COUNT ONE
(Violation of Conscientious Employee Protection Act
(CEPA)
1. Plaintiff, Laverne M.
Ballard, an African-American woman, was hired by the City of Orange Township on
or about
2. Plaintiff was hired by
the City of Orange Township to act as a public official in that capacity.
3. Defendant, the City of
Orange Township, is a governmental body, with a principal place of business at
29 North Day Street,
4. Upon Ms. Ballard's
employment the City of Orange, through Altamont Muhammad, (hereafter Muhammad)
Hackett’s Chief of Staff, Confidential Aide, and also the Affirmative Action
Officer, deliberately/negligently failed to supply her with any formal orientation,
employee manuals, nor any annual notices for the Conscientious Employee
Protection Act for New Jersey Employers (CEPA) which is information mandatorily
required to be given annually to New Jersey employees explaining the employees'
"protections, obligations, rights and procedures" under CEPA. This
notice can be distributed in an electronic or written format. The amendment
requires that the notice be set forth in English, Spanish and any other
language spoken by a majority of employees, the latter at the discretion of the
employer.
5. Furthermore, Muhammad,
Jewel Thompson-Chin (hereafter Thompson-Chin) and/or Marvin T. Braker, Esq., (hereafter
Braker) the City of Orange Attorney deliberately/negligently failed to provide
Ms. Ballard any literature or information on how to file a sexual harassment
complaint and thereby violated their duties as the City's Affirmative Action
Officer and City Attorney, respectively, and implicitly and/or openly ignored,
denied any knowledge of political wrongdoing and attempts to retaliate against
Ms. Ballard by Hackett for failing to "go along". Thus, safeguards
for employee protection have not been developed in strict compliance with the
guidelines promulgated for Affirmative Action and CE-PA claims.
6. From the commencement
of her employment Ms. Ballard was directed and demanded repeatedly by Hackett
to submit fraudulent receipts into the purchase order system who had
discussions in her presence with Muhammad and Coram Rimes (member of the Orange
City Council), about submitting receipts to the purchase order system, said
receipts being blatantly and obviously falsified, manufactured, and or
inflated. Most of said receipts constituted over-billing and double-billing the
City of
7. When Ms. Ballard
refused to submit these receipts, telling Hackett she would not participate in
what she saw as a crime she was "called on the carpet" by Muhammad
who told her Hackett had asked him to advise her she was in danger of being
fired for refusing to submit the foregoing receipts and called her refusal "insubordination."
When Ms. Ballard questioned the legitimacy of the receipts Muhammad advised her
that it was not her job to question the validity of the receipts only to submit
them no matter what their content and any continued refusal would be considered
insubordination.
8. Ms. Ballard continued
to object to, refuse to participate in such actions, and any others actions
that she reasonably believed was either illegal or in violation of public
policy and state and federal law.
9. In January, 2005,
Hackett gave Ms. Ballard receipts to request reimbursements for his alleged
taxi costs, meals, alcohol, gratuities and other items which she knew to be non-billable
expenses to the City of
10. During the next four months, Hackett stated
that Ballard's job performance was not meeting his standards. He requested a
meeting with Ms. Ballard, and Thompson-Chin in which he made cursory statements
about Ms. Ballard "being late on occasion", and use of sick time
taken when her children were sick.
11. In fact, Thompson-Chin
stated that sick leave was not for an employee's dependants and only for the
employee. In that April meeting Ms. Ballard requested the employee handbook.
Thompson- Chin stated, “It is under revision and will be issued out shortly." Despite this Ms. Ballard never received any
employee handbook, CEPA handbook or AAF/EEO literature. In fact, two weeks after the meeting, Ms.
Ballard requested the employee handbook from Sharon Watkins (Thompson-Chin's
secretary as well as Liaison for the Personnel Office) and was advised that Thompson-Chin
would get back to her. In that meeting
Hackett stated that Ms. Ballard was not completing her work satisfactorily.
