LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ. (LZ-1881) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LIEUTENANT...

Case 2:10-cv-06830-PGS -ES Document 1 Filed 12/31/10 Page 1 of 17 PagelD: 1

LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ. (LZ-1881) LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS A. ZAYAS, L.L.C. 6121 Kennedy Boulevard North Bergen, N.J. 07047 (201) 295-9977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LIEUTENANT THOMAS J. CERWINSKI; ) Civil Action No. SERGEANT WALTER ZAPOLUCH, ) SHERIFF OFFICER ALEX PINO, )

) )

Plaintiffs, )

vs. )

HUDSON COUNTY SHERIFF JUAN ) PEREZ, CHIEF JOHN BARTUCCI,

))

LIEUTENANT JOSE GONZALEZ, CAPTAIN LARRY GROSKOPFF HUDSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, HUDSON COUNTY,

Defendants

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs LIEUTENANT THOMAS J. CERWINSKI, SERGEANT WALTER

ZAPOLUCH , DEPUTY SHERIFF ALEX PINO, through their attorney LOUIS A.

ZAYAS, ESQ. allege as follows:

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to Title 28 USCA §§ 1331,

1343 and 2201; Rules 57and 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is founded on the existence of a deprivation

of federal civil rights, and on the existence of state law claims which derive from a

common nucleus of operative fact.

I


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

L. iliu; action arises unctor tne thirkd Stars

Constitution; and under the-Civil Rights Act of 1871, Title 42 USCA § 1983. Plaintiffs

were wrongfully retaliated against because of their political affiliation and expression of

political free speech. Plaintiffs' constitutional claims under the First Amendment are

premised on Plaintiffs' exercise of their rights of freedom of speech, expression,

association, and belief, as well as their constitutionally protected rights not to be subject

to retaliation in their employment on account of political affiliation, association, or

patronage. Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claim is also premised on the equal

protection clause, in that Plaintiffs, supporters of Under Sheriff Frank Schillari's election

campaign for Hudson County Sheriff, were treated substantially less favorably than

similarly situated political supporters of Hudson County Sheriff Juan Perez.

3. This is also an action under the laws of the State of New Jersey and

Constitution mandating equal protection of law. Conscientious Employee Protection Act

codified under N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq. and common law causes of actions. Public policy

of the State of New Jersey mandates that public employees shall not be retaliated against

on account of political association, patronage, affiliation, or registration, in violation of

freedom of speech, political association and equal protection.

4. This action arises directly under both the United States Constitution, and

under Title 42 USCA §§ 1983 and 1988.

2


1NFt IL11-(1,4 Ur 1 ta6, AC 1 111:1'1,1

This is an action for monetary damages, a declaratory judgment,

permanent injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, LIEUTENANT THOMAS J. CERWINSKI ("Lieutenant Thomas

J. Cerwinski") is currently employed as a Lieutenant with the Hudson County Sheriffs

Office. Captain Joy is resident of the County of Hudson, New Jersey.

7. Plaintiff, SERGEANT WALTER ZAPOLUCH ("Sergeant Zapoluch") is

currently employed as Sergeant with the Hudson County Sheriff's Office. Sergeant

Zapoluch is resident of the County of Hudson, New Jersey.

8. Plaintiff SHERIFF OFFICER ALEX PINO ("S.O. PINO") is currently

employed as Sheriff Officer with the Hudson County Sheriffs Office. S.O. PINO resides

in the County of Hudson, New Jersey.

9. Defendant HUDSON COUNTY SHERIFF JUAN PEREZ ("Sheriff

Perez") is the elected top executive police officer for the Hudson County Sheriffs

Department. Defendant Sheriff Perez is the policy-maker for said agency. Sheriff Perez

is sued in his official and individual capacity for purposes of effecting full the

declaratory, injunctive, compensatory and punitive damages demanded by the Plaintiffs.

