Preview
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pglof21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
David Castellani, Esq. #023691991
Castellani Law Firm, LLC
450 Tilton Road, Suite 245
Northfield, NJ 08225-1259
(609) 641-2288
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AUDREY KERNAN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: CAPE MAY COUNTY
Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. CPM-L-
Vv. CIVIL ACTION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY COMPLAINT
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ROBERT AND JURY DEMAND
ASARO-ANGELO, TENNILLE McCOY,
INGRID FRENCH, CARMINE
TAGLIALATELLA, DAISY PALUMBO,
STEPHANIE MINGIN, and JOHN DOE AND
JANE ROE 1-5; individually, and in their
official capacity,
Defendants,
Plaintiff Audrey Kernan, by and through her attorneys, by way of Complaint against the
Defendants, State of New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Labor (““NJDOL”), Tennille McCoy
(“McCoy”), Ingrid French (“French”), Carmine Taglialatella (“Taglialatella”), Daisy Palumbo
(“Palumbo”), Stephanie Mingin (“Mingin”) and John Doe and Jane Roe 1-5 (said names being
fictitious) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby alleges as follows:
PARTIES AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Audrey Kernan (“Kernan”) is a resident of Ocean City, Cape May County, State
of New Jersey. Plaintiffhas been an employee of the State of New Jersey for over twenty
years, serving as a Supervisory Workers Compensation Judge.
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg2of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
Defendant NJDOL, with headquarters in Trenton, New Jersey, is a branch of the
Defendant State of New Jersey government and is responsible for formulating and
managing the state’s labor infrastructure by providing statewide services to state and
local government agencies as well as the citizens of New Jersey. Defendant State of New
Jersey and Defendant NJDOL were Plaintiffs employer at all times herein.
Upon information and belief, defendant Robert Asaro-Angelo is and was at all relevant
times hereto employed as the commissioner of the NJDOL.
Upon information and belief, defendant Tennille McCoy is and was at all relevant times
hereto employed as an assistant commissioner of the NIDOL.
Upon information and belief, defendant Ingrid French is and was at all relevant times
hereto employed by the NJDOL as a “Workers Compensation Judge” and/or
“Administrative Supervising Judge.”
Upon information and belief, defendant Carmine Taglialatella is and was at all relevant
times hereto employed by the NIDOL as a “Workers Compensation Judge” and/or
Supervising Judge.”
Upon information and belief, defendant Daisy Palumbo is and was at all relevant times
hereto employed by the NJDOL as a “clerk” and/or “office technician.”
Upon information and belief, defendant Stephanie Mingin was at all relevant times hereto
employed by the NJDOL as a “clerk” and/or an “office technician,”
Cape May County is the appropriaté venue in this matter under R, 4:3-2,
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg3of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10.In or about November 2001, Plaintiff was nominated to be a Judge of Workers
Compensation for the State of New Jersey Department of Labor by Senator James S.
Cafiero from Cape May County,
11. In or about December 2001, Plaintiff was appointed’ by then Governor of New Jersey
Donald T. DiFrancesco to serve as a “Judge” of Workers Compensation for the NIDOL.
12. In or around late January 2002, Plaintiff accepted the appointment, closed her law practice
and was sworn in as a “Judge” of Workers Compensation working under defendant
NJDOL,
13 In or about September 2009, in recognition of her stellar work, Plaintiff was notified that
she had been elevated to “Administrative Supervisory Judge,” which started on or about
September 30, 2009.
14 In or about 2017, Plaintiff was once again promoted, this time to “Supervisory Judge” i
Atlantic City. The Director of the NJDOL noted Plaintiff's work effort, diligence and
excellent work record and ratings in promoting her.
15 For the majority of Plaintiffs employment from 2002 through 2022, Plaintiff served in the
Cape May — Atlantic City vicinage.
16 Over the years of working for the NJDOL, Plaintiff has been referred to as “Black lover,”
“wily woman,” “witch,” “playing for the wrong team, » ‘goody two shoes,” “nerd” and
even the “white devil” — by other New Jersey Workers’ Compensation judges, supervisors
and/or administrative Dept of Labor employees,
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg4of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
17. In or about January 2018, Plaintiff was informed that defendant Judge of Compensation
Carmine Taglialatella had created and was engaged in an impermissible ethical conflict of
interest by serving as a member of the Board of Trustees of Shore Medical Center located
in Somers Point, New Jersey while simultaneously sitting as a Judge of Compensation,
along with other violations.
18. Plaintiff informed the Administrative Supervisory Judge of Compensation Ashley
Hutchinson, Administrative Supervisory Judge of Compensation Art Marchand, Chief
Judge and Director of Workers Compensation Russell Wojtenko and/or a supervisor whom
she was to report of this conflict of interest, which she reasonably believed was a violation
of the Oveliue Cannon of Ethics and Rules of Professional conduct for attorneys and/or
judges or judges in Worker’s Compensation Court.
19 Upon information and belief, shortly after Plaintiff reported the wrongful conduct, Judge
Taglialateila began orchestrating a severe, pervasive pattern of harassment against Plaintiff
in retaliation for Plaintiffs report.
20, In or about June 2018, Plaintiff reported to Chief Judge and Director Wojtenko her
reasonable belief that defendant Administrative Supervisory Judge of Compensation Ingrid
French had improperly submitted requests for mileage expense reimbursement over the
course of several years thereby engaging in thefi, falsifying public records and fraud,
including wire and mail fraud and/or engaging in illegal or unethical conduct.