When she reminded him that a few weeks earlier he had applauded her for finally
getting his office organized she asked him to explain himself and to be more
specific about the work failures. He stated that her "taking off two days
of sick time, was harming the Mayor's Office" and if she had a problem with
a sick child
he could get
her "help with babysitting" if that was the
issue. He also stated that Ms. Ballard
was not in the office one morning when he called. Hackett said, "Your work
is good though". Ms. Ballard reminded Thompson-Chin and Hackett
that she was the only person in the office between
11. Ms. Ballard requested
employee manuals or information as to where such policy was written. Thompson-Chin stated that the employee manual
was under revision and would be issued to her. Ms. Ballard never received any
manuals for the City of
12. Ms. Ballard
demonstrated the ability to complete projects, administer contracts, and/or
supervise staff. This resulted in Hackett giving her additional duties such as
heading meetings and the City of
13. Ms. Ballard was even
required to accept the monthly rent for Hackett's tenant who occupied a unit at
his
14. In April of 2006,
Hackett began his niece Lisa A. Perkins' campaign for City Council membership.
During the start of the campaign Ms. Ballard was required to take orders as the
Executive Assistant from speeches for Ms. Perkins at Hackett’s request.
15. Ms. Ballard was also directed by Hackett to
contact Ms. Virginia Perkins who recently worked at his Assembly office. Ms.
Perkins delivered campaign literature, from the Assembly office to the Mayor's
office. When Ms. Ballard objected to this she was threatened with loss of her
job. Ballard was required to accept deliveries at the Mayor's Office for the
"Elect Lisa Perkins for City Council"
campaign from vendors such as D & M Printing of West Orange, promotional
t-shirts from Alvenia "Doe" and schedule meetings at Sandwiches
Unlimited in
16. After all elections,
Muhammad paid the Election Day workers from sources such as Essex County
Democratic Committee Funds during the Corzine campaign. During Hackett's
Mayoral Campaign, Anthony Williams and Lisa
Perkins campaign checks were issued from the Mayor's office from a Hudson City
Checking account called the "Re-elect Mims Hackett Fund." Workers came in daily picking up stipends for
their efforts. On these occasions Hackett
would meet with
17. Defendants violated applicable
laws by failing to allow plaintiff an opportunity to retain her employment and
denying said opportunity to plaintiff under false pretenses and as a pretext
for arbitrarily and capriciously punishing plaintiff in retaliation for
refusing to commit
political crimes, and reporting
Hackett's illegal activities
regarding billing the City of
Orange. Said acts further
constitute violation of applicable state and federal equal opportunity laws;
including the Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
demands judgment against the defendants, for:
A. Compensatory and punitive damages together with prejudgment
interest; and
B. Back pay; retroactive
increased contributions to retirement
and insurance plans; and
C. Attorney's fees and costs of suit; and
D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
Count II
(Retaliation in violation of Title VII)
18. Plaintiff Laverne M.
Ballard repeats and reiterates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 18 as if
set at length herein.
19. During the first few
days of her employment Hackett made it clear to Ms. Ballard that he had a
sexual interest in her by commenting on her looks and saying "your
children's father is a "lucky man." He soon began to call her home
saying he just wanted to talk and see how she was doing. A few weeks later Hackett
made an unwelcome comment about Ms. Ballard's posterior saying, "I like
that way that skirt is fitting your shape leering at Ms. Ballard's behind as he
smiled at her. Ms. Ballard replied that the comment was unwelcome and advised
Hackett that her boyfriend was an attorney and that his comment could be considered
sexual harassment.
20. Ms. Ballard continued
that she felt like he was coming on to her and that she had informed her
boyfriend about the way he had been looking at her and of the comments. She
stated to him again that his comments were unwelcome and inappropriate.
21. Several days went by
and she noted that he always appeared to make sexual comments to her after
lunch and towards the end of the work week. He smelled like he had been
drinking while out on lunch break. This was routine. Hackett would come back to
the office after lunch hour drunk, especially on Friday afternoons. He then
began to take drinks in the office from a bottle he kept in his desk calling it
"moonshine" and offering "a swig" to Ms. Ballard. His
sexual comments to Ms. Ballard became less and less discreet, and many were
made openly in front of other staffers and employees and were increasingly
graphic, inappropriate, disrespectful, and loaded with sexual references. Ms Ballard and others could smell the alcohol
on his breathe. While drunk, Hackett often slurred his words, could not perform
a marriage ceremony without Ms. Ballard's assistance, and frequently stumbled
around the room.
