Yvette Cruz v NJ Department of Children and Families

7/23/2019 Yvette Cruz v NJ Department of Children and Families

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yvette-cruz-v-nj-department-of-children-and-families 1/9

JohnS. Fetten (0039U984)

MONTGOMERY, CHAPIN

& FETTEN P.C.

745 Route

2021206

Suite 101

Bridgewater, New Jersey

08807

(908) 203-8833

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Our File

No. GP 20288-3

YVETTE CRUZ

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE

OF NEW

JERSEY,

DEPARTMENT

OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES OF THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

DIVISION

OF

CHILD PROTECTION

&

PERMANENCY

SUSAN TINNEY-JONES as an individual

andin her official capacity,

MARIA OJEDA

as an individual and in her official capacity,

LORETTA HOUSTON as an individual and

in her official capacity, RENETT A AIKENS

as

an individual and in her official capacity,

LINDA

MACNAMARA as

an

individual

and in her official capacity,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR

COURT OF

NEW JERSEY

LAW

DNISION- COUNTy-OF MORRIS

DOCKET

NO.

YY\OS

---- \ b ~ \ s

Civil Action

COMPLAINT ND JURY

DEM ND

-·

<..,. 1

--

·.-

'-· -'

The plaintiff, YVETTE CRUZ for her Complaint against the defendants, THE

STATE

OF

NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT

OF CHILDREN

& FAMILIES, THE DIVISION

OF

CHILD

PROTECTION & PERMANENCY,

and

defendants, SUSAN TINNEY-JONES, MARIA OJEDA

LORETTA

HOUSTON, RENETT AAIKENS and

LINDA MACNAMARA

both

as individuals

and

in

their official capacities, states

and

alleges

as

follows:



PARTIES

I. At all relevant times plaintiff, Yvette Cruz, was an employee of the State of-New

Jersey, Department-of Children & Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency.

2.

At all relevant times defendant, State of ew Jersey, Department of Children&

Families, Division of Child Protection ana Permanency is a public entity charged with, inter alia

provision of services to the residents of the State

of ew

Jersey nd others.

3. The offices for the StateofNew Jersey/Department ofChildren &Families is located

at 20 West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey, 08625.

4.

The plaintiff, Yvette Cruz, (hereinafter plaintiff ') was employed by the Division of

Child Protection and Permanency (hereinafter DCPP ). Plaintiff was assigned

to

the Morris East

Local Office. That office was located at 20 I Littleton Road, Lower Level, Morris Plains, New

Jersey.

5. Plaintiff was originally hired by the DCPP as a Family Service Specialist Trainee at

the Morris East Local Office on March I

2

20 12.

6.

After receiving satisfuctory ratings on her probation or progress reports, plaintiff was

notified that she completed a working test period and her title was changed to that ofFamily Service

Specialist II on March 23,2013.

7. Plaintiff was identified as a worker with bilingual capabilities because she spoke

Spanish. However, within the DCPP, there is a Bilingual Communications Assessment Test

(BJCAT) that is used to test and identify and grant certification to those who are qualified as

bilingual workers. Plaintiff never had this assessment performed on her language skills.

8. In or about August or September 2013, local office manager Susan Jones held a

meeting in order to discuss assigning bilinguai workers within the Morris East Local Office to cases

wherein the clients of the agency were Spanish speaking.



9 The bilingual workers in the office, including plaintiff, voiced their opposition tot he

system especially insofar as it would increase the workload of Spanish speaking workers, while

decreasing the workload ofthose who spoke only English. t should be noted that those

workers

in

the office that were bilingual were predominantly, if-not all, from Latino or Hispanic ancestry.

l 0. This rotation ofbilingual workers led

to

various disparities in employment for those

who were Spanish speaking. The disparities included an increased workload, a hostile environment

within

the office amongst co-workers, differential treatment with respect to vacation time

and

other

amenities. This bilingual rotation was also donewithoutany increased compensation

to

the bilingual

workers. Furthermore, there were already interpretation services in place for those workers assigned

to Spanish speaking clients in order to facilitate communication between workers and the clients.

II n

addition

to

the above discrepancies, this bilingual worker rotation led to bilingual

workers being denied the opportunity to take contractual time off in the event that there

were

no

bilingual workers scheduled to work on the days that had been requested as days off.

12. This bilingual worker rotation was to have been revisited by the local office manager,

Susan Jones, after a thirty 30) day trial period.

13. On or about March 11,2014, plaintiff faxed an anonymous complaint to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC).

14

Subsequent to plain tiffs filingof he complaint with the EEOC, an investigationwas

conducted by that agency.

15. Subsequent to the investigation, plaintiff was subjected

to

various forms of

retaliation.

16. Despite having received satisfactory performance assessment reviews and a letter of

recommendation from her supervisors, plaintiff received an ink,roffice, memorandum from

defendant, Maria Ojeda charging her with incompetency, inefficiency and failure to perform her



duties.

17.

Since the EEOC investigation has come to the attention

of

local office manager,

Susan Jenes, the work ptace has become increasingly hostile and unwelcoming for plaintiff.

18. As a result

of

the EEOC complaints regarding discrimination-in the work place,

plainti ff has been retaliated against by her supervisors. The retaliation has taken the form

of

inter

alia -harassment, unfair treatment, receiving a higher volume of cases (including cases that are

deemed undesirable

by others

and lower than appropriate performance reviews.

19. At all times mentioned, the defendant, State of New Jersey, through its agents, was

a public entity organized

an

existing under the constitution and laws

of

he State

ofNew

Jersey. The

defendant, Department of Children Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency are

political subdivisions ofthe State of New Jersey.

20. The named defendants cited above as individuals and in their official capacities, were

at

all relevant times employees or agents of the State of New Jersey, Department of Children

Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency.

21.

Plaintiff was at-all relevant times employed

by

the Division

of

Child Protection

and

Permanency.

COUNT I

VIOLATION

OF 42

U.S.C.A.

§

2000E-2

ET. SEQ.

22. All preceding paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated and repeated herein by

reference.



-23. Plaintiff contends-that hertreatment at the hands ofD F and DCPP and their agents

named-herein constituteviolations

of 42-

U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 et. seq. That act prohibits,

inter alia

an employer from discrimination any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex

or

national origin [.]

24. Plaintif f is a member

of

a protected class

as

defined by the statute.

25. Named defendants maliciously-discriminated against plaintif f by assigning plaintiff

case-work over-and above that which was performed by those members of the office who were not

of

a pmtected class.

26. Additionally, plaintiff was not compensated in any way for the additional workload

she

was required to take on in 11ght of-that fact that she was Spanish speaking and a member

of

a

protected class.

27. Plaintiff was also denied the use

of

her contractual vacation time because she was

both Spanish speaking and a member of a protected class.

28. When plaint iff sought to assert her rights under the law, plaintiff

was

retaliated

against in

various forms.

29. As a result of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile

work environment, and retaliated against. Plaintiffhas suffered mental anguish, emotional distress,

humiliation, embarrassment and severe emotional pain and suffering as well as other damages.



COUNT II

NEW

JERSEY L W

G INSTniSCRIMIN TION

(NJLAD)-N.J.S.A. 10:5-1

ET

SEQ.

30. All preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated and repeated herein by

reference.

31. The New Jersey Law A:gainst Discrimination ( NJLAD ) prohibits an employer from

engaging in any acts of discrimination or disparate treatment due to employee status as a member

of

a protected class. N.J.S.A. 10:5 1 et seq.

32. Similarly, the laws

of

the State

of

New Jersey prohibit an employer from engaging

in acts of retaliation, negative treatment-and/or reprisal due to an empluyee asserting their rights

under the laws.

33. Defendant, The State of New Jersey, is an employer as defined by the New Jersey

Law Against Discrimination N.J.S.A. 10:5-l et seq.

34. All defendants named herein

as

individuals and in their official capacities,

were

an

employer and/or authorized agent of an employer, of The State

of

New Jersey,

as

defined

by

the

statute set forth herein.

35. Defendants discriminated against plaintiff by maliciously and knowingly assigning

plaintiff a greater caseload than other workers within the office who were not members of the

protected class.

·

36.

Additionally, defendants assigned plaintiff cases which were less desirable when

plaintiff sought to assert her rights under the statutes and laws under the state ofNew Jersey and of

the United States.



37 As a result of defendants unlawful conduct plaintiff has suffered-and will-continue

to suffer-loss

of

inceme, employee benefits, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation,

embarrassment and other damages.

COUNT-HI

VIO:LATION OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE

PROTECTIONACT (CEP-A) N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 ET

SEQ.

38. All preceding paragrap'rrs of he complaint are incorporated and repeated herein by

reference.

39.

The

New Jersey CEPA prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action

against an employee because the employee discloses, or threatens to disclose

to

a supervisor or

to

a public body an activity, policy

or

practice of he employer, or anotheremployerwith whom there

is a business relationship, that the employee-reasonably-believes:

is

in violation

of

a law,

or

a rule

or regulation promulgatedpursuant

to law[.]

40. Defendant and its agents were at all times an entity covered by the CEPA.

41. Defendants violated the CEPA by retaliating against plaintiff when acts of

discrimination prevented by state and federal statute were brought to the attention ofa public body,

namely

the

EEOC.

42. Subsequent to plaintiff bringing to light the discrimination and disparate treatment

of

Hispanic and Latino co-workers within the Morris East Local Office

of

the DCPP, workers with

supervisory capacity over p\aintiffbegan retaliating against her. The retaliation took various forms

and occurred on several different occasions.

43. As a result

of

defendants unlawful conduct plaintiff has and will continue to suffer

adverse employment action, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and

other damages.



COUNT

IV

COMMON LAW

DEFAMATION LIBEL

44. All preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated and repeated

herein

by

reference.

45.

On

or about August4, 2014; plain iffwas presented with an interoffice memorandum

from Maria Ojeda,

an

agent

of

the DCPP. The interoffice memorandum from Maria Ojeda accused

the plaintiff

of

incompetency, inefficiency,

and

failure to perform duties.

46

This interoffice memorandum

had

the effect

of

damagingplai.11tiff's reputation with

her co-workers and her supervisors. Moreover, the memo accused plaintiff ofhaving traits_thatwere

incompatible with her assigned duties and competence in general.

47.

As

a result

of

this defamatory interoffice memorandum, plaintiff suffered

loss

of

reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and other damages.

WHEREFORE plaintiff seeks relief on each count against each and every defendant as

follows:

l

for compensatory damages, emotional distress, -and all other damages

available pursuant to all statutes, laws and common laws, set forth and

pleaded herein, including but not limited to, damages permissible under

42

U.S.C.A.

§

200e-2 et seq., the

New

Jersey Law Against Discrimination

(NJLAD), the New Jersey Conscientious Employment Protection

Act

(CEP A), and Common Law libel

p r

se

2. an award

of

attorney's fees, costs

of

suit, interest, and all other compensation

associated with the prosecution and enforcement

of

plaintiff's rights

under

the

statutes and laws named herein.

3

Any other award or equitable relief allowed by statute or pursuant

to

law.



JURY DEMAND

Plainti ff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all facts and issues.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

COUNSEL

Pursuant to R.4:25-4 JOHNS. FEITEN ESQ.,

is

designated trial counsel for plaintiff.

CERTIFICA'l'ION

Pursuant to the provisions ofR.4:5-l the undersigned hereby certifies that this matter is

not

the subject ofany other action pending in any other court or arbitration proceeding, nor is anyother

action or arbitration proceeding-contemplated and all the necessary parties have been joined in this

action.

N,P.C.

Jo

Dated: July

9

2015

Documents

Yvette Cruz v NJ Department of Children and Families