Stephen Jones Vs Boonton

OCN-L-002171-22 10/03/2022 8:26:50 PM Pg 1 of 22 Trans ID: LCV20223523936
Matthew A. Peluso, Esq. (#035721991)

Matthew A. Peluso, Esq. LLC
103 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
Princeton, NJ 08540
(609)306-2595
mpelusoesq@live.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, Stephen Jones
_________________________________________
Stephen Jones : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
: LAW DIVISION- OCEAN COUNTY
Plaintiff, :
: DOCKET NO. OCN-L-
vs. :
: CIVIL ACTION
The Town of Boonton; the Boonton Police :
Department; Neil Henry, individually, and in his :
capacity as the Administrator and Quality :
Purchasing Agent for the Town of Boonton; :
Bryan Gurney, individually, and in his capacity as :
Public Safety Director for Boonton; and John and :
and Jane Does 1-10 (fictitious names) :
: COMPLAINT
Defendants. : (with Jury Demand)
:
_________________________________________ :
Plaintiff, Stephen Jones (“Plaintiff”), by way of Complaint against Defendants, the Town of
Boonton (“Boonton”); the Town of Boonton Police Department (“Boonton PD”); Neil Henry,
individually, and in his capacity as Administrator and Quality Purchasing Agent (QPA) for Boonton;
Bryan Gurney, individually, and in his capacity as Public Safety Director for Boonton; and John and
Jane Does 1-10 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), respectively says:
THE PARTIES
1. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was and still is employed as a police officer with
Boonton and the Boonton PD, and was (and still is) a member of a protected class under the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et. seq. (whistleblower).
2. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, the Town of Boonton (“Boonton” or “Town”) is
and was a municipal subdivision organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey, located in
Boonton, Morris County, New Jersey, and was and is, with the Boonton PD, the employer of Plaintiff as
that term is defined under CEPA. Boonton oversees and controls various administrative functions of the
Boonton PD, and the agents, employees and representatives of the Boonton PD and other departments
of Boonton, including, but not limited to, paying and disciplining Plaintiff.
3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, the Boonton Police Department (“Boonton PD”)
was and is a department of the municipal entity known as the Town of Boonton, located in Boonton,
New Jersey, Morris County, New Jersey, and is, with Defendant, the Town of Boonton, the employer of
Plaintiff, as that term is defined under CEPA.
4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Neil Henry, individually, and in his capacity as
Administrator and Quality Purchasing Agent (QPA) for Boonton, was employed by Boonton in those
positions/titles through which he was responsible for, inter alia, various administrative functions in
Boonton, and oversight over personnel matters and products for the Boonton PD.
5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Bryan Gurney, individually, and in his capacity
as Public Safety Director for Boonton, was employed by Boonton in this position/title through which he
was responsible for, inter alia, various administrative functions in Boonton, and oversight over personnel
matters and products for the Boonton PD.
6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, John and Jane Does 1-10 (fictitious names) are
individuals whose identities cannot be ascertained at the time of this Complaint, who were elected and/or
appointed and/or upper management personnel, commissioners, managers and/or supervisors of Boonton
and/or the Boonton PD, and who were and are involved in the hostility, retaliation and adverse
employment actions against Plaintiff set forth in this Complaint, either directly, or through their aiding
and abetting of the other named Defendants and/or the retaliating and hostile individual employees of
Boonton and the Boonton PD identified in this Complaint.
2
Jurisdiction and Venue
7. Jurisdiction is proper, since all parties to this action are located in the State of New Jersey,
and venue is proper in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, pursuant to R. 4:3-2(a), since
Plaintiff is a resident of Ocean County, New Jersey, and venue shall be, and is properly, laid by the
plaintiff in actions filed in the Superior Court “in the county . . . in which any party to the action resides
at the time of its commencement.”
Factual Background
8. In July 2002, Plaintiff was hired as police officer by the Town of Boonton.
9. From 2003-2006, Plaintiff served on the executive board of PBA 212 as Treasurer and
Delegate, and was on the contract negotiating team.
10. In July 2007, Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant, and assigned as patrol squad supervisor.
11. Plaintiff continued to serve as Treasurer for PBA 212, and on the contract negotiations
team for the Superior Officer’s Association (SOA) of PBA 212.