22. Ms. Ballard attempted
to stay away from Hackett during these times and did not enter his office. On many occasions Hackett became belligerent
when she refused to come close to him or when he requested that she come around
his desk for instructions. When she refused she told him "no one else is
required to stand just inches away from you,
23. Ms. Ballard replied
that his comments were inappropriate conversation and again demanded that he
stop. She advised Hackett that she was aware of the law against sexual
harassment and advised him that it is a form of sex discrimination that violates
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and applies to employers with 15 or
more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to
employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this
conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment,
unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment can occur
in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
The harasser can be the
victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a
co-worker, or a non-employee.
·
The victim does
not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the
offensive conduct. So theoretically her children and boyfriend could be
sexually harassed by Hackett's conduct towards her.
·
Unlawful sexual
harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
·
The harasser's
conduct must be unwelcome and she was making it clear that his advances were
unwelcome.·
·
Ballard further advised
Hackett that it is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for
opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex. He replied: “I
know the law. You don't have to quote law to me".
25. In November 2005
Hackett told Ballard that she was required to attend at least two conferences.
He required her to attend the League of Municipalities Conference in
27. On or about
Hackett called Ms. Ballard
and advised they were settled in and that everyone should meet at the Embassy
Suites Hotel Indianapolis-Downtown,
28. Prior
to going to dinner Rimes, Cherry, Hackett and Ms.Ballard sat in the lobby
area chatting with Barbara Peters (a City Council member). In
front of the group Hackett handed Ms.
Ballard a plain white
envelope saying, “You might need this information." When Ms. Ballard asked what it was he replied, "Some
of my documents." Ms. Ballard placed the envelope inside her purse. Once
the conversation ended Rimes and Cherry took a restroom break. Hackett asked Ms. Ballard to go up to his
room and get a bottle of wine and gave her his key-card openly. Ms. Ballard
took the key-card and went to his room. When she got there, there was no wine
in the refrigerator or in the kitchen area of his suite. She returned back to
the lobby and said to him "Mayor, I did not find any wine." He placed
his hand over his mouth gesturing for her to be quiet. When she continued to speak
about it to him he ignored her comments as Rimes came and stood by them.
28. At dinner Hackett
became drunk, sitting with Rimes, Cherry, and Ms. Ballard he made explicit
comments about a carriage horse stating "that horse is a lot like me, old
but still alive and kicking and well hung." He also stated that, "old
horses have endurance and stamina for the long haul."
29. Ms. Ballard excused
herself and went to the restroom where she opened the envelope and found
Hackett's key-card for his hotel room number 1614 at the Embassy Suites Hotel.
She was stunned and returned to the table where she remained stolid for the
rest of the evening. She decided to keep the key-card, which she still has in
her possession. After dinner, Hackett hailed a cab for Cherry and Ms. Ballard.
As she entered the cab he whispered to Ms. Ballard, "So, I'll see you
tonight, right?" Ms. Ballard got in the cab and ignored his comments.
30. Hackett called Ms.
Ballard's room that night around
31. Once Hackett, Ms.
Ballard and Cherry returned from
Braker that Hackett agreed
and allowed her to register, book hotels, flight and itinerary for the four-day
conference but they only attended two and a half days. Cherry and Ms. Ballard prepared
statements and submitted them to the City Attorney.
32. After Ms. Ballard
confronted the Hackett about the key-card, he avoided her for two weeks. She
spoke to the Hackett about his behavior in
33. Weeks later Hackett
told Ms. Ballard that he wanted her to attend an interview he was giving at the
Comcast studios. When she questioned the request he said he wanted her to read
his notes for him while he drove. She
complied and attended the interview without incident. After the interview he
said he was hungry and stopped the car at a local restaurant, John's Place, on
34. Ms. Ballard did not
respond and advised the Mayor that the office was left uncovered and she needed
to return her to the office and he did so.
35. After this Ms. Ballard
was questioned when she attempted to take off any sick days, vacation and/or
personal days. Ms. Ballard was subsequently informed that unless she had proper
personnel to cover her desk she could not leave for lunch or leave the Mayor's
office phone unattended, even if she needed to the restroom, visit the
mailroom, and/or other departments within the City of
35. When Ms. Ballard asked
Muhammad if a meeting was necessary he stated to her that Hackett had not said
anything to him about her performance or
otherwise. When she questioned being reprimanded for refusing to put false
bills into the purchase order system Muhammad told her "just do it"
but Ms. Ballard was adamant to Muhammad that these reimbursements could not be justified.
