l

III

F Y lED

JUl. t 8 2014

I SEELEY LAw OFFICE, LLC

411 Fayette Street
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
(856) 451-8050
Altomeyfor Kelly Weiss
Kelly Weiss,

CIVIL DJV~9JON
SUPERIOR COURT-CAPE MAY COUNTY

SUPEIUOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION -CAPE MAY COUNTY
Plaintiff
Docket No.

Department of Children and Family, State

ofNe\v Jersey, Emma Cooper, XYZ
Corporations, or other business entities l1O,JOHN OOES Security Officers, JOHN
DOf~S Human Resources fictitiously
name.s business entities,
Defendants

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Kelly Weiss, residing at 244 Beech Road, in the City oflvlillville, County of
/ Cumberland and State of New Jersey, by way complaint against the defendants, says as follows:
COUNT ONE
VIOLATIONS O.F THE LA \Y AGAINST DlSCRiiYliNATJON
'

1)

'

This is an action brought pursuant to the Law Against Discriinin<>tion, N.J.S.A.

10:5-J et seq., on behalf ofKeJ!y"Weiss, (hereinafter Plaintiff)

II

i'
'

2)

Plaintiff is an individual residing at 244 Beech Road in the City of Millville,

County of Cumberland, and State of New Jersey.

. 3)

Plaintiff, at all times re!evm1t hereto has been, a bus driver for the Slate of New

Jersey Department of Children and Family (h0reinafter DCF) located at 151 Cresthaven Road,
Cape May Courthouse, New Jersey.
4)

Plaintiff, at '}II times relevant heryto, is a bus driver for the DCF and has worked

in that capacity since October 2010.

5)

From October 20 J 0, to April 1, 2014, a manager, defendant, Emma Cooper was

placed, by Plaintiffs employer, in charge ofthe bus drivers at Plaintiffs place of employment.
6)

Emma Cooper held the position of supervisor, assistant to the manager, or similar

position advising Plaintifffrom October2010, to April], 2014. In her capacity as such, Emma
1 Cooper was a supervisor, having authority to direct the day to clay affairs of the bus drivers

1 including Plaintiff, to implement policies, practices and procedures and to initiate and enforce
discipline against employees und<\r her st~petvision. As such, her actions and admissions are
directly imputable to - her enipl0yerpursmill(
to the doctrine. of responcler1t superior.
-- .
'

7) During her course of ernployment at the ~ubject employer, and/or mie or more of the
business entity clcfeildant;, describedherein, subjected Plaintiffto numerous incidences of
' discdmination in'abostile work environn1ent in violation of the Law Against Discrimination
l'LJ.S.A,.l0:5-l et seq.

8)

Without limitittion,

.~laintif('

was .subjected to unwelcomed and inapproviate

vulgar, and off color conrrrii.':nts,)nriireri9os, andjqkes by her supervisor, Emma Cooper.
9)

SuchimpropercOJtltqerits;jokes, a.nd. inm1endos included but were not limited t1

--

'

',

,_

-'

-.

'

jokes an:d comments about v{ofuen,inapprOpliatereference to other bus drivers, secretaries am

I Discrimination (hereinafter NJ LAD) See Exhibit B.

I .

10)

Said

CO!J1111Cllts

I towards Plaintiff and

11)

were bothpeJ'\asiye and severe and such comments were dircctec

others, while engaged in the course of their employment at Plaintiff~

Plaintiff and others W<>Ie also subjected to demeaning and derogatory jokes an(

comh1entary about their gender, ethnic heritage, rei\gion and other inappropriate and abusiv<
Gclll]inentary.
12)

During the course of Plaintiffs employment she was subjected to not only the

.I f\ltgoing derogatory and discriminatory c0)111lK!lts hy. tier supervisor, but Plaintiff nnd othero
were subjected to belligerent and ab11sive lar1g\tage from her supervisor, Emma Cooper, who

II

I
I made Plaintiff feel

threatened with adverse job actions if she were to report these violations l

management.