12. In May 2013, Plaintiff was promoted to Lieutenant, assigned supervision of
patrol/operations division.
13. Plaintiff was appointed Vice President of the SOA, and head of the contract negotiations
team for PBA 212 SOA.
14. Plaintiff was also appointed as Accreditation Manager, and successfully completed 1st
Dept Accreditation.
15. Under former Boonton PD Chief of Police, Mayhood, Plaintiff was involved in
instituting, overseeing and effectuating the first Boonton PD patrol car cameras and body-worn cameras,
making Boonton PD one of the first police departments in New Jersey to use body-cams.
16. In October 2017, Plaintiff was promoted to Captain, and designated as Executive Officer
of the Boonton PD, thereby responsible for running day to day operations of the department.
3
17. In October 2017, Plaintiff also became President of PBA 212 SOA, and continues to serve
on the contract negotiations team for PBA 212 SOA.
18. In October 2017, Plaintiff was officially designated as records custodian for the Boonton
PD by the Town of Boonton, and became listed by name on the Town’s OPRA form.
19. In October 2017, Plaintiff was designated as Head of Internal Affairs for the Boonton PD,
responsible for PD security, and all other related facets.
20. In March 2019, Plaintiff was involved in the negotiations that lead to a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between PBA 212 and Boonton, and a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
between patrol officers and Boonton.
21. Following completion of the new CBA for the patrol division, Plaintiff began heading
negotiations on behalf of the SOA with Boonton.
22. Then-Mayor of Boonton, Matthew DiLauri, becomes hostile and accusatory toward
Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff’s negotiating positions on behalf of the SOA, and spews a diatribe
against public workers in Boonton and in general.
23. On April 1, 2019, without any prior notice, then-Mayor DiLauri and the Boonton town
council voted at a public meeting to formally end any further negotiations with the SOA, thereby
violating the MOA-3 previously signed between the SOA and Boonton.
24. Between April and October 2019, PBA 212 filed numerous complaints against Boonton
with the New Jersey Public Employees Relations Committee (PERC) regarding the bad faith conduct of
Boonton during contract negotiations and the hostile work environment being created for Boonton police
officers.
25. Boonton forced PBA 2012 into arbitration, despite the pending PERC complaints.
26. At the arbitration hearing, former Chief Mayhood testified about Boonton’s negative
impacts on the Boonton PD that will hamper recruitment and retention of qualified officers.
4
27. On August 14, 2019, PBA 212 received a favorable arbitration award.
28. Since April 2019, Plaintiff was publicly vocal and active in his support of PBA 212’s
positions in the contract negotiations with Boonton, PERC complaints against it, and in arbitration with
the Town.
29. In addition, Plaintiff participated in PBA 212 events in support of their positions against
the Town, at which he spoke about the Town’s bad faith negotiations, which were putting public safety
at risk in Boonton.
30. Also, during the contract negotiations and arbitration process, Plaintiff managed PBA
212’s social media websites, on which he supported the PBA’s positions and criticized the Town’s
bad faith and irresponsible conduct.
31. On May 6, 2019, at a public meeting of the Boonton Town council, then-Mayor DiLauri
publicly embarrassed and intentionally targeted Plaintiff in retaliation for his support of the PBA 212’s
positions by having him involuntarily sent out of the room, after which DiLauri attempted to smear
Plaintiff as an alleged abuser of overtime in the Boonton PD.
32. On September 11, 2019, Boonton served Plaintiff, in his capacity as Police Dept. Records
Custodian, with an OPRA request for documents relating to then-Chief Mayhood and any interactions
he had with PBA 212.
33. Through his training and experience, Plaintiff believed that this was improper, in addition
to the OPRA request itself being deficient in a number of ways, including, but not limited to, being
overbroad in scope and requesting documents ineligible for disclosure under OPRA.
34. Through Chief Mayhood, and as records custodian, Plaintiff refused to release the
requested records in the Town’s improper OPRA request, and asked for appointment of an independent
attorney to assist him in the police department’s denial of the OPRA request.
35. In addition, in September 2019, PBA 212 filed complaints to the Town and PERC
5
regarding the Town’s improper OPRA request. Most of request denied ultimately as the documents and
correspondence the Town was seeking did not exist in first place.
36. Ultimately, the Town’s OPRA request was moot, since the documents requested by the
Town did not exist.
37. However, in retaliation against Plaintiff, former then and current Boonton Administrator
Neil Henry, repeatedly criticized Plaintiff because of his involvement in the Boonton PD’s denial of the
Town’s improper OPRA request.
38. On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff was involved in a serious on duty motor vehicle accident
on his way back to work after attending a training class in Somerville for the NJ State Qualified
Purchasing Agent (QPA) Certification, a class which was approved and paid for by former Chief
Mayhood and the Town. Plaintiff’s authorized Boonton PD take home vehicle was totaled by a driver
who ran a stop sign, and Plaintiff was hospitalized and out of work for three (3) months with neck &
back injuries.
39. In further retaliation against Plaintiff, then and current Administrator Henry demanded
former Chief Mayhood to provide a written explanation and copies of records supporting Plaintiff’s
attendance at the training in Somerville, clearly and frivolously questioning Plaintiff’s integrity as a
sworn and high-ranking law enforcement officer.
40. In October 2019, the Town eliminated the Boonton police dispatch and replaced it with
outsourced dispatching services provided by the County of Morris.
41. The Town’s outsourcing of dispatch services was executed without any input from the
Boonton PD, and, as described below, was criticized by Plaintiff.
42. In the 2020 Town budget, the Town appropriated $100,000 in public budget funds to
software made by CSI Technologies Inc. (CSI) for use in the Boonton Police Department Record
Management Systems (RMS), replacing then-current provider of the RMS operating software Lawsoft
6
Inc. Both CSI and Lawsoft are third-party private vendors that provide record management hardware
and software to police and government emergency service providers.
43. Despite his personal injuries, Plaintiff remotely assisted the Boonton PD in completing
state police department re-accreditation, and even went back into work for the NJ State Chief’s on-site
inspection on November 18, 2019, which helped the Boonton PD successfully obtain its re-accreditation.
44. From January 2020 through August 2020, Plaintiff and then-Chief Mayhood met
numerous times with the new Mayor, Richard Corcoran to complain about the retaliation and hostility
against Plaintiff and the Boonton PD by the Town, and to make the new Mayor aware of other problems
relating to the Boonton PD caused by the Town, including the increased overtime expenses caused by
the outsourcing of dispatch services to Morris County with none of the alleged cost-savings promised
by the Town.
45. As part of its increasing hostility toward Plaintiff and the Boonton PD, by September
2020, all Town officials had ceased all communication with former Chief Mayhood and the entire
Boonton PD.
46. On December 1, 2020, former Chief Mayhood was forced to retire pursuant to terms of a
settlement agreement with Town after he filed an intent to file legal action against the Town.
47. Following former Chief Mayhood’s retirement, Plaintiff became the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the Boonton PD by virtue of his rank as Captain and as the highest
ranking police officer in the department.
48. On December 1, 2020, at the Town’s request, Plaintiff had a virtual meeting in the
evening with Town Administrator Henry and then and still Mayor of Boonton, Richard Corcoran in
which they questioned and insulted Plaintiff’s integrity, intelligence and competence for the role of
CLEO.
49. In the virtual meeting, Town Administrator Henry and Mayor Corcoran also informed
7
Plaintiff that the Town would be appointing a Public Safety Director (PSD) instead of appointing another
Chief of Police to replace former Chief Mayhood.
50. In response, Plaintiff informed Henry and Corcoran that there were legal limitations with
regard to what a civilian Public Safety Director can do, and also informed them that the Boonton PD
needed additional personnel and administrative support in order to properly perform its public duties.
51. Town Administrator Henry informed Plaintiff that the Town would again be seeking
access to the confidential Boonton police timekeeping software, even though under former Chief
Mayhood had previously denied a similar request, and had been supported by the which was backed up
by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO).
52. Henry also informed Plaintiff that he had communicated with the New Jersey Civil
Service Commission (CSC) both verbally and in writing in attempt to prevent Plaintiff from being
appointed as the CLEO of the Boonton PD.
53. However, on December 21, 2020, Plaintiff was officially appointed as CLEO of the
Boonton PD by resolution at a Town Meeting.
54. On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff was invited to Town Administrator Henry’s office to meet
the newly created and hired Boonton PSD, Daniel DeGroot.
55. Then-PSD DeGroot provided Plaintiff with documents and case law relating to what a
civilian PSD is permitted to do compared to the authority of a Chief of Police.
56. In this meeting, then-PSD DeGroot also admitted that he was hyper-aware of the
limitations and restrictions on his role as PSD and that, as a civilian employee of the Town, his role
would be to act as a liaison between the Town and the Boonton PD.
57. In addition, during this January 7, 2020 meeting, Plaintiff asked then-PSD DeGroot about
the division of work and duties between the PSD and what Plaintiff would do as the CLEO.
58. Then-PSD DeGroot acknowledged what he was permitted, and not permitted, to do in his
8
role as PSD, including, specifically pointing out and directing Plaintiff to position papers found on the
New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police website that lay out multiple caselaw citations and
previous directives from County Prosecutors and State Attorneys General, that among other things
prohibit: a civilian “director” from performing police duties, from carrying a firearm. Further, a
“director” may not have access to criminal investigative reports, nor may he or she have access to
criminal history information. Likewise, such individuals must refrain, unless otherwise specifically
directed by the county prosecutor, from directing the investigation of criminal activity. Nor may a
“director,” as a civilian appropriate authority, have access to internal affairs investigative files absent a
court order. Moreover, a “director” may not examine confidential police reports or other confidential
law enforcement documents, nor may he or she access the police department’s terminal.” Then PSD
DeGroot further acknowledged the importance of the separation of, and his lack of access to, confidential
Boonton PD files and documents.
59. Following his appointment as CLEO of the Boonton PD, Plaintiff was repeatedly praised
for his work, professionalism and success in that role by then-PSD DeGroot.
60. On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff, in his role as CLEO and OIC, complained to Morris
County dispatch (MCD) about the unresponsive, slow and ineffective dispatch services they were
providing to Boonton, after their bad handling of a domestic violence incident in Boonton.
61. Shortly after Plaintiff’s complaints about MCD services, Director of MCD, Michael
Peoples, contacted then-PSD DeGroot and began to repeatedly, but falsely, allege that Boonton was
contractually required to use CSI Technologies InfoShare RMS product attendant with the Town’s use
of MCD services, rather than the LawSoft software systems the Town had been using without problems.
62. Director Peoples also began to falsely accused the Town of being in breach of an alleged
contract that required Boonton to use of CSI Technologies InfoShare as part of the MCD services, which
lead then-PSD DeGroot to request that Peoples send him the alleged written agreement at issue.
9
63. On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff met with then-PSD DeGroot and then and current
Administrator Henry about Peoples accusations regarding an alleged breach of contract, at which
DeGroot and Henry confirmed to Plaintiff in the meeting that the written agreement provided by Peoples
did not require Boonton to use of CSI technologies InfoShare as part of the MCD services.
64. On or around December 1, 2021, then-PSD DeGroot advised Peoples that Boonton is not
under any contractual obligation to use of CSI Technologies InfoShare as part of the MCD services under
the clear terms of the agreement Peoples had sent him.
65. In response, Peoples, on or around December 1, 2021, claimed that Henry verbally agreed
that Boonton would use CSI Technologies InfoShare as part of the MCD services.
66. Following Peoples’ allegations, Plaintiff became involved in review and analysis of a
potential replacement of the LawSoft software systems with CSI Technologies InfoShare software,
including ease-of-use, conversion costs, and operating cost comparisons between LawSoft and CSI’s
InfoShare.
67. Based on Plaintiff’s review and analysis, LawSoft was easier and less expensive for
Boonton to use than CSI Technologies InfoShare software.
68. However, on December 21, 2021, Plaintiff was in a meeting with then and current
Administrator Henry, Mayor Cocoran and then-PSD DeGroot, in which, inter alia, Henry demanded
that Boonton use CSI Technologies InfoShare software or, inter alia, Peoples told him that Morris
County would sue the Town.
69. In January and February 2022, then-PSD DeGroot advised then and current Administrator
Henry and Boonton Town Council President, and Police Committee Chair, Jim Lynch, that, due to
possible legal issues that could arise from conversion to CSI’s InfoShare product, including violation of
public purchasing law, and as evidenced by a pending lawsuit brought by Lawsoft Inc. against the City
of East Orange, they should have the Town attorney review the proposed conversion and provide an
10
opinion in writing that there are no legal concerns.
70. Following the dispute over conversion to CSI’s software, then and current Administrator
Henry became increasingly hostile in his communications with then-PSD DeGroot.
71. Then-PSD DeGroot went out on medical leave and began to work remotely.
72. In retaliation for Plaintiff and then-PSD DeGroot’s objections to Henry’s plan to convert
to CSI’s software, Henry also began demanding certain things from the Boonton PD, including staffing
and assignments of personnel, and access to the VCS Police Scheduling software, that neither Henry nor
then-PSD DeGroot had the legal authority to access.
73. DeGroot refused such access, and Henry stopped communicating with him.
74. On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff met with Mayor Richard Corcoran, during which they
discussed issues related to then and current Administrator Henry and the CSI conversion issue involving
MCD.
75. During that meeting, Plaintiff and Mayor Corcoran also discussed and agreed with
Plaintiff’s request for commensurate additional compensation relating to the extra duties he had been
performing since becoming CLEO and OIC in the Boonton PD.
76. In that same February 10, 2022 meeting, Corcoran also informed Plaintiff that he was the
“leading candidate” to become Boonton Chief of Police.
77. Corcoran also stated in that meeting that Plaintiff should not allow then and current
Administrator Henry “get to him,” acknowledging that Henry “demands respect more than he gives” it.
78. In the February 10, 2022 meeting Mayor Corcoran told Plaintiff that once then-PSD
DeGroot leaves, Plaintiff will be promoted to Boonton Chief of Police, a position that Corcoran
admittedly knows Plaintiff wants to achieve in his law enforcement career.
79. In that same meeting, Mayor Corcoran informed Plaintiff that he had spoken with Adam
Brewer, Town Administrator of Pequannock, New Jersey, about that town’s decision to continue with
11
Lawsoft, rather than converting to the CSI software demanded by MCD because Lawsoft was much
more user friendly, and recommends that Plaintiff contact Mr. Brewer to discuss their decision.
80. In that same February 10, 2022 meeting, Mayor Corcoran also warned Plaintiff that he
should “tread lightly” with then and current Administrator Henry and hinted that Plaintiff could have
problems with promotion to Chief if he didn’t appease Henry on the CSI/MCD issue.
81. In that same meeting, Plaintiff informed then-Mayor Corcoran that Boonton can’t buy
CSI products because it won’t comply with New Jersey State public purchasing laws and would cause
unnecessary extra man hours of work wasted in the Boonton PD on a daily basis, unlike continuing with
Lawsoft.
82. In that February 10, 2022 meeting, Plaintiff also explained to Mayor Corcoran why and
how MCD services were not a good fit for the Town of Boonton and that Morris County was trying to
take over the dispatch services in other municipalities in order to favor CSI as the chosen vendor.
83. Shortly after his meeting with then-Mayor Corcoran on February 10th, on February 15,
2022, Plaintiff met with then and current Administrator Henry in the latter’s office.
84. In that meeting, Plaintiff and Henry discussed numerous issues, including, but not limited
to, the problems with any conversion from Lawsoft to CSI software, including violation of NJ public
purchasing law, such as Local Public Contracts Law N.J.S.A. 40A:11- 1 et seq. and NJ Local Unit Pay
to Play Law, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.4 et seq., MCD services, during which Henry admitted that there is no
official written contract
requiring Boonton to buy CSI products.
85. In that same February 15, 2022 meeting, Plaintiff and Henry discussed Plaintiff’s
entitlement to additional compensation for his combined roles of CLEO, OIC, Captain and Lieutenant,
and Plaintiff’s future in the Boonton PD, including Plaintiff’s desire to be Chief of Police, during which
Henry advised Plaintiff that when a different Town employee requested additional compensation, the
12
Town retaliated against him.
86. On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff participated in a virtual Boonton Police Committee meeting
involving Town Administrator Henry, Boonton Councilman Michael Wade, Boonton Police
Commissioner and Councilman James Lynch, Boonton Councilman Cy Wekilsky, and then-PSD Daniel
DeGroot.
87. During the virtual meeting, Councilman Lynch raised the need for Boonton to purchase
CSI Software products because Morris County was allegedly refusing to provide police radio upgrades
unless Boonton bought CSI products.
88. Plaintiff responded to Councilman Lynch that Morris County’s demands for a quid pro
quo between MCD/CSI and Boonton is unlawful and an example of prohibited “pay to play” politics, in
addition to being a violation of New Jersey public purchasing law.
89. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff met with Mayor Richard Corcoran regarding, inter alia, the
CSI/Lawsoft issues, and the need to end this issue.
90. On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff met with Boonton Police Commissioner and Councilman,
James Lynch, during which Plaintiff informed Lynch that Plaintiff needed more help in the Boonton PD,
including another Lieutenant because Plaintiff was, and had been, doing the work of three (3) jobs
(CLEO, Captain and Lieutenant) in the Boonton PD.
91. In that same meeting, Plaintiff specifically requested that Boonton PD Sgt. Anthony
LiMandri be promoted to Lieutenant because of his qualifications, to which Lynch responded by
referring to Sgt. LiMandri as a “gavone,” which is an ethnically bigoted epithet against people of Italian
ethnicity.
92. When discussing Plaintiff’s potential promotion to Boonton Chief of Police, Lynch
admitted that Plaintiff had the necessary professional background, resume and qualifications for that job.
93. Despite all of his meetings with Boonton officials set forth above and their agreement to
13
compensate him for the additional duties he had been performing outside of his official rank and title as
the result of Boonton’s refusal to hire additional police officers, or to at least make the one Lieutenant
promotion Plaintiff had requested, on March 18, 2022, Defendants’ retaliated against Plaintiff for, inter
alia, his objections to the CSI/MCD scam and his request for just compensation by, inter alia, linking
additional compensation to Plaintiff’s agreement not to work any overtime in the Boonton PD, and
failing to provide for no past compensation for the 18 months that Plaintiff had been performing three
(3) job functions in the Boonton PD.
94. Plaintiff rejected Defendants’ retaliatory position on March 20, 2022, after which Plaintiff
was, and continues to be, subjected to unlawful, virulent and increased retaliation by Defendants,
including, but not limited to: (a) refusing Plaintiff entrance to a Town emergency meeting by Councilman
Lynch; (b) denying Plaintiff’s authority as CLEO and OIC to assign Boonton police officers to the acting
Lieutenant roles, which Plaintiff submitted as a desk audit to the CSC; (c) opening up false Internal
Affairs (“IA”) investigations and making fabricated and frivolous criminal charges against Plaintiff
intended to destroy his long-sought opportunity to become Boonton Chief of Police and to permanently
destroy his reputation and career as a law enforcement officer; and (d) unlawfully suspending Plaintiff
without complying with Boonton, Boonton PD, IA and CSC rules and procedures, including, but not
limited to, failing to timely conclude the IA investigations opened on Plaintiff, denying Plaintiff any
departmental hearing for six (6) months, and suspending Plaintiff without any formal charges being
brought against him for an indefinite period, all of which continues to the present time.
95. On March 25, 2022, in an attempt to protect himself from the Defendants’ retaliation
against him and as the result of Defendants’ refusal to promote or hire staff to assist Plaintiff in the
running of the Boonton PD, Plaintiff submitted an Official Civil Service Position Classification
Questionnaire (Desk Audit) Request/Complaint, which was approved by former PSD DeGroot, and
which was subsequently sent to Administrator Henry, but which the latter refused to sign.
14
96. On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff, acting under his authority as CLEO and OIC, and in an
attempt to remedy the staffing problems in the Boonton PD, assigned Sgt. Anthony LiMandri as Patrol
Division Supervisor and Sgt. Steven Kairys as Administrative Supervisor in the Boonton PD, and
designated two senior patrolmen to shift OIC’s.
97. On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff issued a Special Order 2022-002 in PowerDMS to all
subordinate personnel in the Boonton PD outlining guidelines for non-sworn, unescorted personnel from
shaving access to interior offices inside Boonton police headquarters.
98. On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff submitted an official grievance to Mayor Corcoran via email
complaining about the unfair treatment to which he was being subjected by Defendants and about the
continuing failure of Defendants to fairly compensate him for all the extra duties Plaintiff had been
performing on behalf of Boonton, all of which were outside of his CSC-determined job-title.
