because he was innocent of any such wrongdoing) Mayor Zimmer and Chairwoman Wefer and Vice-Chairman Mello and the an other political supporters on the HHA board voted improperly in June 2014 to outside special counsel to conduct a so-call investigation of the HHA procurement practices and other matters relating to Director Garcia’ work performance.67, The real purpose of the hiring the above special counsel was to trump up false and misleading allegations against Director Garcia as a means to fire him for cause The resolution to hire special counsel was intended by the Defendants as a threat to Director Garcia’ employment because the special counsel was widely known to have cd a lawsuit against a Guttenberg housing authority employee for reporting public corruption in that agency. The Defendants expected the same retaliatory legal strategy against Director Gare 68. When HHA regulations prohibited the hiting of said outside counsel, the Defendants were faced with a dilemma, The Defendants” efforts to fabr ate a pretext to fire Director Garcia was not successful because Director Garcia refused to resigned, his work performance was excellent, and there was no cause to terminate his employment contract. 69, Sometime in the summer of 2014, the Defendant sought to create a procurement committee in order to by-pass Director Garcia’ role as the appointing authority to award government contracts. The HHA counsel, however, advised the Vice- Chairman Mello that only Director Gareia had the appointing powers granted by his employment contract to award professional contracts. The HHA counsel advised that as, Jong as Director Garcia is the executive director, any recommendations for appointments must go through him. 70. Asa result of that legal opinion, the Defendants recognized and agreed that Director Garcia had to be fired immediately in order to award professional contracts to Mayor Zimmer’ political supporters.71. Mayor Zimmer, Chairwoman Wefer and Vice Chairman Mello and the other political supporters on the HHA, conspired to terminate Director Garcia because of his lack of political support to Mayor Zimmer, association with the Old Guard, the filing of the lawsuit, and his protected status as a Hispanic civic leader in the community. Not surprisingly, Vice-Chairman Mello, a openly pro-Mayor Zimmer supporter, expressed host ity to Director Gare ” at one point referring to his allegations in the lawsuit - even after a Superior Court denied a HHA’ motion to dismiss - as “frivolous.” 7. By termin ing Director Garcia, the Defendants silenced him an effective and powerful voice on behalf of the working class and minority tenants residing at the 1,300-plus units at the HHA. ‘The Hoboken public housing was seen by Mayor Zimmer and the Defendants as a source of lucrative contracts and voter base for political support or, in the alternative, neutralize that voter base against Mayor Zimmer 73. Although Director Garcia was protected by an employment contract, the Defendants orchestrated the passing of a resolution to terminate Director Garcia’ employment despite the lack of any just cause to terminate his employment with HHA, 74. Accordingly, Chairwoman Wefer placed on the HHA agenda the termination of Director Garcia’ employment contract with the HHA. The resolution violated the explicit terms and condition of Director Garcia’ employment contract. The HHA meeting to terminate his employment contract was placed on the agenda for August 4, 2014, which did not comply with HHA regulation because it was not given the appropriate amount of notice to the public or Rice notice given to Director Garcia, The hurried public meeting also failed to afford Director Gareia an opportunity to have his lawyer present because of his vacation schedule. Director Garcia and his lawyer had 17requested an adjournment of the August 4, 2014 meeting because his lawyer was away on vacation, Chairwoman Wefer refused to accommodate Director Garcia’s lawyer's request in a departure from not only HHA practice but common decency. 75, ‘The HHA meeting of August 4, 2014 was a political charade orchestrated by the Defendants to limit public speech and controversy. ‘The Defendants unlawfully transferred the public meeting from the designated HHA facility used for such public debates to City Hall, The change in location violated New Jersey state law because it did not provide sufficient room for public debate but also disenfranchised many HHA minority tenants from appearing to express their opinion and opposition to the Defendants’ resolution, 76. On August 4, 2014, the Defendants acting pursuant to Mayor Zimmer's unlawful policy terminated Director Garcia employment. Director Gareia’s termination enabled Mayor Zimmer and the Defendants to obtain control of the HHA and further implement her diseri inatory housing policies. 77. After Director Garcia was terminated, the Defendants replaced him with Richard Fox, a white male responsible for $17.7 million mismanagement of expenditures in his previous housing authority job. Upon information and belief, Fox was let go from his executive director position as a Stamford housing authority after a $17.7 million in unexplained expenses were incurred between 2008 and 2010. A HUD audit report declared that lack of oversight by Fox was responsible for the massive losses,COUNT ONE NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT N.J.S.A. 10:6-2, et sea. (GARCIA 1) 78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein, 79. Pursuant to policy, custom, and/or practice, the HHA through Chairman Stuvier conspired with Mayor Zimmer and Grossbard to implement Mayor Zimmer's unwritten policy by rewarding Mayor Zimmer's political supporters with government benefits and jobs while punishing those who failed to support Mayor Zimmer or her policies. 