I
1
1

jl

13)

Plaintiff, made several written and verbal complaints to .her manager, Brim

Smith, and others in management, with regards to the behavior and the discriminatory conduct o
Emma Cooper. Tlus began sh01tly after Plaintiff began working at DCF through April!, 2014

without any actions being taken to protect Plaintiff from a hostile work environment in violatim

jgfthco NJLAD ..

14)

PJajntif{ fiually forwarded a complaint based on discrimination on the basts o:

I sexual harassment dated August 2, 2013, against Emma Cooper to the DCF.

15) The DCF and the State responded with a letter on August 5, 20!3, wbich explained

II

that "the determination responding to your complaint !illl!lJ be issued within 120 days of the date

it was received." "If warranted, the timeframe may be extended for up to 60 additional days and

I,II .Y2.1LL11Jl!ll reQ\OL'<>UIOttce

. . Q_l!le
f . qtens101l
. " . ,see..E'X hib'It A.
,,

11 .

16)

The DCF and the . State violated the 120 days, which it laid out in tl:\ere

,, acknowledgement of receiving the complaint arid never i1oticed Plaintiff of an extension, which
11

would give the DCF and the State an additional 60 days toresponcl and which continued to add

II to Plaintiffs discrimination.
II
IIII

17) All the while, Plaintiff continued to he subjected to

ct~e discrimination and retaliation

of Emma Cooper and management over the departrnent, which Sl\e Worked.

18) Plaintiff and others, at one point dllring the aforesaid timeframe were requested to

j complete investigative documents by manage1nent, as a result of which showed that Plaintiff and
'

II

numerous other employees complained about the improper and derogatory behavior of Emma

lj

"II

il!I

Cooper and her

creation of a hostile work environment, in violation of the NJLAD N
.J .S.A. l 0:5.
---

l et seq.
19)

Instead the complaints, were forwarded by Plairttiff to management, and said

'

complaints were, on information, knowledge and belief, provided to management and nothing

I!

was clone to ch::\n~e the Wq~king conditions anc1 the defet1dant, Emma Cooper, was able to
continue to further her harassrl1ent upon Plaintiff .and other employees working tmcler DCF

~~management
i

20)

J'h1intiff was subjected to such impror>er al1d disciplinary actions by management

m an effort to either have her constructively or actually terminatde by her employer, in an

j attempt to prevent her from speaking out <1gainst discriminatory conduct by her supervisors and

. . .

her efforts to prevent a hostile work environment in violation oft he N.JLAD.

11

;\

21)

il

rn each incident when Plaintiff would complain about Emma Cooper's conduct,

\\ the DCF of Cape May Courthouse, which otherwise should have kept such complaints

I! confidential
!1

and investigative and act upon them, instead reported such complaints directly to
.

' .

l Enu;1a Cqoper and' 'as.- a resttlt Plaii1tiff was further subjected to adverse job actions,
discrirninatory -treat111entanda hostile work environment, __
:"--='.

II

22) Plaintiff and others working as bus drivers and others ttnder the direction and

supervision of Emma C_ ooper were repeateded, consistently and. pervasively subjected to a severe

course ofdiscriminatorytleatment and a hostile work environment as aforesaid.

_::':_;;._. __~

23)

-.:-:

.-

As ~teslllt of ihe abusive conduct and hostile work environment in violation of

il the NJi,AD

NJ.S.t\._ 10:5c! et seq., as aforesaid J'laintiffbeda[]Je htnniliated, was subjected to

errwtional distress .and trauma as a result in which she sought medical treatment for her

I '/)motional and psychological injuries and the failme of the state to properly investigate.

f'urther,

Plaintiff was intimidated bo.th by her supervisor, Emma Cooper and other management that
refused to take actions to address the complaints of Plaintiff ai1d others in to refraining Plaintiff

and others from making further complaints or further reporting violations of their rights to be

fiee from a hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment based upon her gender and
other protected <;ategories.
24)

Plaintiff's employer, one or rnore ofthe business entity defendants described

herein; not only failed to protect Plaintiffs right to be free from discrimination and a hostile
work envirori1iwnt, but actually perpetuated nne! perpetrated

H hostile

work environment and a

discriminatory work environment and did not properly investigate, which is clearly set forth in

I the Stalc;?fNew Jersey time frame as to when the investigation would be completed.
i

25) :. The failure of Plaintiff's employer,the state and/or one or n'!ore of the business

entity

defen,~antsdescribed herein, to have taken action to investigate, prevent, cure, or abate a

\ hostile viork en;ironnwntand discrimination within the work place, was such that Plaintiffs
ernpioyer actcdwithwilllul and deliberate disregard to Plaintiffs right to be free from such
conduct pursmmt to the NJLAD N .J,S.~ 10:5-1 et seq: In addition, Plaintiff had her work hours

I' changed by nianagement, \~hich she had expressly complained ~would not be convenient for her
.

'

~~ fi:unily schedule a.nd of which the employer vvas made aware. This was a pattern of continued

!I

retaliation, harassment, mistreatment .and a hostile work environment as aforesaid.

26)

As a resl!lt of the conduct of Emma Cooper and the delibemte and willful failure

of Plaintiff's employer to address the hostile w~rk enviro.nment :,md discrimination within the

! workplace ancl th<;:t.1 the.stateJo properly investigate, Plaintiff has not only suffered emotional

I and psychological harm as aforesaid, but also has suffered an adverse job action, actually or
I\ constructively, and has lost income, in part, as a result from her c!Iorts to escape a hostile and
discdtninatory work em;ironment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against her employer, DCf, StateofNew
Jersey, and one or n}ore of the business entity defendants, described herein, for such amounts as
will reasonably compensate her together with interest, costs of suits, and counsel fees.
COUNT TWO

FICTITIOl[SLY NAMED DEFENDANTS

1. The same allegatlons as were set forth in each and every paragraph of Count One

I above are repeated and incorporated herein by reference in the same manner as where originally

IIt

.i slated as if fully set forth at length.

II

II

-il

2. XYZ Corporations 1-10 and/or state departments are fictitiously named persons o;

btisiness entities, the identities of vihom and of which are presently unknown to Plaintiff Th(

fictitiously named
hereto,

busines~

busi11e~s eutities

entity defendants,. or one orrn()reofthem; were, at all times relevan

&nd state

d~pa!tr~ents,

which

\~ere

one or more companies, whicl

. employed the individually identi[!ecl employees herein or which provided services anc
management t{) DCF. Tbese flctitiously named business entities and state departments were, a
. all relevant times hereto, companies, which either employed individuals named herein m
provided such services to DCF as were directly related to security, the provision of humar

re~Ql!l'ce services, the implementation and epforc;;ment of policies, practices, and procedure~
I

i withJ'espect te>,the pevei1tion of sexualhara~smet1t, ~sexmil discrhriinatio[\,.and a hostile worl<

.

O,,O

o o o"o.

.oO"o"

.. .

I environment or similar services that should have been in place to prevent wrongful conduct

o!

Emma Cooper, and others, which occurred towards Plaintiff and others. Their actions anc
omissions bespeak willful and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's rights to be free from suer

!. conduct andenvirontnent pursuatlt to the Law Against Discrimination, NJ..S.A. 10:5-l, et seq.
J. The Jictiliouslymmed defendants or state departments John Does 1-20 are. individual;

the identities of whom are unknown to .Plaintiff who, at aU relevant times hereto, werE
e,mployees of one or more of the business eiitity defendants or state departments described hereir
or one of more of the fictitioi1~ly nam~d busii1ess entities desc!ibed herein, who>vere either co-

I,

employees of Plaintiff, ()I; aiall mleyi\nttiniEsher((to, had authority or responsibility for creatior
of, implementation of,and.enforcemel1t qfpolicies, practices, and procedures with respect to the

har:']s~uwn.L.ahosti\~ vrork~nvirot;ment, and sex:ttal discrimiiJation witbi.n

bl1tfailed to ii\k.~''%Gcll Jri,J,;s~re~ as were required to insure that such policies

prevention of sexual

the workplt\ce,

practices, and ]Jrocech.tres >vere

are or were Cither

aetu()lly~ifuplemented, monitored, and enforced.

Such inclivic!ual'

C(Hnl~lby4es ofPlalti;lrfor \~ere involved in either the provision of human

resource services witt respect

or lnanageria! serykes

to anti-h<J~as~nlent and discrimination policies, security serYices,

s~tth ih\lt ~hey ~iiher were or Sholtld have been responsible for the

implementation, cre&tiolJ,eiJforcemE:nt, <tnd mot1itoring ofsltch practices and procedures withit;

I .the worl<plaee ~tD'qF. Tll,~k~hhons aqcl omission~ bespeak willful and deliberate indifference
Jjlo Plaintiff's iights io be' free hom such conduct and environment pursuant to the Law !\gains!

Discrirninatio~,N}~A l0;5~!, et seq.

li

II
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, demands judgment against John Does 1-20 tl1e fictitious!)

\1

I named individuals, and/or XYZ Corporation and/or. state departments and the fictitiously namec
! business entities for such amoubts os ;viii reasonably compensate her together with interest, cost~
of suit, and counsel fees.

COUNT THREE
,!i:XE)Y.IPL.A~Y DbMAJ-;ES
I. The same allegations as\vereset forth in each and every paragraph in Counts One and
Two above are repeated and incorpoiat~d herein in the same manner as where originally stated as
if fully set forth at length.
2. The actions and omi;?sions ofDCF, State of New Jersey and/or one or more ofthe
.
. ... _:.'
! business entity defendants by aild through their agents, servants, or employees, were deliberate,

intentional, and pmposcful and ;vere undertaken to deprive Plaintiff of her rights under the Law
Against Discrimination )'!.J .S,A. 10:5-1, et seq.

3. Plaintiff's employer, the state and/or one or more ofthe business entities named

!I herein, their agents, servants and employees,

not only failed and refc1sed to abide by the law, but
..

I they intentionally and deliberately failed and refused to afford flai11tiff a. decent and safe
working environnJent free from sextlalyulgarities,.innucndos, and other wrongful conduct and
deliberately and intentionally failed and ;efused to take reasonable steps to remediate known and
reported instances of sexual harassment and n hostile work environment.

4.

The defendants' conduct as aforesaid is so egregious, so callous, deliberate, and

\ intentional as to offend notions of decency and fairne'3S and for which Plaintiff's employer or one
or more of the business. entity defendants. and/or state departments should be liable for such
j)tlhitive damages as may be just in orclerto deter the defendants from like or similar conduct in
\
11th6future. The actions and omissions ofthe business entity defendants, through the conduct and
failure o:f their employees bespeak willful and deliberate indifference to the right of Plaintiff to

be lrce from st!Ch conduct and work environment pursuant to the Law Against Discrimination,
N.Jo').A. 10:5-1, et seq.

Wl-IERl\FORE, Plaintiff; demands judgment against the business entity defendants, state
departnwnts and/or one or more of them, for such amounts which may be appropriate and just in

II

I
order to admonish, deter, and rebuke the defendants from the same or similar conduct in the
future.

..COU!'rf .FOUR

COlVJPLAINT FOR DECLAH.A'fORY RELIF.F

I
j

1. The same qllegations as were set forth in each and every paragraph of Counts One
tluough Three above are repeated and in9orporated herein in the same manner as where

I originally stated as if fully.setfbrlh at length.

2. 'rhe c;onductofthe
business entity .defendants, state departments ancllor one or more
'

J ofthen1, by at1d thtoughtktcindiv\dual em~loyecs identified herein, or others, was in violation of

the Lil\v AgainstDisrri!1Jination, NJ .S.A 10:5-1, et seq.

WHlliUiFQRE, Pl8.intiffrequests that a declaratory judgment pursuant to N.J ..QA
' 2A:] ()c5Qbeentercd agaiilst DCFofthe State 6fNew Jersey and/or orxz or more of the business
entity defcn<hints declaring and establishing that the defendants, or one or more of them, were in
violation of the provisions
1

of the New .Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J .S.A. I 0:5-1, et

sc;:q. and Plaintiff further seeks attotneys fees and costs of suit.