10. Defendant CAPTAIN LARRY GROSKOPFF ("CAPTAIN

GROSKOFF") is the elected top executive police officer for the Hudson County Sheriffs

3


Department. Defendant is sued in his official and individual capacity for purposes of

effecting full the declaratory, injunctive, compensatory and punitive damages demanded

by the Plaintiffs.

iii ,fandantilielEF 011101112-TiiCCi ) Ulidterttitiv-

the Hudson County Sheriffs Office and- responsiblefor the day-to-day operations of the

Hudson County Sheriffs Office. Chief Bartucci is sued in his official and individual

capacity for purposes of effecting full the declaratory, injunctive, compensatory and

punitive damages demanded by the Plaintiffs.

12. Defendant LIEUTENANT JOSE GONZALEZ ("Lieutenant Gonzalez")

is the Commanding Officer of the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Hudson County

Sheriff's Office, and responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Internal Affairs

Bureau. Lieutenant Gonzalez is sued in his official and individual capacity for purposes

of effecting full the declaratory, injunctive, compensatory and punitive damages

demanded by the Plaintiffs.

13. Defendant HUDSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ("HCSO") is a

municipality organized by virtue of New Jersey law and pursuant to that law, is to be

known and distinguished by the name "Sheriffs Office." Defendant Sheriffs Office is

sued to effect the full declaratory, injunctive, punitive and compensatory damages

demanded by the Plaintiffs.

14. Defendant COUNTY OF HUDSON is a municipality organized by virtue

of New Jersey law and pursuant to that law, is to be known and distinguished by the

name "Hudson County." Defendant Hudson County is sued to effect the full declaratory,

injunctive, compensatory damages demanded by the Plaintiffs.


FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS

15. The Hudson County Sheriffs Office is the top law enforcement agency

for Hudson County. The HCSO is responsible for providing a variety of law enforcement

F I V 11 f `,7 Lid! 4J LL fii{, pe.tralti, (-uu1t be wailant eni.rGspnera, anti aervice oi

process throughoutHudson County.

16. Under New Jersey State law, the Hudson County Sheriff is designated as

the policy-maker for the HCSO. The position of Hudson County Sheriff is an elected

position, which requires fundraising and political activities. Sheriff Perez used and

continues to use his official office to promote his political ambitions. After two years in

public office, Sheriff Perez' political ambition to win re-election has caused a serious

deterioration in police morale thereby undermining the historical mission of the Hudson

County Sheriff's Office to protect and serve the public.

17. As described more fully herein, Defendant Hudson County Sheriff and

Defendants Perez, Bartucci, and Gonzalez and others have engaged in a continuing

pattern and practice of harassment, disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation

against employees who complain about, resists, and/or otherwise opposes Sheriff Perez'

illegal conduct. Defendants Sheriff Perez, Chief Bartucci, and Lieutenant Gonzalez and

others have utilized Internal Affairs as an instrument to punish persons who oppose,

complain about, or resist their harassing and illegal activities. Internal Affairs has acted

as Sheriff Perez's enforcer for his discriminatory and retaliatory policies by investigating

and, in most instances, punishing those who opposed him. Throughout Sheriff Perez'

administration, defendants Sheriff Perez, Chief Bartucci and Lieutenant Gonzalez have

selectively enforced the police department's Rules and Regulations to punish those who

5


are perceived to be political opponents of Sheriff Perez, while bestowing more favorable

treatment to those who are perceived to be supporters of Sheriff Perez.

18. Defendant Sheriff Office's Internal Affairs under Lieutenant Gonzalez

s..uopci.uvd. with the litaellUalltS 3nurmi mrez anti Uti101 T13•C-OVEI

up and perpetuate the aforementioned illegal conduct. Rather than prevent and remedy

the illegal conduct, Internal Affairs' actions and omissions encouraged Defendants

Sheriff Perez and Chief Bartucci to further engage in the retaliatory, discriminatory and

harassing conduct. The various individuals who conspired and cooperated with the

Defendants in the harassment, retaliation, and discrimination were rewarded by more

favorable treatment, better opportunities and other forms of protection and cover.