He advised her that Thompson-Chin would justify the reimbursements before the
City Council and that it was her job and she should not question the Mayor's
authority, "regardless of the situation."
36. Ms. Ballard then made
numerous inquiries about the chain of command with Muhammad and asked to whom
she should speak to express that Hackett appeared to be hostile and agitated
with her because she would not submit to his demands. She was refused an
explanation and advised that Hackett was -the "Commander-in-Chief" and that no
one in the City of
37. On or about
Chin Ms. Ballard reiterated Hackett's reasons for
complaining about her as being based on her unwillingness to help him break the
law and his rebuffed attempts to seduce her.
She also explained that she had been advised that Hackett had a history of
sexual harassment and law-breaking. Thompson-Chin told Ms. Ballard she should
have come to her to which Ms. Ballard replied she was never told who she should
report this kind of thing to. She had been told by Muhammad that the Mayor’s
power was absolute and there was "no higher authority". Thompson-Chin
said she was not only the Business Administrator but was the Personnel Office
Liaison. Ballard replied that she was not aware of the dual roles and since the
letter was not effective until July 21, Thompson-Chin still had time to act on
the complaints. Thompson-Chin denied this request and indicated she was not aware
of any prior, history of sexual harassment or any problems with the bills being
submitted. She specifically denied being aware of Hackett having been charged
with sexual harassment on several prior occasions and she was in position to
know about fraudulent billing activity. She saw no documented evidence of possible
corruption. Later that day Ms. Ballard again met with Thompson-Chin and Braker.
Both claimed that Ms. Ballard could have come to them and that they had no
knowledge of political wrongdoing and/or sexual harassment being committed
against Ms. Ballard. Braker said he was not made aware of any problems with Ms.
Ballard's job performance, was shocked by her firing, and thought that there
may be some "misunderstanding". He said he would speak to the Hackett
and advise him that a resignation in good standing may be more appropriate (Braker
later said he tried to change Hackett's mind but could not). Braker also said he
was aware of prior sexual harassment claims but none were "Substantiated” and
said he was unaware of any political corruption, including campaigning for by
Hackett for Mayor, or others, from the Mayor's office, or promoting fundraisers
for himself or others from the Mayor's office. Braker was advised via letter
the same day (
38. Defendants violated
applicable laws by failing to allow plaintiff an opportunity to retain her
employment and denying said opportunity to plaintiff under false pretenses and
as a pretext for arbitrarily and capriciously punishing plaintiff in retaliation
for refusing sexual favors, and reporting Hackett's illegal activities
regarding billing the City of
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
demands judgment against the defendants, for:
A. Compensatory
and punitive damages
together with prejudgment
interest; and
B. Punitive damages; and
C. Attorney's fees and costs of suit; and
D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT THREE
(Hostile Work Environment)
39. Plaintiff, Laverne M.
Ballard, repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 38 above as if fully set forth herein.
40. As a result of
plaintiff questioning the double-billing and other fraudulent activity and her
refusal to allow Hackett to speak to her about sexual matters or submit to
sexual advances she received a poor performance claim (nothing was ever put in writing),
was held accountable for decisions that were not her responsibility, and given
assignments to "keep her out of the way." She also raised numerous
questions with Hackett, Muhammad and Thompson-Chin regarding the billing
process, the manipulation of accounts and funds, and Hackett's overtly sexual mistreatment
of her.
41. This caused plaintiff
to also receive negative comments from both Hackett and Muhammad for
questioning fraudulent financial decisions being made by her superiors. Hackett
directed Thompson-Chin, to change Ms. Ballard flex time from
42.
to plaintiff
under false pretenses,
and as a
pretext for arbitrarily and capriciously
punishing plaintiff, and deliberately creating
and maintaining a
hostile work environment. This hostile work environment consisted of,
-but was not limited to, talk, gossip, innuendo, insults, and morale problems
among co-workers complaining about sexual harassment discrimination and unequal
treatment; unwarranted, biased, and prejudicial punishment of plaintiff, and
deliberately false assessments of plaintiff's work performance. Said acts
further constitute sexual discrimination and violation of applicable state and
federal equal opportunity laws.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
demands judgment against the defendants, for:
A.