COUNTFIYK

---.-~~~

I
il .

CLAIM FOR EQ_1JITABLE ltELIEif'.

J. The same allegations as were set forth in ea(;h ahd "'very paiagraph of Counts One

I thmugh Fmica()ove an)repeate~:f;md incorporatc;d hc;rdnin the,same mmmer as where originally

stated as ifftllly setforth at length.
. 2.

The 'defet1dant, DCF of the State of New Jeisey, and/orone or more of the business

entity defer1d~nLs,byandthro~ghthe conduct ofid9lYidually ideritlfledpersons named herein

Jviolates at1dcoi1stitutes aYiolatioi) of the !Jew Jersr~Daw AgainstDiscrimiimtion, N.J .SA_

.I

. .

--

.1 0:5cl, et seq.

WBEREtiORE, Plaintiff detnantlsjudgthent against DCF ofthe State of New Jersey

and/or oi1e or 1119re of tlJe business entitydefr;ndants for equitable and other relief as follows:

li

I
Iot:tl~e. b~s~n~ss

a. for an order declaring thai DCF of the State of New Jersey and/or one or more
entity dcfend~nts are or were in violation of the New Jersey Law Against

Dtscnmm<~lton,

N.J .S.A. I 0 .)-J, et seq.,

b. for an.order enjoining and preventing DCF of the State of New Jersey, and/or
one or more of the business entity defendants; from :fuither violating the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A 10:5~ 1, et seq. and preventingsuch violations into the future;
c. for an order directing and implcmentirtgsucb remedial measures to insure
compliance with the New Jersey Lav; Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seg. by DCF of
1
I

tl1e State ofNew Jersey and/or one or more. of the busi*ss entity defendimts together with such
.

..

other measures, directives,. or requirements as the Court may deem appropriate to assure
corhpllance with the New JerseyLaw Against Discrimination, N .J JL6~ 10.5-1, et seq.;
d. for an order grai1ting counsel fees;
e. for such other relief ns may be appropi'igte and just.

COUNTS!
INCORP.QRATION AND CROSSRELATlOl"[

OF PR,lOR COUNTS
1: The sarne aiJ~g<ltions as were set forth in each and.cvery paragr(lph of Counts One
tlrrough Six abciveare repeated and incorporfl.ted herein in the same manner as where originally

I stated gs if fully set forth at length.

!I

. . ./. . . .
.... ,: .
..
..
WHEREFORE, Plt1intiff, demands judgment against the business entity defendants, state

! departmentsancl/ot one or more of them, for such amounts as will reasonably compensate her

together withinterbt; COStS of suit, and CO\UlSC! fees together with such declaratory and/or
equitilble i~licf"nds'tich other determinations as may be appropriate and just.
CERTIFICATION

Purs.uant toR. 4:5-1, this is to certify, that there are no other cat1sesor controversies
similar to and relevant to the foregoing complaint filed on behalf of otlrcr employees, patrons, or
other employees ofDCF of the Stute ofNew Jersey alleging the same or similar allegations

against the defendants which arc either contemplated, will be filed in the future, or have been

flied,

. . . .

! Dated: June
_---', :'20,2014
,. -

_:--

_./~>~'.

<..;1'--- . ./J!i~\_./'"'

_._______

__:~-~~-----

-----/--------

THOMAS E. SEELEY, ESQUIRE

JURY DEfvlANJ!

DES1GNAT1:0N OI<' 'l~Jl!AL COUNSEL

PLE;-\SE tAKE NOTICE that pursuant toR. 4:25-4, THOMAS E. SEELEY, ESQUIRE
is hereby designated as trial counsel on behalf of Seeley Law OIice, LLC.
SEELEY LAW OFFjCR,.LLC
I

Dated: June2d, 2014 .

-=--

_.-- --

BY: \::s'1/ .

. .-~---

v n

<~~<'.-~'A_)

/.

THOMAS E. SEELEY/E.S.qTffRE

II
I
II

II
II

/--/''