19. Plaintiffs and other employees at Defendant knew that the complaint and

investigation system was an arm of the discriminating upper management, which was

used by defendants to learn who opposed his discriminatory practices and to retaliate

against them.

20. Throughout his administration, Sheriff Perez, Chief Bartucci and

Lieutenant Gonzalez and others openly and overtly engaged in retaliatory conduct toward

the plaintiffs and others who were perceived to be anti-Perez. Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated employees were affected by the hostile and polluted work environment

created by the defendants.

21. Defendant Sheriff Office, recklessly and/or intentionally (a) failed to

have in place a well publicized and enforced anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policy;

(b) failed to properly train its employees regarding compliance with any anti-harassment

and anti-retaliation policy; (c) failed to properly supervise its employees to ensure

6


compliance with any anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policy; (d) failed to make an

unequivocal commitment from the top of the organization to any anti-harassment and

anti-retaliation policy as not just words but backed up by consistent practice; and (e)

f„:1,„! t., ovtmit piimassiameff,.

discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

22. Defendants Sheriff Office, recklessly and/or intentionally failed to take

prompt, appropriate and/or reasonable remedial steps to prevent, stop and remedy the

harassment and retaliation aimed at Plaintiffs. By and through its agents, Defendant

Sheriff Office fostered a discriminatory, harassing and retaliatory atmosphere and

allowed actions, which consisted of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in

violation of state and federal law.

23. Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants and performed their duties and

responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

24. At the time of Plaintiffs' hire, and throughout their law enforcement

careers, political affiliation or political beliefs were not and are not a stated requirement

for the effective performance of their job performance.

25. Plaintiffs serve as non-policy-making and non-confidential employees

under the Sheriff Perez Administration. The Hudson County Employee Handbook, which

covers Plaintiffs' employment with the Hudson County Sheriff's Office, explicitly

prohibits retaliation against any employee based on the employee's political activities

and/or affiliations. Moreover, it was impliedly represented during the course of Plaintiffs'

employment, Defendants would act in good faith and would fairly deal with Plaintiffs

irrespective of their political activities and affiliations.

7


26. When Plaintiffs applied and accepted employment with Defendant Hudson

County and Hudson County Sheriff's Office, and during the course of their employment,

Plaintiffs were never informed that any particular political activity, association,

ainiiatienTer patioaagc, wetri-d be a rk.quirtrut.tri. lot favorable employment opportunities

and advancement within the Hudson County Sheriff's Office. Despite the clear

prohibition against political patronage as a consideration for employment opportunities

and assignments, Sheriff Perez has willfully and, in violation of his own oath of office,

unlawfully violated Plaintiffs' constitutional right to engage in political activities and

support their desired political candidate for office.

27. In 2008, then Hudson County Sheriff Cassidy lost his bid for re-election to

then challenger Sheriff Perez. After winning the election, Defendant Sheriff Perez and

his second in command, Defendant Chief Bartucci, implemented and enforced a policy of

rewarding and punishing law enforcement officers based on their political patronage and

beliefs. Defendant Sheriff Perez appointed Lieutenant Gonzalez as Commanding Officer

of Internal Affairs to execute and enforce defendants' aforementioned policy through the

selective enforcement of the police department's rules and regulations. Defendants

Sheriff Perez, Chief Bartucci and Lieutenant Gonzalez would routinely investigate and

punish minor infractions involving plaintiff and others similarly situated employees while

ignoring blatant and substantially more serious violations. For example, Lieutenant

Gonzalez exhibited overzealous resolve to initiated disciplinary charges against Officer

Mitchell for alleged misconduct based on the single word of a discredited witness, but

ignored news media coverage of an ongoing association between Chief Bartucci and a

8


reputed Genovese crime figure, which is explicitly prohibited by the police department's

rules and regulations.

28. Defendants Sheriff Perez and Chief Bartucci conceived and implemented

laical pair-on-age polity and ptarrm-crrCkr to reward Lertarri pofttical supporters and

allies. The intent, motive purpose, and effect of said political patronage policy and plan

was to reward individuals affiliated and/or supporters of Sheriff Perez, while punishing

pro-Cassidy supporters with less favorable positions and employment opportunities.

29. As a direct result of said policy and plan, Defendants Sheriff Perez and

Chief Bartucci's created a culture of retaliation and intimidation within the Hudson

County Sheriff's Office designed, in part, to promote Sheriff Perez' own personal and

political agenda while quashing any political dissent or opposition to his administration.

30. In furtherance of said policy and plan, Defendants Sheriff Perez and Chief

Bartucci, directly and indirectly, pressured and coerced other sheriff officers to support

Sheriff Perez' political agenda by, among other things, pressuring them to buy

fundraising tickets. Under Sheriff Perez and Chief Bartucci's patronage policy, those

sheriff officers who did not buy fundraising tickets were regularly treated less favorably

in terms and condition of their employment or otherwise retaliated against because of

their political activities and association. .

31. Under the Defendants' patronage policy, those sheriff officers affiliated

with the previous Cassidy Administration and Under Sheriff Frank Schillari's election

campaign for Sheriff were unlawfully targeted for retaliation in the workplace. Plaintiffs

were considered by the Defendants Sheriff Perez and Chief Bartucci to be politically

9


affiliated with the previous Sheriff Cassidy Administration and political rival Under

Sheriff Frank Shilliari, who was also part of the Cassidy Administration.

32. Because Plaintiffs were viewed by Defendants Sheriff Perez, Chief

BariatAA, dud Lauizllarrt tronzak4 was affiliated with then politica 'vats to unseat

Sheriff Perez, Plaintiffs were subjected from the very beginning-ofthe Sheriff-Perez

Administration to retaliatory actions and harassment.

33. After the Sheriff Perez administration took office, the Plaintiffs were

subject to a pattern of retaliatory harassment. For example, Plaintiff Sergeant Zapoluch

and S.O. Pino were subjected to selective enforcement of the police department's rules

and regulations by Lieutenant Gonzalez.

34. With regards to Lieutenant Cerwinski, Sheriff Perez deliberately denied

his opportunity for promotion to the rank of Captain by allowing the certified list to

expired and alternatively deny his promotion to captain when a position opened up.

35. Sheriff Perez and Chief Bartucci have made clear their intent to punish the

Plaintiffs because of their political activities and association with the Cassidy

Administration and Under Sheriff Frank Shilliari.

36. In March 2, 2010 Under Sheriff Frank Schillari announced his intention

to run for Hudson County Sheriff, directly challenging Sheriff Perez.

37. With regards to S.O. Pino, he was subjected to a pattern and practice of

race discrimination by his superior officer Captain Groskopff. During his employment,

Captain Groskopff frequently referred to Hispanics as "Spics." When S.O. Pino

complained, no remedial action were taken to correct the problem.

10


38. Instead of taking remedial action in response, Defendants made S.O. Pino

work environment more burdensome.

39. Defendants Sheriff Perez and Chief Bartucci's patronage policies and

havc., Piatntitis, wcti as other similarly situarecilreiividuais, to

- - unequal treatment in the workplace. Defendants' employment policies and practices

discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, and/or association. Similarly situated pro-

Schilliari police officers are treated substantially less favorably than are similarly situated

pro-Perez supporters. The intent, motive, purpose, and effect of Defendants' conduct were

to discriminate on the basis of political beliefs, registration, and/or affiliation.

Defendants' unequal treatment of Plaintiffs was irrational, arbitrary, and capricious.

40. Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs to their unlawful employment

policies and practices in a manner depriving Plaintiffs of rights and privileges secured by

the United States Constitution and laws.

41. In addition to Plaintiffs, Defendants, acting pursuant to their political

patronage policy and plan, have similarly retaliated against others under similar

circumstances, and for the same reasons, all of said employees being affiliated with the

Cassidy Administration and supporters of Under Sheriff Frank Schillari election for

Sheriff.

I. FIRST COUNT

§ 1983 INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY SHERIFF PEREZ,CHIEF BARTUCCI, & LIEUTENANT GONZALEZ

42. All of the allegations in each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated

11


by reference as if fully set forth herein.

43. Defendants' retaliatory conduct, acting under the color of law,

subjected the Plaintiffs to the deprivation of their First and Equal Protection Clause to the

1•ourtcenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as alleged herein.

44. Defendant Sheriff PerezTehietBartucci and Lieutenant Gonzalez'

conduct was intended to and did act to infringe upon Plaintiffs' exercise of their political

activities and expression and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, as alleged herein.

45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have

been and are presently suffering serious mental and emotional distress, anxiety, ridicule,

humiliation, indignity, loss of esteem, embarrassment, loss of civil and constitutional

rights, loss of wages and fringe benefits, and loss of future employment prospects.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continues to suffer, damages in

an amount to be determined by a jury. Because of Defendants Sheriff Perez and Chief

Bartucci's willful and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages in Sheriff

Perez and Chief Bartucci's individual capacity in an amount to be determined by a jury.

II.

SECOND COUNT MUNICIPAL LIABILITY §1983

HUDSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE & HUDSON COUNTY

46 All of the allegations in each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated


47. At all times relevant to this complaint, Sheriff Perez was, and still is, the

final decision-maker for the Hudson County Sheriffs Office. Sheriff Perez' decisions,

12


policies, and orders are official policies attributable to Defendant Hudson County

Sheriff's Office and Hudson County.

48. Acting under the color of law, by and through his own authority as

policy-maker folatson County Sheriffs Office and pursuant to official policy, custom,

practice or with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs, Sheriff Perez did

subject Plaintiffs to the deprivation of their right to protected political activities and

expression and equal protection of law secured under the First and Equal Protection

Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.





As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages in

an amount to be determined by a jury.

III. COUNT THREE

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS UNDER N.J. CONSTITUTION



51. At all times relevant to this complaint, Sheriff Perez was, and still is, the

final decision-maker for the Hudson County Sheriffs Office. Sheriff Perez' decisions,

policies, and orders are official policies attributable to Defendant Hudson County

Sheriff's Office and Hudson County.

13


52. Acting under the color of law, by and through his own authority as

policy-maker for Hudson County Sheriff's Office and pursuant to official policy, custom,

practice or with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs, Sheriff Perez did

*et Plaintiffs to th-rdpfiVaTii7n-1511he following rights:

a. Articlel, Section 6. Plaintiffs' right to speak freely on a matter of

political importance and public interest;

b. Article 1, Section 18. Plaintiffs' right freely to assemble together, to

consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and

to petition for redress of grievances on matters of political importance and public interest.





As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages in

an amount to be determined by a jury.

IV. COUNT FOUR

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY



55. The actions of Defendants were taken in violation of New Jersey's public

policy against retaliating against public employees for engaging in protected political

activities and associations, and prohibitions against unequal treatment in the workplace.

14


56. Defendants' actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer economic, emotional

and psychological damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

V. COUNT FIVE.

LAW AGAINSI DISCRIMINATION HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

N.J.S.A10:5-1. et seq



58. By the acts and practices described above, including but not limited to

creating a hostile work environment based on race, national origin, ethnicity and ignoring

Plaintiff's complaints of same.

59. Defendant Sheriff Office and Hudson County is an employer under

N.J.S.A., 10:5-1 et seq.

60. Captain Groskopff's repeated reference to Hispanics as "Spics" was

extremely offensive and demeaning to S.O. Pino, who is Hispanic.

61. As a high ranking officer and S.O. Pino' superior officer, Captain

Groskopff's repeated highly offensive conduct and racist remarks uttered while

performing his supervisory duties created a hostile work environment for S.O. Pino. As a

Hispanic officer, Captain Groskopff's racist remarks was severe and pervasive.

62. The actions of the Defendants were taken in violation of New Jersey Law

Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A., 10:5-1 et seq as alleged herein.

63. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff S.O. Pino is now suffering

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages and damages for

15


mental anguish and humiliation as a result of Defendants' discriminatory conduct in an

amount to be determined by a jury

VI. SIXTH COUNT

KAtivrAzwe-lw,r. A V X V a wnr...> R 4. I '9 'RAI RINI' 1. .11 If X X it. u,

21±S.C-.-§§ 1981 & 1983



65. Defendants had a policy, custom, usage and/or practice of engaging

in discriminatory employment practices on basis of race, ethnicity and national origin.

66. Defendant Sheriff Office and Hudson County and individual Defendant

and others, acting pursuant to municipal policy, custom, usage and/or practice, subjected

the Plaintiff S.O. Pino to the deprivation of the following rights, privileges and

immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States:

(a) Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of his right to equal protection of the

laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the law guaranteed by the Thirteenth

and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as alleged herein.

(b) Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the law

of the United States as codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as alleged herein.

67. Acting under the color of law, Defendants intentionally, knowingly, or

with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff failed to train, instruct, supervise,

control and/or discipline, on a continuing basis, Captain Groskopff and others from

unlawfully discriminating against Hispanics; depriving Plaintiff S.O. Pino of his equal

protection of law; and depriving S.O. Pino of his rights codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

16


68. As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile

work environment because of his race, national origin, and ethnicity. As a result of

Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs has been made to suffer great anxiety, humiliation,

embarrassment anti other rc .att-u hum ll,J5 that UK. l 'ISTratifs havt-Nufferti

continue to suffer in an amount to be determined by a jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order finding as follows:

(a) That Plaintiffs recover from Defendants Sheriff Perez, Lieutenant

Gonzalez, Captain Groskopff, and Chief Bartucci punitive damages, compensatory

damages, exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by a jury and attorney's

fees in an amount to be determined by the Court.

(b) That Plaintiffs recover from the Defendant Hudson County Sheriff's

Office and Hudson County compensatory damages, and exemplary in an amount to be

determined by a jury and attorney's fees to be determined by the Court.

(c) And that the Court grants such other and further relief as it deems just

and proper.

/s/LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ Dated: December 31, 2010

LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ

17

RELEASE, COVENANT NOT TO SUE, AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Settlement Agreement and Release (hereinafter "Agreement") is effective the

d day of 11.1a.5 , 2017, among plaintiffs, Thomas Cerwinski and Walter

Zapoluch, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs") and defendants, Hudson County and the Hudson

County Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Juan Perez,(hereinafter collectively Hudson County).

1. Background and Purposes of Agreement.

1.1 Plaintiffs were employed by Hudson County as Sheriffs Officers and filed a Complaint alleging,

among other things, violations of the Federal Civil Rights Act, in the Federal District Court for the District

of New Jersey, under Docket No. 10-6830(MH-ES).

1.2 Plaintiffs and Hudson County (together "the Parties") have determined that it is in their best

interest to enter into this Agreement and thereby amicably resolve all issues in dispute, or which could

have been asserted by Plaintiff, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing related to the matters

filed in the law suit.

2. Settlement.

Plaintiff agrees to settle and release all claims against Hudson County, subject to the following terms:

2.1 Plaintiffs shall receive a one-time, lump-sum payment of $30,000.00 each, made payable to

each Plaintiff and Louis Zayas, Esq., as their attorney shall receive a one time lump sum payment in the

amount of $60,000.00 representing his attorney's fees and costs. These payment shall be reported on

an IRS Form 1099 and any other appropriate federal, state, or local tax reporting forms, issued to

Plaintiffs and the attorney for Plaintiffs' with their respective tax ID numbers. The payments are for

damages alleged as part of the lawsuit including, but not limited to, emotional distress, pain and

suffering and physical manifestations of the emotional distress.

2.2 All payments made in accordance with this Agreement, are subject to approval by the Insurance

Fund Commission. As such, the timing of the payment set forth in Section 2.1 shall be dependent upon

when Hudson County receives approval for that payment by the Insurance Fund Commission.

2.3 The payment set forth in Section 2.1 shall be made in accordance with this Agreement and is

intended by the mutual agreement of the Parties to be full compensation for all of Plaintiffs' claims and

potential claims, including, but not limited to, claims for attorney=s fees and expenses.

2.4 Defendants make no representation as to the tax consequences of the payments made pursuant to

this agreement. Plaintiffs agree that they will be responsible for the payment of all State, Federal, and

local taxes with respect to the payments herein described and will assume full liability with respect to

same. Plaintiffs further agree that in the event any taxing authority deems any withholding tax, interest

penalties or other amount to be due with respect to the settlement Plaintiffs will fully indemnify the

Defendants and hold them harmless for any sums that they may be required to pay.

3. Release.

3.1 Plaintiffs hereby fully, unconditionally and without limitation waive, release and forever give up

any and all known and unknown claims, rights and causes of action of every kind, whether in law or in

equity, against Hudson County, its past, present and future elected, appointed and other officials,

officers, directors, employees, successors, assigns and anyone who succeeds to their rights, including,

but not limited to their heirs and the executor of their respective estates, which now exist in connection

with their employment with Hudson County. This release includes, but is not limited to, every claim,

right and cause of action, including those of which Plaintiffs may not be aware and those not expressly

mentioned in this Agreement. This Agreement applies to every claim that Plaintiffs may have, resulting

from anything which has happened up to now and may happen up until the date that Plaintiffs execute

this Agreement.

3.2 This release includes, but is not limited to, every claim by Plaintiffs arising from, connected

with or having relation to Plaintiff's employment with the County of Hudson, from the inception of that

employment to the date of this agreement brought or which could have been brought before any state

or federal administrative agency or any court, including, but not limited to, all federal, state, local or

administrative claims arising under any of the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended; the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870 and 1871; the Civil Rights Act of 1968; the Equal Pay Act;

the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act;

the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1991; the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act (AERISA); the Family Medical Leave Act; the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act; the

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining

Notification Act; the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (ACOBRA); the New Jersey Law

Against Discrimination; the New Jersey Family Leave Act; New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection

Act (ACEPA); the New Jersey Law of Workers Compensation, N.J.S.A. 34:15-39.1; the New Jersey Equal

Pay Act; the New Jersey Smokers Rights Law; the New Jersey Genetic Privacy Act; New Jersey Civil Rights

Act; any other applicable federal, state or local anti-discrimination or equal employment opportunity

statutes or regulations.

3.3 This release also includes, without limitation, no matter how denominated or described, any

claim by Plaintiff under any federal, state or local law, rule, regulation or executive order and any claim

by Plaintiff of disparate treatment, disparate conduct or unequal pay; any claim by Plaintiffs of unlawful

discrimination, including, without limitation, political affiliation; breach of contract, written or oral,

express or implied; breach of promise or public policy; retaliation; impairment of economic opportunity;

loss of business opportunity; right to exercise options; fraud; misrepresentation; intentional infliction of

emotional distress; psychological harm or any other tort; pain and suffering; perceived disability; history

of disability; and, payment of wages or benefits. This release extends and applies to all unknown,

unsuspected and unanticipated claims, liens, injuries and damage claims by Grabowski as well as those

now known.

4. Attorneys Fees and Expenses.

It is specifically understood and agreed that the amount paid under this Agreement includes all

attorneys fees and costs to which Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys may be entitled, and the amount is

specifically intended to be inclusive of all attorney=s fees and costs. Plaintiffs understand that by

executing this agreement they release and waive any claim or right for attorney=s fees and expenses in

connection with their claims. No application shall or can be made for any monies in addition to the

amounts set forth in this Agreement nor shall she make any application for attorney=s fees or costs as

those amounts are included in the total payment being made herein.

5. No Admission of Liability.

This Agreement is executed and all consideration is given in final settlement of disputed claims

and shall not be construed as an admission of any allegation of liability or wrongdoing by any of the

Parties. Nor does this Release indicate in any way any opinion or position on the part of the Releasee as

to the potential tax consequences of this payment and Releasor agrees to be bound by any finding or

determination of the Internal Revenue Service or the State Tax authority on the taxability of the

settlement payment.

6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure.

It is agreed and understood that neither the Plaintiff(s) nor Plaintiff's counsel shall affirmatively

initiate publicity or contact with the press or media concerning this litigation or this settlement nor

respond if contacted by the press or media.

7. New Jersey Child Support Judgment Search.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23(b), Plaintiff understands and agrees that they will receive the

net proceeds of the settlement sum only after they have provided Hudson County with a certified copy

of a child support judgment search, performed by a private judgment search company, reflecting that

Plaintiffs are not child support judgment debtors. Plaintiffs further understand and agree that in the

event it is revealed that there is a child support judgment, proceeds of the settlement will not be

received until all outstanding New Jersey child support judgments are satisfied.

8. Fair Representation.

The Parties represent and warrant that their respective attorneys have represented them fully,

fairly, and without bias or conflict in connection with the Action.

9. Consultation with an Attorney.

The Parties have consulted with their attorneys with respect to this Agreement, and reviewed

with their attorneys all the terms and conditions of this Agreement before signing this Agreement.

10. Knowing and Voluntary Agreement.

The Parties represent and acknowledge that they have had a reasonable amount of time to

consider this Agreement and that, in executing this Agreement, they rely entirely upon their own

judgment, beliefs and interests and the advice of their counsel, and they do not rely and have not relied

upon any representation or statement made by the other party, or by any agents, representatives or

attorneys of the other party, with regard to the subject matter, basis or effect of this Agreement or

otherwise, other than as specifically stated in this Agreement. The parties specifically acknowledge that

all releases contained herein are knowing and voluntary.

11. Who is Bound.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, and their

respective legal representatives, agents, successors, assigns, heirs and executors.

12. Complete Agreement.

This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject

matter and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings dealing with the same subject matter.

No party has agreed to do anything other than as is expressly stated in this Agreement.

13. Choice of Law.

This Agreement shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed by the laws of the

State of New Jersey.

14. Modification.

No modification or amendment of this Agreement will be enforceable unless it is in writing and

signed by the parties.

15. Severability.

Should any provision of this Agreement be declared or determined by any court of competent

jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the legality, validity, and enforceability of the

remaining parts, terms, or provisions shall not be affected thereby and said illegal, unenforceable or

invalid part, term, or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement.

16. Negotiated Agreement: No Construction Against Any Party.

This Agreement was not drafted by any of the Parties but, rather, is the result of negotiations

among the Parties with the benefit of their attorneys. Each party to this Agreement read this

Agreement and has freely and voluntarily executed it. No ambiguity that may arise in this Agreement

shall be resolved by construing the Agreement against any of the Parties as the Agreement=s drafter.

Offices of Louis A. Zayas,

By:

Michael L. Dermody, Esq.

First Assistant County Counsel

17. Attestation of Parties.

Each of the Parties represent and warrant that they have carefully read each and every provision

of this Agreement and that they fully understand all of the terms and conditions contained in each

provision of this Agreement. Each of the Parties represents and warrants that they enter into this

Agreement voluntarily, of their own free will, without any pressure or coercion from any person or

entity whatsoever.

18. Counterparts.

The Parties may execute this Agreement in separate counterparts, all of which taken together

shall constitute the Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed.

Attorney for Plaintiff, Louis A. Zayas, Esq.

Louis A. Zayas, Esq.

Hudson County Counsel

Attorneys for defendants Hudson County, et. al.

Attorneys for Defendant, Juan Perez

Raymond L. Hamlin, Esq.

Hunt, Hamlin, et. al.

Raymond L. H. lin, Esq.

Date post:	23-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

LOUIS A. ZAYAS, ESQ. (LZ-1881) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LIEUTENANT...

Documents