Compensatory and
punitive damages together
with prejudgment interest; and
B.
Removal of the
termination letter from her personnel file; and
C.
Attorney's fees
and costs of suit.
COUNT FIVE
(Breach of the Contract
and Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
43. Plaintiff repeats and
reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 42
above as if fully set forth herein.
44. Defendants’ willful and intentional misrepresentation
to plaintiff about the reasons for her poor performance review, and subsequent
firing was pre-textual, was not based on a genuine and legitimate reason and
was used to arbitrarily punish the plaintiff.
45. As a result of its actions, defendant
breached its contract with plaintiff as well as the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
46. As a result of said
acts, plaintiff has suffered damages financially and emotionally.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
demands judgment against the defendants, for:
A.
Compensatory and
punitive damages together
with prejudgment interest; and
B.
Proper
performance evaluation;
C.
Attorney's fees
and costs of suit; and
D.
For such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT SIX
(Fourteenth Amendment Violation)
47. Plaintiff, Laverne M.
Ballard, repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 46 above as if fully set forth herein.
48. When defendants refused
to give plaintiff a legitimate assessment of her work performance, allowed her
to be sexually harassed in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and ignored her attempts
to report Hackett’s criminal activity, they violated her rights to equal
protection under applicable state and federal laws.
49. Defendants’ reasons for
plaintiff denying an accurate performance
evaluation and denying
her right to
retain employment; and allowing her to be sexually harassed was pre- textual
and when plaintiff was so denied, defendant violated plaintiff's rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and she was
thereby deprived of her
constitutional rights, privileges,
and immunities, under
the
Civil Rights Act of 1966(42
U.S.C. Section 1982) which guarantees a
citizen's rights equal rights as to that enjoyed by men and was caused to
suffer financially and emotionally.
50. Defendant willfully
and intentionally discriminated against plaintiff by the above acts; while
granting said rights to males violated plaintiff’s civil rights under the New
Jersey Law
Against Discrimination,
N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq. and
the Civil
Rights Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 2000e et. seq.
51. As a direct result of
defendant's actions, plaintiff was made to suffer damages financially and
emotionally.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
demands judgment against the defendants, for:
A.
Compensatory and
punitive damages together
with prejudgment interest;
B.
Attorney's fees
and costs of suit; and
C.
For such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT EIGHT
(Other Statutory Violations)
52. Plaintiff, Laverne M. Ballard, repeats and
reasserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 51 above as if fully
set forth herein.
53. When defendant denied
an accurate performance evaluation, allowed open sexual harassment to continue,
and failed to act on or prevent attempts to force plaintiff to violate criminal
laws; they knew that there was no reasonable or nondiscriminatory reason for
these acts, and willfully and intentionally represented to plaintiff that such
a condition existed and was the reason for her poor performance evaluation.
They failed to act on the sexual harassment complaints, continued to threaten her
with loss of her job if she did not commit criminal acts, and terminated her without
just cause or stated reason. Such conduct
on the part of this defendant was intentional, willful, outrageous, and in complete
disregard of the plaintiff.
54. Said actions of defendant were a bad faith
pretext to arbitrarily deny plaintiff her rights as an employee and as a female
and to punish the plaintiff. Plaintiff was treated differently than her male
counterparts. Said treatment was in direct violation of U.S.C.A. Sections 1981,
1982, 1983, 1985,
1986 and 1988. As such plaintiff
is entitled to relief there under and pursuant to U.S.C.A.1981, et. seq., 1982, et. seq., 1986, et. seq. and 1988, et. seqr. the
55. As a direct result of
defendants' actions, plaintiff has been made to suffer damages financially and
emotionally.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
demands judgment against the defendants, for:
A.
Compensatory and
consequential damages together with prejudgment interest;
B.
Punitive damages;
C.
Attorney's fees
and costs of suit; and
D.
For such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by
jury on all issues.
DESIGNATION
OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff designates
Ronald L. Washington as trial Counsel.
By: signed
RONALD,
L. Washington
DATED: