Brief in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement Sharon Papp 2013 lawsuit

Matthew A. Peluso, Hisq. (#035721991) Matthew A. Peluso, Esq. LLC 103 Carnegie Center Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 (609}306-2595 mpelusvesii live.com ‘Counsel for Plaintitls Sharon Papp; Steven Rigeitello; Chitren; Carol Raymond; Christopher P. Donnelly; Michael Bender and Christopher: M. Quaste Plaintifts, ws David Dudeck, individually, and in his official capacity as Chief of the Princeton Police Department; the municipal entity now known as Princeton, New Jersey; and the Princeton Police Department Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION-MERCER COUNTY DOCKET NO. 1.-001836-13 CIVIL ACTION PLAINTIFFS" BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL ‘SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFFS’ HOSTILE. WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS, AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BARRING PLAINTIFFS’ HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS AS BEING TIME-BARRED On brief Matthew A. Petuso, Esa. Counsel for PlainsIn August of 20/3, Plaintiffs, Sharon Papp, Carol Raymond, Danis! Chitrin, Christopher Donnelly, Christopher Quaste, Michael Bender and Steve Riceitello! (eollectively “Plaintifi3") filed this action against Defendant, David Dudeck (“Dudeck”) and Defendants, the municipal entity known as Princeton, New Jerscy and the Princeton Police Department (collectively the “Princeton Defendants”) for gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, disability discrimination and sexuall harassment under the New Jerscy Law Against Discrimination, NSA. 10:5-1, et seq CLAD"). ‘This briefs filed both in support of Plaintifls" eross-motion for partial summary judgment against Dudeck and the Princeton Defendants on Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims under the LAD, and in opposition to the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on their argument that Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims are time-barred, since Plaintiffs’ eross-motion and ‘opposition relate to the same hostile work-cnvironment claims.* For all of the reasons set forth in detail herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment against Dudeck, individually, and in his capacity as upper management of Plaintiffs’ employers, the Princcton Defendants, and against the Princcton Defendants for Dudeck’s discriminatory and hostile conduct under the doctrine of respandeal superior, Plaintifls are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of Delendants® liability ‘under the LAD based on dozens of undisputed, material and dispositive fiets supporting their claims, including admissions by udeck that he, in fact, engaged in numerous harassing, hostile, abustve and disgusting conduct toward Plaintiffs at work, and created, or, at the very least, encouraged, a“culture” and environment that was sexually offensive, hostile abusive and disgusting when he was Chief of * Plain, Steven Ricitello has setld his case with Defendants + Although Dude and the Princeton Defends have fled separate motions for summary judgment, theirs motions are ‘uplicatve on severa! joint requests for relief and rai insrtwined factual and legal arguments. Thasc joint requests for summary judgment will be addresecd i Plainet"separetely-fled opposition bret. 2 Since the fling. of this lawsuit, four (1) of tho remaining Plaintiffs (Papp, Raymond, Quastc and Bender) have retired. However, since the relevant facts af their claims occurred while they were employed by the Princeton Defendants counsel for Plantffs has used the present tense Uxroughout this brief when wldressing lhrir LAD claims for vomsislency and ease of review.the Princeton Police between 2009 and 2013, ‘As an allomey whose practice is, and has been for decades, cxclusively focused om the representation of both men and women in this state in civil rights eases from South to North Jersey, ‘and all counties in between, in both state and federal courts, the undersigned has never seen more undisputed prima facie evidence of a blatantly hostile work environment to which employees in this slate were subjected. Further, the fact that Plaintif—S were highly experienced law enforcement officers who served the residents of Prinecton with distinetion for decades only makes the abusive, vicious, hostile and, frankly, disgusting, conduct to which they were subjected by Dudeck while they wore employed by the Princeton Defendants not only discriminatory under the LAD, but disgraceful, offensive and shocking to anyone other than the Defendants in this case and their attorneys. ‘Under the broxd. application and liberal interpretation mandated by the IAD and the courts of this state, this Court must consider Plaintiffs’ claims of gender, disability and sexual orientation discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment, to the fullest extent of the underlying social objectives and policies of that civil rights statute. Thus, to fully and properly cffcetuate its dury under the LAD, this Court must consider Plaintifls” claims in the context of the massive social revolution in this state and this country over the last year with regard to the victims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, homophobia and sbusive work-place vonducl Interpretation and application of the 1.1) cannot be considered in a vacuum isolated {rom the historic changes in public and governmental attitudes towards discrimination and hostility in the American workplace, Otherwise, the application and interpretation of the LAD will fail to keep up with and meet the dynamic social policies on which it is based. fictims of workplace discrimination and hostility like Plaintiffs in this ease, and tens-of- thousands of other residents of this state and citizens of this country, will no longer tolerate the type of patently discriminatory, abusive and disgusting conduct perpetrated by Dudeck and tolerated by the Princeton Defendants. Nor will people in this state and country accept the exact type of frivolous 2