21 Upon information and belief, shortly after Plaintiff reported the aforementioned wrongful
conduct, Judge French began orchestrating a severe or pervasive pattern of harassment
against Plaintiff in retaliation for her report.
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg5of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
22. In or about April 2018, Plaintiff reported to Chief Judge and Director Wojtenko her
reasonable belief that defendant clerk Daisy Palumbo was claiming to have had sex with
at least one of the attorneys who appeared before the Workers Compensation Court in
Atlantic City while simultaneously handling cases brought by that attorney, which Plaintiff
reasonably believed was an ethical and/or other conflict.
\
23 Upon information and belief, shortly after Plaintiff reported the wrongful conduct,
defendant Palumbo began orchestrating a severe and pervasive pattern of harassment
against Plaintiff in retaliation for her report.
24 Thereafter, upon information and belief, defendants Palumbo and Mingin engaged in a
continuous pattern of harassment of the Plaintiff at the direction of and/or to gain favor
with the individual judge defendants by stalking Plaintiff and reporting back to the other
individual defendants. By way of example, including but not limited to defendant Mingin
would lay on the floor at Plaintiff's office door to attempt to hear and see Plaintiff in an
effort to report any conduct of Plaintiff to the other Defendants.
25 For all relevant times hereto, Palumbo continually harassed Plaintiff by falsely charging
Plaintiff with false claims (found to have no merit) and doing things like repeatedly calling
her chambers and hanging up, and cven admitting that she was “messing with [Judge
Kerman].”
26. Upon information and belief, defendants Palumbo and Mingin harassed Plaintiff by filing
knowingly false claims against Plaintiff either at the direction of and/or to gain favor with
the individual judge defendants and the other defendants.
27. Upon information and belief, in 2018 and 2019 the individual defendants filed numerous
false and wrongful claims against Plaintiff in concert with each other and/or other
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg6of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
individual defendants and with the intention of harming Plaintiff in an effort to remove her
from her position.
28. The individual defendants filed false claims against Plaintiff in retaliation against Plaintiff
for her reports of wrongdoings of other New Jersey Workers Compensation Judges and not
“playing along” with the ongoing fraud and unethical conduct being committed and
permitted by the Defendants.
29. Upon information and belief, Defendants treated Plaintiff differently and/or in a disparate
manner than they have treated and/or would have treated Plaintiff if she was a male.
30. Upon information and belief, Defendants would not have retaliated against Plaintiff for her
reports and/or disclosures if Plaintiff was a male.
31 Plaintiff was forced to defend numerous false charges that had no factual or legal basis in
reality but were brought with the intent to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff.
32. By issuance of various separate letters during this time period to Plaintiff, all complaints
against Plaintiff were found to be unsubstantiated and without merit and dismissed.
33 On or about May 14, 2019, Palumbo again falsely charged Plaintiff with a bogus claim,
this time alleging that Plaintiff was “screaming and yelling.” Once again, an investigation
proved allegations against Plaintiff had no merit.
34. Up to at least July 8, 2021, Plaintiff was continually harassed and retaliated against by
Defendants for reporting wrongful conduct of other judges and staff of the New Jersey
Department of Labor.
35 In or about October 2019, NJDOL Assistant Commissioner Tennille McCoy wrongfully,
knowingly, willingly, and maliciously filed a complaint with the Judiciary Performance
Commission against Plaintiff based on fraudulent statements that had been previously
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg7of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
dismissed by the State of New Jersey EEO, knowing that these claims were previously
determined to be unfounded and dismissed without merit.
36 Upon information and belief, Defendant, Assistant Commissioner McCoy, was directed
and/or manipulated into filing the October 2019 complaint by Defendant NJDOL
employees including but not limited to the individual Defendants, who wanted Plaintiff
removed from her position and employment with Defendant State of New Jersey in
retaliation for her “blowing the whistle” on wrongful conduct and/or otherwise exercising
her right to freedom of speech on matters of public concern.
37 On or about July 9, 2021, the NIDOL and/or individual Defendants Asaro-Angelo and
McCoy and/or John Does 1-10, wrongfully suspended Plaintiffs employment and had two
or three building and floor guards/officers physically remove Plaintiff from her workplace
without good cause, and for purposes of public humiliation, embarrassment and to destroy
and disparage Plaintiffs reputation both professional and business.
38 For practical purposes, the Defendant NJDOL and/or State of New Jersey and the
individual defendants and John Does 1-10 wrongfully denied Plaintiff promotions she
would have otherwise been entitled to and has effectively wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs
employment on or about July 9, 2021.
39 The Defendant, NIDOL and/or State of New Jersey and individual Defendants’ reasoning
for its “major discipline” against Plaintiff was nothing more than a pretext for retaliation
and/or discrimination. Furthermore, Supervising Judge Kernan is tenured since 2005 which
actions are designed, schemed and/or conspired to circumvent the protections of tenure.
40, Upon information and belief, Plaintiff would not have been suspended and/or terminated
based on the same factual allegations if she was a male. In addition, similarly situated
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg 8of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
Workers Compensation Judges committed similar if not more severe offenses than
Plaintiff, including Defendant Ingrid French and Bradley Henson and did not receive as
severe discipline as the Plaintiff.
41 Upon information and belief, male New Jersey Workers Compensation judges including
but not limited to Workers Compensation Judge Brad Henson (Ret.) whose conduct was
much more egregious than anything Plaintiff was ever accused of were not suspended
and/or terminated based on the same or similar allegations, if not more severe allegations
as compared to Plaintiff.
42, Defendants’ actions were in retaliation for the exercise of her New Jersey Constitutional
Right to free speech and also in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting what she reasonably
believed were violations of the law, illegal, unethical, or fraudulent conduct.
43 Upon information and belief Defendants’ actions would not have occurred but for
Plaintiff's gender (female).
On or about June 14, 2019, and October 4, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendants with Notices
of Tort Claims pursuant fo N.J.S.A, 59:8-1 to -11.
COUNT ONE
Violation of Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq.
45 Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
46 By and through the conduct described above, Defendants violated the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq., by retaliating
against Plaintiff for her reports about, and refusal to participate in conduct that she
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg9of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
reasonably believed was unlawful, fraudulent or criminal, and/or incompatible with a clear
mandate of public policy.
47 In retaliation for her reports of the wrongdoings of certain NIDOL employees, Plaintiff's
employment was illegally suspended and/or terminated and Plaintiff was subjected to a
hostile work environment through a continuous pattern of antagonistic behavior against the
Plaintiff.
48 Alternatively, the actions of the Defendants constituted a wrongful termination in violation
of public policy which included the Canon of Judicial Ethics, criminal laws, and the New
Jersey Constitution and such other laws, rules, regulations or statutes.
49 By reason of Defendants’ actions described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer economic losses, harm to career, harm to reputation, bodily injury with physical
manifestations, pain and suffering, emotional distress, personal and social disruption, and
other such damages compensable under CEPA.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back
pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other
remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress
damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other
relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
COUNT TWO
Violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq, based on gender.
50. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg10of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
51. Atall relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a female and therefore a protected person within.
the meaning and intent of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et
seq, (“LAD”).
52. Plaintiff was treated differently by Defendants based on her gender.
53 Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs male colleagues’ concerns and requests were
addressed promptly and with respect, but Plaintiff's reports of actual wrongdoings were
belittled and not properly addressed.
54 Plaintiff was called derogatory names based on her gender by NJDOL management,
including but not limited to the individual defendant New Jersey Workers Compensation
Judges. The derogatory names included, but are not limited to, “wily woman, 29 «6, ‘playing for
the wrong team,” “witch,” “Black lover” and “white devil”.
55 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's male counterparts were not suspended nor
terminated for conduct that was similar, if not worse, than accusations that were made
against Plaintiff and Plaintiff was otherwise treated less favorably than male Workers
Compensation Judges.
56. Defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination harassment in violation of the LAD and
created condoned and fostered a hostile work environment for the Plaintiff and was severe
and pervasive and continued until the date of Plaintiff's suspension and de facto
termination. Defendants’ acts were done intentionally and maliciously and were
egregiously wrongful toward Plaintiff.
57 Defendants subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory treatment and a hostile work environment
based upon her gender in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination,
N.1S.A. 10-5:1, et seq. In addition, Plaintiff complained of the same and Defendants were
10
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg1lof21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
negligent in their investigation and/or handling of Plaintiff's complaints and Defendants’
response to Plaintiff's complaints were inadequate or nonexistent.
58 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful discrimination, Plaintiff suffered,
and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress
incidental to his adverse and hostile treatment prior to his termination, from the termination
itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature, Plaintiff
has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress,
serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain,
and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for equitable relief of reinstatement together with full compensation
including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with
interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest;
compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages,
together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem
just and necessary.
COUNT THREE
Defamation
Slander and Libel
59. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
60. Defendants made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff as a public official,
intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and with actual malice.
li
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg12of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
61. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to defamation, slander and/or libel per se directly and
through its agents, either in writing or spoken, communicated to third persons and the
public at large in the form of the false complaints made against the Plaintiff by the
Defendants.
62 Defendants’ defamatory statements about Plaintiff, through written words, spoken words
and/or conduct, injured the Plaintiff's reputation and were concerning her profession as a
Workers Compensation Judge.
63 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamation, slander and/or libel, Plaintiff
suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional
distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the
separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in
nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental
anguish, siress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical
anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary,
COUNT FOUR
False Light
64. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
12
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg13o0f21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
65. By and through the conduct described above, Defendants made Plaintiff appear before the
public in an objectionable false light or false position, or in other words, otherwise than as
she is.
66, By and through the conduct described above, Defendants placed Plaintiff in a false light
which was and would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person.
67. Defendants acted with knowledge of or in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the
publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed.
68. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct causing damage, Plaintiff suffered,
and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress
incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation
itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff
has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress,
serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain,
and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
COUNT FIVE
Intentional Fraud Causing Damage
69, Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
13
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg14of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
70. Defendant NJDOL and/or State of New Jersey, by and through its agents and the individual
Defendants intentionally made material misrepresentations, or omissions in the fact of an
obligation to disclose, of facts, knowing of the falsity of the statements and with an intent
that another rely upon said statements.
71 Based on the intentional fraud, third parties reasonably relied upon the misrepresentations
regarding Plaintiff and believed the misrepresentations to be true, resulting in Plaintiffs
suspension and public removal from the bench.
72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional fraud causing damage, Plaintiff
suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional
distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the
separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in
nature, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental
anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical
anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
COUNT SIX
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
73. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
14
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg15of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
74. Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct toward Plaintiff as described above
intentionally in a fashion intended to produce severe emotional distress, or recklessly in
deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that emotional distress would follow,
causing damages to Plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct exceeded all bounds of decency as not
to be tolerated in a civilized community.
75 Defendants conduct proximately caused Plaintiff emotional distress so severe that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
76. As a ditect and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress
Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss,
emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation,
from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and
emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and
benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional
upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been
irreparably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back
pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other
remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress
damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other
relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
COUNT SEVEN
Malicious Abuse of Process
15
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg16of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
77. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
78 Defendants wrongfully and improperly used the New Jersey Division of Workers’
Compensation Commission on Judicial Performance and maliciously filed complaint(s)
against Plaintiff based on fraudulent allegations that were known to have previously been
dismissed after a complete EEO investigation subjecting Plaintiff to civil administrative
double jeopardy in an effort to punish Plaintiff twice for the same alleged conduct.
79, Defendants had an ulterior motive or improper purpose in filing the wrongful complaint(s)
and duplicitous charges,
80 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ malicious abuse of process, Plaintiff
suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional
distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the
separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in
nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental
anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical
anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irrepavably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
16
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg17of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
COUNT EIGHT
Aiding and Abetting
81. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if
set forth herein at length.
82. The Individual Defendants pursued a common plan or design to commit a wrongful action
upon Plaintiff in violation of law, whether by active participation, aid, encouragement, or
ratification of the wrong if done for their benefit.
83. As aconcerted effort, Defendants conspired to discriminate, harass, retaliate, and terminate
Plaintiff.
84. As such, the Individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable in damages to the
Plaintiff under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and CEPA.
85 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered, and continues
to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her
adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from
the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered
and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious
embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and
suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff’s life has been irreparably harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
17
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg18of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
COUNT NINE
Employer’s Bad Faith Against Employee
86, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing allegations as if set forth at length
herein.
87, Defendants, as Plaintiffs employers, had a duty to act in good faith with respect to the
contract of employment express or implied with the Plaintiff giving rise to a covenant of
good faith and fair dealing with respect to the employment relationship with Plaintiff.
88. Defendants, NIDOL and State of New Jersey, as Plaintiffs employer failed to act in good
faith or dealt unfairly and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with
Plaintiff with regard to discipline procedures reasonably understood by the Plaintiff to
create binding duties and obligations between the employer and the employee.
89 As such, Defendants NIDOL and the State of New Jersey are liable to the Plaintiff for
monetary damages proximately caused by the breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.
90. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for monctary damages proximately caused by the breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
91 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct Plaintiff suffered, and continues
to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her
adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from
the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered
and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious
embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and
suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed.
18
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg19of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
COUNT TEN
NJCRA
92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing allegations as if set forth at length
herein.
93 The individual Defendants, and each of them, were acting under color of State Law at all
times mentioned herein.
94 The individual Defendants are being sued in their individual capacity and in their official
capacity as well.
95. The Defendants’ conduct set forth in the previous Counts of this Complaint were in
retaliation for Plaintiffs exercise of her right to free speech on matters of public concern
protected under the New Jersey Constitution Article 1 sec. 6.
96. It is further alleged that the Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiff of her right to life,
liberty, and pursuit of and protection of her property right to tenured employment with the
Defendants and deprived her of substantive due process.
97 Defendant’s deprived Plaintiff of the exercise of the aforementioned constitutional rights
by means of threats, intimidation and/or coercion.
98 As such, the Defendants conduct constituted a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act
N.IS.A. 10:6-2, et. seq.
19
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg 20of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
99, As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was subjected to
continuing adverse actions including suspension and termination from employment, loss
of past and future wages, emotional distress, damage to her personal and business
reputation and such other damages all to her detriment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally,
and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions,
back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits
and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional
distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and
such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands, pursuant to R. 4:35-1 et seq., a jury trial of not less than six persons on
all issues so triable.
‘DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
David Castellani, Esq. is designated as trial counsel on all issues on behalf of the Plaintiff.
CAST , LLC
be 4
Davi
amisE: Sq.
ATTO. EY FOR PL, Sister
DATED:
20
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg21of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION
Plaintiff, by his attorney, hereby certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject
of any other pending or contemplated judicial or arbitration proceeding. Plaintiff is not currently
aware of any other party who should be joined in this action.
a e) M
1h, 7
CASTEL, r
By:
David Cast
ATTORNE RPEAINTIFE
DATED:
REQUEST FOR INSURANCE AGREEMENTS
PURSUANT TO NEW JERSEY RULE 4:10-2
Pursuant to R. 4:10-2, Plaintiff hereby demands that Defendants provide all information
regarding the existence and contents of any insurance agreements under which any person and/or
entity carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which
may be entered in this action, or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
judgment.
e Ae ny
dl i
IRM, LLC
i
By:
DATED:
’D: ay
ATTO) oN ai, Bg,
?OR PLAINTIFF
21
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pglof1 Trans ID: LCV20222460544
Civil Case Information Statement
Case Details: CAPE MAY | Civil Part Docket# L-000238-22
Case Caption: KERNAN AUDREY VS STATE OF NEW Case Type: WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE
JERSEY PROTECTION ACT (CEPA)
Case Initiation Date: 07/01/2022 Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand
Attorney Name: DAVID ROCK CASTELLANI Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS
Firm Name: CASTELLANI LAW FIRM, LLC Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Address: 450 TILTON ROAD SUITE 245 Related cases pending: NO
NORTHFIELD NJ 08225 If yes, list docket numbers:
Phone: 6096412288 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : KERNAN, AUDREY transaction or occurrence)? NO
Name of Defendant's Primary Insurance Company Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO
(if known): Unknown
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: AUDREY KERNAN? NO
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? YES
If yes, is that relationship: Employer/Employee
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? YES
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual
management or accelerated disposition:
Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO
If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:
Will an interpreter be needed? NO
If yes, for what language:
Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO
| certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the
court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)
07/01/2022 /s/ DAVID ROCK CASTELLANI
Dated Signed
Preview
CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pglof21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 David Castellani, Esq. #023691991 Castellani Law Firm, LLC 450 Tilton Road, Suite 245 Northfield, NJ 08225-1259 (609) 641-2288 Attorneys for Plaintiff AUDREY KERNAN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: CAPE MAY COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. CPM-L- Vv. CIVIL ACTION STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ROBERT AND JURY DEMAND ASARO-ANGELO, TENNILLE McCOY, INGRID FRENCH, CARMINE TAGLIALATELLA, DAISY PALUMBO, STEPHANIE MINGIN, and JOHN DOE AND JANE ROE 1-5; individually, and in their official capacity, Defendants, Plaintiff Audrey Kernan, by and through her attorneys, by way of Complaint against the Defendants, State of New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Labor (““NJDOL”), Tennille McCoy (“McCoy”), Ingrid French (“French”), Carmine Taglialatella (“Taglialatella”), Daisy Palumbo (“Palumbo”), Stephanie Mingin (“Mingin”) and John Doe and Jane Roe 1-5 (said names being fictitious) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby alleges as follows: PARTIES AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Audrey Kernan (“Kernan”) is a resident of Ocean City, Cape May County, State of New Jersey. Plaintiffhas been an employee of the State of New Jersey for over twenty years, serving as a Supervisory Workers Compensation Judge. CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg2of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 Defendant NJDOL, with headquarters in Trenton, New Jersey, is a branch of the Defendant State of New Jersey government and is responsible for formulating and managing the state’s labor infrastructure by providing statewide services to state and local government agencies as well as the citizens of New Jersey. Defendant State of New Jersey and Defendant NJDOL were Plaintiffs employer at all times herein. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert Asaro-Angelo is and was at all relevant times hereto employed as the commissioner of the NJDOL. Upon information and belief, defendant Tennille McCoy is and was at all relevant times hereto employed as an assistant commissioner of the NIDOL. Upon information and belief, defendant Ingrid French is and was at all relevant times hereto employed by the NJDOL as a “Workers Compensation Judge” and/or “Administrative Supervising Judge.” Upon information and belief, defendant Carmine Taglialatella is and was at all relevant times hereto employed by the NIDOL as a “Workers Compensation Judge” and/or Supervising Judge.” Upon information and belief, defendant Daisy Palumbo is and was at all relevant times hereto employed by the NJDOL as a “clerk” and/or “office technician.” Upon information and belief, defendant Stephanie Mingin was at all relevant times hereto employed by the NJDOL as a “clerk” and/or an “office technician,” Cape May County is the appropriaté venue in this matter under R, 4:3-2, CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg3of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 10.In or about November 2001, Plaintiff was nominated to be a Judge of Workers Compensation for the State of New Jersey Department of Labor by Senator James S. Cafiero from Cape May County, 11. In or about December 2001, Plaintiff was appointed’ by then Governor of New Jersey Donald T. DiFrancesco to serve as a “Judge” of Workers Compensation for the NIDOL. 12. In or around late January 2002, Plaintiff accepted the appointment, closed her law practice and was sworn in as a “Judge” of Workers Compensation working under defendant NJDOL, 13 In or about September 2009, in recognition of her stellar work, Plaintiff was notified that she had been elevated to “Administrative Supervisory Judge,” which started on or about September 30, 2009. 14 In or about 2017, Plaintiff was once again promoted, this time to “Supervisory Judge” i Atlantic City. The Director of the NJDOL noted Plaintiff's work effort, diligence and excellent work record and ratings in promoting her. 15 For the majority of Plaintiffs employment from 2002 through 2022, Plaintiff served in the Cape May — Atlantic City vicinage. 16 Over the years of working for the NJDOL, Plaintiff has been referred to as “Black lover,” “wily woman,” “witch,” “playing for the wrong team, » ‘goody two shoes,” “nerd” and even the “white devil” — by other New Jersey Workers’ Compensation judges, supervisors and/or administrative Dept of Labor employees, CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg4of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 17. In or about January 2018, Plaintiff was informed that defendant Judge of Compensation Carmine Taglialatella had created and was engaged in an impermissible ethical conflict of interest by serving as a member of the Board of Trustees of Shore Medical Center located in Somers Point, New Jersey while simultaneously sitting as a Judge of Compensation, along with other violations. 18. Plaintiff informed the Administrative Supervisory Judge of Compensation Ashley Hutchinson, Administrative Supervisory Judge of Compensation Art Marchand, Chief Judge and Director of Workers Compensation Russell Wojtenko and/or a supervisor whom she was to report of this conflict of interest, which she reasonably believed was a violation of the Oveliue Cannon of Ethics and Rules of Professional conduct for attorneys and/or judges or judges in Worker’s Compensation Court. 19 Upon information and belief, shortly after Plaintiff reported the wrongful conduct, Judge Taglialateila began orchestrating a severe, pervasive pattern of harassment against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiffs report. 20, In or about June 2018, Plaintiff reported to Chief Judge and Director Wojtenko her reasonable belief that defendant Administrative Supervisory Judge of Compensation Ingrid French had improperly submitted requests for mileage expense reimbursement over the course of several years thereby engaging in thefi, falsifying public records and fraud, including wire and mail fraud and/or engaging in illegal or unethical conduct. 21 Upon information and belief, shortly after Plaintiff reported the aforementioned wrongful conduct, Judge French began orchestrating a severe or pervasive pattern of harassment against Plaintiff in retaliation for her report. CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg5of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 22. In or about April 2018, Plaintiff reported to Chief Judge and Director Wojtenko her reasonable belief that defendant clerk Daisy Palumbo was claiming to have had sex with at least one of the attorneys who appeared before the Workers Compensation Court in Atlantic City while simultaneously handling cases brought by that attorney, which Plaintiff reasonably believed was an ethical and/or other conflict. \ 23 Upon information and belief, shortly after Plaintiff reported the wrongful conduct, defendant Palumbo began orchestrating a severe and pervasive pattern of harassment against Plaintiff in retaliation for her report. 24 Thereafter, upon information and belief, defendants Palumbo and Mingin engaged in a continuous pattern of harassment of the Plaintiff at the direction of and/or to gain favor with the individual judge defendants by stalking Plaintiff and reporting back to the other individual defendants. By way of example, including but not limited to defendant Mingin would lay on the floor at Plaintiff's office door to attempt to hear and see Plaintiff in an effort to report any conduct of Plaintiff to the other Defendants. 25 For all relevant times hereto, Palumbo continually harassed Plaintiff by falsely charging Plaintiff with false claims (found to have no merit) and doing things like repeatedly calling her chambers and hanging up, and cven admitting that she was “messing with [Judge Kerman].” 26. Upon information and belief, defendants Palumbo and Mingin harassed Plaintiff by filing knowingly false claims against Plaintiff either at the direction of and/or to gain favor with the individual judge defendants and the other defendants. 27. Upon information and belief, in 2018 and 2019 the individual defendants filed numerous false and wrongful claims against Plaintiff in concert with each other and/or other CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg6of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 individual defendants and with the intention of harming Plaintiff in an effort to remove her from her position. 28. The individual defendants filed false claims against Plaintiff in retaliation against Plaintiff for her reports of wrongdoings of other New Jersey Workers Compensation Judges and not “playing along” with the ongoing fraud and unethical conduct being committed and permitted by the Defendants. 29. Upon information and belief, Defendants treated Plaintiff differently and/or in a disparate manner than they have treated and/or would have treated Plaintiff if she was a male. 30. Upon information and belief, Defendants would not have retaliated against Plaintiff for her reports and/or disclosures if Plaintiff was a male. 31 Plaintiff was forced to defend numerous false charges that had no factual or legal basis in reality but were brought with the intent to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff. 32. By issuance of various separate letters during this time period to Plaintiff, all complaints against Plaintiff were found to be unsubstantiated and without merit and dismissed. 33 On or about May 14, 2019, Palumbo again falsely charged Plaintiff with a bogus claim, this time alleging that Plaintiff was “screaming and yelling.” Once again, an investigation proved allegations against Plaintiff had no merit. 34. Up to at least July 8, 2021, Plaintiff was continually harassed and retaliated against by Defendants for reporting wrongful conduct of other judges and staff of the New Jersey Department of Labor. 35 In or about October 2019, NJDOL Assistant Commissioner Tennille McCoy wrongfully, knowingly, willingly, and maliciously filed a complaint with the Judiciary Performance Commission against Plaintiff based on fraudulent statements that had been previously CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg7of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 dismissed by the State of New Jersey EEO, knowing that these claims were previously determined to be unfounded and dismissed without merit. 36 Upon information and belief, Defendant, Assistant Commissioner McCoy, was directed and/or manipulated into filing the October 2019 complaint by Defendant NJDOL employees including but not limited to the individual Defendants, who wanted Plaintiff removed from her position and employment with Defendant State of New Jersey in retaliation for her “blowing the whistle” on wrongful conduct and/or otherwise exercising her right to freedom of speech on matters of public concern. 37 On or about July 9, 2021, the NIDOL and/or individual Defendants Asaro-Angelo and McCoy and/or John Does 1-10, wrongfully suspended Plaintiffs employment and had two or three building and floor guards/officers physically remove Plaintiff from her workplace without good cause, and for purposes of public humiliation, embarrassment and to destroy and disparage Plaintiffs reputation both professional and business. 38 For practical purposes, the Defendant NJDOL and/or State of New Jersey and the individual defendants and John Does 1-10 wrongfully denied Plaintiff promotions she would have otherwise been entitled to and has effectively wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs employment on or about July 9, 2021. 39 The Defendant, NIDOL and/or State of New Jersey and individual Defendants’ reasoning for its “major discipline” against Plaintiff was nothing more than a pretext for retaliation and/or discrimination. Furthermore, Supervising Judge Kernan is tenured since 2005 which actions are designed, schemed and/or conspired to circumvent the protections of tenure. 40, Upon information and belief, Plaintiff would not have been suspended and/or terminated based on the same factual allegations if she was a male. In addition, similarly situated CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg 8of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 Workers Compensation Judges committed similar if not more severe offenses than Plaintiff, including Defendant Ingrid French and Bradley Henson and did not receive as severe discipline as the Plaintiff. 41 Upon information and belief, male New Jersey Workers Compensation judges including but not limited to Workers Compensation Judge Brad Henson (Ret.) whose conduct was much more egregious than anything Plaintiff was ever accused of were not suspended and/or terminated based on the same or similar allegations, if not more severe allegations as compared to Plaintiff. 42, Defendants’ actions were in retaliation for the exercise of her New Jersey Constitutional Right to free speech and also in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting what she reasonably believed were violations of the law, illegal, unethical, or fraudulent conduct. 43 Upon information and belief Defendants’ actions would not have occurred but for Plaintiff's gender (female). On or about June 14, 2019, and October 4, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendants with Notices of Tort Claims pursuant fo N.J.S.A, 59:8-1 to -11. COUNT ONE Violation of Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. 45 Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 46 By and through the conduct described above, Defendants violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq., by retaliating against Plaintiff for her reports about, and refusal to participate in conduct that she CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg9of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 reasonably believed was unlawful, fraudulent or criminal, and/or incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy. 47 In retaliation for her reports of the wrongdoings of certain NIDOL employees, Plaintiff's employment was illegally suspended and/or terminated and Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment through a continuous pattern of antagonistic behavior against the Plaintiff. 48 Alternatively, the actions of the Defendants constituted a wrongful termination in violation of public policy which included the Canon of Judicial Ethics, criminal laws, and the New Jersey Constitution and such other laws, rules, regulations or statutes. 49 By reason of Defendants’ actions described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic losses, harm to career, harm to reputation, bodily injury with physical manifestations, pain and suffering, emotional distress, personal and social disruption, and other such damages compensable under CEPA. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. COUNT TWO Violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq, based on gender. 50. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg10of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 51. Atall relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a female and therefore a protected person within. the meaning and intent of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq, (“LAD”). 52. Plaintiff was treated differently by Defendants based on her gender. 53 Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs male colleagues’ concerns and requests were addressed promptly and with respect, but Plaintiff's reports of actual wrongdoings were belittled and not properly addressed. 54 Plaintiff was called derogatory names based on her gender by NJDOL management, including but not limited to the individual defendant New Jersey Workers Compensation Judges. The derogatory names included, but are not limited to, “wily woman, 29 «6, ‘playing for the wrong team,” “witch,” “Black lover” and “white devil”. 55 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's male counterparts were not suspended nor terminated for conduct that was similar, if not worse, than accusations that were made against Plaintiff and Plaintiff was otherwise treated less favorably than male Workers Compensation Judges. 56. Defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination harassment in violation of the LAD and created condoned and fostered a hostile work environment for the Plaintiff and was severe and pervasive and continued until the date of Plaintiff's suspension and de facto termination. Defendants’ acts were done intentionally and maliciously and were egregiously wrongful toward Plaintiff. 57 Defendants subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory treatment and a hostile work environment based upon her gender in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.1S.A. 10-5:1, et seq. In addition, Plaintiff complained of the same and Defendants were 10 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg1lof21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 negligent in their investigation and/or handling of Plaintiff's complaints and Defendants’ response to Plaintiff's complaints were inadequate or nonexistent. 58 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful discrimination, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to his adverse and hostile treatment prior to his termination, from the termination itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for equitable relief of reinstatement together with full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. COUNT THREE Defamation Slander and Libel 59. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 60. Defendants made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff as a public official, intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and with actual malice. li CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg12of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 61. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to defamation, slander and/or libel per se directly and through its agents, either in writing or spoken, communicated to third persons and the public at large in the form of the false complaints made against the Plaintiff by the Defendants. 62 Defendants’ defamatory statements about Plaintiff, through written words, spoken words and/or conduct, injured the Plaintiff's reputation and were concerning her profession as a Workers Compensation Judge. 63 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamation, slander and/or libel, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, siress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary, COUNT FOUR False Light 64. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 12 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg13o0f21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 65. By and through the conduct described above, Defendants made Plaintiff appear before the public in an objectionable false light or false position, or in other words, otherwise than as she is. 66, By and through the conduct described above, Defendants placed Plaintiff in a false light which was and would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person. 67. Defendants acted with knowledge of or in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed. 68. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct causing damage, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. COUNT FIVE Intentional Fraud Causing Damage 69, Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 13 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg14of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 70. Defendant NJDOL and/or State of New Jersey, by and through its agents and the individual Defendants intentionally made material misrepresentations, or omissions in the fact of an obligation to disclose, of facts, knowing of the falsity of the statements and with an intent that another rely upon said statements. 71 Based on the intentional fraud, third parties reasonably relied upon the misrepresentations regarding Plaintiff and believed the misrepresentations to be true, resulting in Plaintiffs suspension and public removal from the bench. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional fraud causing damage, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. COUNT SIX Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 73. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 14 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg15of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 74. Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct toward Plaintiff as described above intentionally in a fashion intended to produce severe emotional distress, or recklessly in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that emotional distress would follow, causing damages to Plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct exceeded all bounds of decency as not to be tolerated in a civilized community. 75 Defendants conduct proximately caused Plaintiff emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. 76. As a ditect and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. COUNT SEVEN Malicious Abuse of Process 15 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg16of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 77. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 78 Defendants wrongfully and improperly used the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation Commission on Judicial Performance and maliciously filed complaint(s) against Plaintiff based on fraudulent allegations that were known to have previously been dismissed after a complete EEO investigation subjecting Plaintiff to civil administrative double jeopardy in an effort to punish Plaintiff twice for the same alleged conduct. 79, Defendants had an ulterior motive or improper purpose in filing the wrongful complaint(s) and duplicitous charges, 80 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ malicious abuse of process, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irrepavably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. 16 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg17of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 COUNT EIGHT Aiding and Abetting 81. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts all the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 82. The Individual Defendants pursued a common plan or design to commit a wrongful action upon Plaintiff in violation of law, whether by active participation, aid, encouragement, or ratification of the wrong if done for their benefit. 83. As aconcerted effort, Defendants conspired to discriminate, harass, retaliate, and terminate Plaintiff. 84. As such, the Individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable in damages to the Plaintiff under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and CEPA. 85 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff’s life has been irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. 17 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg18of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 COUNT NINE Employer’s Bad Faith Against Employee 86, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing allegations as if set forth at length herein. 87, Defendants, as Plaintiffs employers, had a duty to act in good faith with respect to the contract of employment express or implied with the Plaintiff giving rise to a covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the employment relationship with Plaintiff. 88. Defendants, NIDOL and State of New Jersey, as Plaintiffs employer failed to act in good faith or dealt unfairly and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff with regard to discipline procedures reasonably understood by the Plaintiff to create binding duties and obligations between the employer and the employee. 89 As such, Defendants NIDOL and the State of New Jersey are liable to the Plaintiff for monetary damages proximately caused by the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 90. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for monctary damages proximately caused by the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 91 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from both economic and non-economic loss, emotional distress incidental to her adverse and hostile treatment prior to her separation, from the separation itself, and from the consequences thereof, both economic and emotional in nature. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of salary and benefits, mental anguish, stress, serious embarrassment, humiliation, nervous emotional upset and physical anguish, pain, and suffering. The quality of the Plaintiff's life has been irreparably harmed. 18 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg19of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. COUNT TEN NJCRA 92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing allegations as if set forth at length herein. 93 The individual Defendants, and each of them, were acting under color of State Law at all times mentioned herein. 94 The individual Defendants are being sued in their individual capacity and in their official capacity as well. 95. The Defendants’ conduct set forth in the previous Counts of this Complaint were in retaliation for Plaintiffs exercise of her right to free speech on matters of public concern protected under the New Jersey Constitution Article 1 sec. 6. 96. It is further alleged that the Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiff of her right to life, liberty, and pursuit of and protection of her property right to tenured employment with the Defendants and deprived her of substantive due process. 97 Defendant’s deprived Plaintiff of the exercise of the aforementioned constitutional rights by means of threats, intimidation and/or coercion. 98 As such, the Defendants conduct constituted a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.IS.A. 10:6-2, et. seq. 19 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg 20of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 99, As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was subjected to continuing adverse actions including suspension and termination from employment, loss of past and future wages, emotional distress, damage to her personal and business reputation and such other damages all to her detriment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative for full compensation including but not limited to missed promotions, back pay, benefits and remuneration, with interest; full compensation for front pay, benefits and other remuneration, with interest; compensatory and consequential damages; emotional distress damages; punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and necessary. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands, pursuant to R. 4:35-1 et seq., a jury trial of not less than six persons on all issues so triable. ‘DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL David Castellani, Esq. is designated as trial counsel on all issues on behalf of the Plaintiff. CAST , LLC be 4 Davi amisE: Sq. ATTO. EY FOR PL, Sister DATED: 20 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pg21of21 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION Plaintiff, by his attorney, hereby certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other pending or contemplated judicial or arbitration proceeding. Plaintiff is not currently aware of any other party who should be joined in this action. a e) M 1h, 7 CASTEL, r By: David Cast ATTORNE RPEAINTIFE DATED: REQUEST FOR INSURANCE AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO NEW JERSEY RULE 4:10-2 Pursuant to R. 4:10-2, Plaintiff hereby demands that Defendants provide all information regarding the existence and contents of any insurance agreements under which any person and/or entity carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in this action, or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. e Ae ny dl i IRM, LLC i By: DATED: ’D: ay ATTO) oN ai, Bg, ?OR PLAINTIFF 21 CPM-L-000238-22 07/01/2022 4:39:08 PM Pglof1 Trans ID: LCV20222460544 Civil Case Information Statement Case Details: CAPE MAY | Civil Part Docket# L-000238-22 Case Caption: KERNAN AUDREY VS STATE OF NEW Case Type: WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE JERSEY PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) Case Initiation Date: 07/01/2022 Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand Attorney Name: DAVID ROCK CASTELLANI Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS Firm Name: CASTELLANI LAW FIRM, LLC Is this a professional malpractice case? NO Address: 450 TILTON ROAD SUITE 245 Related cases pending: NO NORTHFIELD NJ 08225 If yes, list docket numbers: Phone: 6096412288 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : KERNAN, AUDREY transaction or occurrence)? NO Name of Defendant's Primary Insurance Company Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO (if known): Unknown Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: AUDREY KERNAN? NO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? YES If yes, is that relationship: Employer/Employee Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? YES Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition: Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO If yes, please identify the requested accommodation: Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language: Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO | certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b) 07/01/2022 /s/ DAVID ROCK CASTELLANI Dated Signed