80. Mayor Zimmer directly or through other government officials loyal to her in the HHA punished and retaliated against those individuals who did not support her politically and exercised their free speech to oppose her policies. 81. Pursuant to that official policy, custom, and practice, Defendants, acting under color of law, unlawfully terminated Plaintiff because of the exercise of his constitutionally protected activities under New Jersey’s Constitution, Article 1, Sections 64nd 18, namely the right to be free from any political affiliation and freedom to express ‘one’s political views, opinions and sentiments to one’s governmental representatives without fear of threats, intimidation, and/or retaliation, 1982, The Defendants Mayor Zimmer, Grossbard, Chairman Stuvier, and HHA, acting in concert with each other, infringed upon Plaintiff's New Jersey Constitution by threatening Plaintiff's employment because of his free speech and lack of political affili n with Mayor Zimmer. 83. Plaintiff's constitutionally protected activities, ie. speaking against the Defendants’ unlawful activities and failure to politically support the Defendants unlawful policies, as alleged herein, were the motivating factor for Defendants” retaliatory conduct. 84. Alternatively, those Defendants who could have stopped the Defendants’ ble based on their willful indifference unlawful violations of Plaintif?’s civil rights are Ii and failure to intervene to stop said civil rights violations, 85. Asa direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic, emotional, and psychologi damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. Because of Defendants willful and malicious conduct, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against these Defendants in their individual capacity in an amount to be determined by a jury, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief: a. Compensatory Damages; b. Punitive Damages only as to the named individual defendants c. Attorney's fee and costs of suit; 4d. Reinstatement; ¢. Any further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. 20IL COUNT TWO (EW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 86. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of cach and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein. 87. Pursuant to office HHA policy, custom and practice, the Defendants HHA. immer and Hoboken Chairman Wefer, and Commissioner Melo conspired with Mayor to implement HHA and Mayor Zimmer’s unwritten policy of rewarding their political supporters with goverment benefits and jobs while punishing those who failed to support them, 88. Mayor Zimmer dircetly or through other government officials loyal to her in the HHA punished and retaliated against those individuals who did not support her politically and exercised their free speech to oppose her policies. 89. Pursuant to that official policy, custom, and practice, Defendants, acting under color of law, unlawfully terminated Plaintiff because of the exercise of his constitutionally protected activities under New Jersey’s Constitution, Article 1, Sections 6 and 18, namely the right to be free from any political affiliation and freedom to express one’s political views, opinions and sentiments to one’s governmental representatives without fear of threats, intimidation, and/or retaliation. 90, The Defendants infringed upon Plaintiff's New Jersey Constitution by threatening Plaintiff"s employment because of his free speech and lack of political ation with Mayor Zimmer. 291, Plaintiff's constitutionally protected activities, ic. speaking against the Defendants’ unlawful activities and failure to politically support the Defendants? unlawful policies, as alleged herein, were the motivating factor for Defendants’ retaliatory conduct. 92. Alternatively, those Defendants who could have stopped the Defendants’ unlawful violations of Plaintiffs civil rights are liable based on their willful indifference and failure to intervene to stop said civil rights violations. 93. Asa direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic, emotional, and psychological damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. Because of Defendants Mayor Zimmer, Chairwoman Wefer, and Vice-Chairman Mello’s willful and malicious conduct, Plaintif seeks punitive damages against these Defendants their individual capacity in an amount to be determined by a jury. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief: £ Compensatory Damages; g. Punitive Damages only as to the named individual defendants h, Attomey’s fee and costs of suit; i. Reinstatement; Any further relief that the Court deems eq) able and just. 2COUNT THRI NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. 94. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein, 95. Defendant HHA was at all times Plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff Hispanic male who performed his duties and responsibilities in a satisfactory mann 96. Defendant HHA conspired with Mayor Zimmer to unlawfully terminate Plaintif?’s employment, in part, on the basis of his race and ethnicity, 97. The Defendants, including Mayor Zimmer, Chairwoman Wefer and Vice- Chairman Mello, jointly participated in the decision to terminate Plaintifi’s employment 98. Defendants actions were taken in viol n of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.I.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq. and have caused Plaintiff to suffer economic, emotional and psychological damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for the following relief: a, Compensatory Damages: b. Punitive Damages, including treble damages; ©. Attomey’s fee and costs of suit; d. Reinstatement; ¢, Such other and further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. 23Iv. COUNT FOUR NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION NJ.S.A. 10:5-1, ef sea. Aiding and Abetting, 99, Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein, 100. Defendants, Mayor Zimmer, Chairwoman Weler and ice Chairman Mello, acting in concert with each other, discriminated against the Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of his employment by terminating his employment contract. 101. Mayor Zimmer, Chairwoman Wefer, and Vice-Chairman Mello jointly participated in the decision to terminate PI aintif?"s employment 102. Plaintifi’s tern nation was part of Mayor Zimmer's retaliatory scheme of dis ination and marginalization of minorities, including persons of Puerto Ricans and Hispanic descent. 103. Chairwoman Wefer and Vice-Chairman Mello substantially and actively participated in Mayor Zimmer's discriminatory and retaliatory scheme to terminate Plaintiff 104. Defendants actions were taken in violation of New rsey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq, and have caused Plaintiff to suffer economic, emotional and psychological damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. 4WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the following rel a, Compensatory Damages; b. Punitive Damages; c. Reinstatement; d. Attorney's fee and co: s of suit; ec. Any further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. v. COUNT FIVE EW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION Retaliation 105. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein. 106. Defendants unlawfully retaliated against the Plaintiff because of his complaints of unlawful dis ination on the basis of race and ethnicity as alleged in his complaint and amended complaints filed in judicial proceedings. 107. Defendants, acting in concert with each other, retaliated against the Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of his employment by terminating his employment contract. 108. Defendants actions were taken in violation of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq, and have caused Plaintiff to suffer economic, emoti nal and psychological damages in an amount to be determined by a jury 25WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for the following relief a. Compensatory Damages; b. Punitive Damages, c. Reinstatement; d. Attorney's fee and costs of suit; ©. Such other and further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. vi. COUNTSIX BREACH OF CONTRACT 109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein, 110. Defendant HHA, acting in concert with each other, breached Plaintiff's employment contract by failing to comply with the IIHA resolution passed on August 4, 2014 terminating Plaintiff's employment contract pursuant to Article IV(c) (See Attached BE hibit) 111, In said Resolution, the HHA agreed to pay Plaintiff *s salary equal to 120 days of Plaintiff's salary. 112. _ In said Resolution, the HHA also agreed to pay Plaintiff all of his “unused sick, personal, and vacation days Plaintiff is owed in accordance with the Contract and personnel policy for the Board’s approval at ils next regularly scheduled meeting.” 113. Despite the clear and unambiguous language of HHA’s own Resolution, the HHA, acting in concert with the other named Defendants, have breached said 26contractual obligation with Director Garcia by failing to pay his “unused sick, personal, and vacation days. 114. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach, Defendants caused economic harm to Plaintiff's employment. . 115. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic and emotional damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for the following: a, Compensatory damages in an amount (o be determined by a jury; b. Interest from the date of entry of judgment at a rate of percent per annum; c. Punitive damages; d. Costs of suit; and ©. Any further relief that the court considers proper and just. Vv COUNT SEVEN NiJ.S.A. § 2C:41-2(6) ~ All Defendants) NEW JERSEY RICO 116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein. 117. Itis unlawful under N.1LS.A. § 2C:41-2(¢) for any person associated with any enterprise, the activities of which affect trade or commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises’ affairs through a pattern of racketeering. 20118. Defendant Mayor Zimmer and the named defendants form an association in fact for the common and continuing purpose of consolidating Mayor Zimmer's political power through racketeering activities, including carrying to fruition her policies’ discriminatory vision for the future of the City of Hoboken. The association in fact of these persons constitutes an enterprise within the meaning of N.J.S.A, 2C:41-1(c) (the “Enterprise”), which functions as a continuing unit 119. Defendants’ Enterprise affects commerce, business, and trade by virtue of its ability to exert political pressure to undermine the public bidding of contracts and award these contracts to political allies or patrons. By controlling publie entities and the right to award these contracts, the Enterprise is able to channel public funds earmarked for construction, Legal fees, and other public contracts affecting commerce fo private persons and/or entities through a pattern of racketeering. 120. Mayor Zimmer, acting directly through conspiracies with the named defendants or with other agents acting at her/their instruction, conducted and participated in the operation and management of the Enterprise. ‘The Enterprise was and continued to be operated to carry out Mayor Zimmer's political policies and exert her political control over the City of Hoboken through racketeering activities. 121. Defendants aforementioned racketeering acts include Bribery (NS.A. 2C:27-2), by direct solicitation for donations for a right to receive public rights or public benefits, Theft by Extortion (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5), by Mayor Zimmer threatening to take employment against Director Garcia without regard to the parameters of applicable law, Official Misconduct (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2), by Mayor Zimmer’s exertion of control over persons and offices not within the scope of her official duties; and for corruption of a 28public resource under (N.JLS.A. § 2C:27-12), by Mayor Zimmer's commandeering of the HHA and HHA contacts. 122, Defendants have been and are able to commit the acts of racketeering forming a pattern by virtue of their association with the Enterprise, and the acts of racketeering are related to the activities of, and are committed in furtherance of, the Enterprise. 123, Defendants individual acts make each principally liable for violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(c), In addition, each of the Defendants knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted Defendants other than himself/herselffitself whom were involved in the operation and management of the Enterprise in the commission of two or more predicate acts forming a pattern of racketeering activity with the intent of assisting the successful completion of said racketeering activity, 124. Plaintiff has been injured by reason of these violations of N.J.S.A. 2 1(@), including injury by reason of the predicate acts constituting a pattern of racketeering activity. Plaintiff has suffered damages to date in an amount to be determined, including but not limited to, the losses incurred from Plaintiff's termination and reputational harm suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct WHEREFORE, , Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief: a. Trebled Compensatory Damages; b. Punitive Damages; c. Attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of suit; d. Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. 29A. § 2C:41-2(d) — All Defendants) EW JERSEY RICO (conspiracy) 125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of each and every paragraph of the Complaint, including those contained in any other count, as fully set forth herein, 126. Defendants conspired to violate the provisions of N.LS.A. 2C:41-1(¢) in the manner set forth in Count VI above. Bach of the Defendants knowingly agreed and conspired to commit or to assist in the commission of at least two predicate acts related to their association with the Enterprise set forth above with knowledge and intent that such acts were in furtherance of the conspiracy’s unlawful goals. All Defendants thereby individually violated N.LS.A. § 2C:41-2(4). 127. Plaintiff has been injured in his business by reason of these violations of NJS.A. 2C:41-1(c), including injury by reason of the predicate act nstituling a pattem of racketeering activity. 128. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, though not limited to, loss of employment, loss of business reputation, and other damages to date in an amount to be determined by a jury at the time of trial WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the folloy gr a, Trebled Compensatory Damages; 30b, Punitive Damages; ¢. Attomey’s fees, interest, and costs of suit, d, Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial jury as to all issues. April 7, 2015 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL, LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ.. is designated as trial counsel in this matter DATED: April 7, 2015 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF INSURA) Pursuant to R. 4:10-2(b), demand is hereby made that you disclose to the undersigned whether there are any insurance agreements or policies under which any person or firm carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payment made to satisfy the judgment. Ifso, please attach a copy of each, or alternative state, under oath and certification: (a) policy number; (b) name and address of insurer; (¢) 31inception and expiration dated; (d) names and addresses of all persons insured there under; (c) personal injury limits; (1) property damage limits; and (g) medical payment limits. - Oo DATED: April 7, 2015 fit Z LOBISRZAYAS, ESQ 32