99. On that same night of April 4, 2022, Boonton appointed a new PSD at a council meeting
without any prior notice. During the public portion of the meeting, Plaintiff read a prepared statement
into record thanking former Director DeGroot for his outstanding service.
100. On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff contacted Deputy Chief Lou Renshaw of the New Jersey
Department of Criminal Justice via phone, and advised him of what was going on in Boonton as
described in the paragraphs set forth above.
101. On April 10, 2022, Plaintiff sent an email to the Boonton Town Attorney, on which he
copied the new Boonton PSD, Bryan Gurney, and PBA 212 leadership, and in which, inter alia, Plaintiff
accused, Administrator Henry of corruption in detail.
102. On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff was summoned to Administrator Henry’s office, to officially
meet the new Public Safety Director (PSD), Bryan Gurney.
103. During that meeting, new PSD Gurney told Plaintiff that his “one goal” in Boonton was
to find the “next Chief of Police.”
15
104. Following that meeting, Plaintiff met individually with PSD Gurney and informed him
about, inter alia, the current status of operations of the Boonton PD, staffing problems, problems with
the Town regarding the CSI/MCD issue and the retaliation to which Plaintiff had been and was being
subjected, and provided Gurney with documentation to support Plaintiff’s complaints, information and
allegations.
105. In response to Plaintiff, PSD Gurney warned Plaintiff that he is making a mistake by
complaining.
106. On April 12, 2022, PSD Gurney and Administrator Henry summon Sgt. Anthony
LiMandri to their offices in Town Hall and offer him the CLEO job if he will assist them in having
Plaintiff removed from that position, agree to provide given Gurney access to the inside of Boonton
police headquarter and also agree to give an office to Gurney inside Boonton police headquarters.
107. Sgt. LiMandri refused Gurney and Henry’s “offer” and it is possible other Sergeants were
also approached. Limandri refuses and tells me of what occurred.
108. On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff contacted Chief Chris Kimker of the MCPO and officially
briefed him on what was going on in Boonton as described above, including, but not limited to: (a) the
potential of criminal aspects of the CSI purchasing demands; (b) Defendants’ insistence that civilian
PSD Gurney be physically officed inside Boonton police headquarters; and (c) Defendants’ unlawful
offer to Sgt. LiMandri.
109. Chief Kimker agreed with Plaintiff’s concerns and assured him that they would support
his attempts to prevent and/or remedy Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
110. On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff met with Chief Kimker and MCPO Prosecutor Robert Carroll
and Chief Kimker, as well as Detectives from their office.
111. On that same day, April 13, 2022, and in clear retaliation against Plaintiff for his repeated
reporting of unlawful and improper conduct by Defendants and other Town employees and elected
16
officials as described in detail above, Plaintiff was summoned to the Boonton municipal courtroom, and
given a written order by PSD Gurney, in the presence of Town Administrator Henry, ordering: (a)
Plaintiff to relinquish his office; (b) rescind his special order barring entrance of unescorted non-police
personnel inside Boonton police headquarters; (c) provide PSD Gurney with copies of monthly reports
to the Town; and (d) give PSD Gurney access keys, codes, or other devices to allow him full access to
police headquarters, even though he is civilian Town personnel.
112. In response, Plaintiff advised PSD Gurney that he was issuing Plaintiff an unlawful order
and, accordingly, would not comply therewith.
113. Plaintiff reminded PSD Gurney that he had reported and provided notice to him as PSD
for Boonton of unlawful activity in the Town.
114. On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff was again summoned to the Boonton municipal courtroom,
and, again, in clear retaliation against Plaintiff for his repeated reporting of unlawful and improper
conduct by Defendants and other Town employees and elected officials as described in detail above, was
handed a “memo” from PSD Gurney, in the presence of Administrator Henry, and informing Plaintiff
that it was “order of suspension.”
115. During this summons, PSD Gurney was illegally carrying a firearm openly on his hip.
116. PSD Gurney admitted that his alleged “memo” suspending Plaintiff from his work for
Boonton and the Boonton PD was not the “official form” required under CSC rules and procedures, but
was merely a form that Gurney had created, in response to which Plaintiff informed Gurney that his
failure to provide Plaintiff with the required form was in violation of CSC rules and procedures.
117. Even as of this date, Defendants have failed to serve Plaintiff with the required CSC
disciplinary form(s).
118. Neither have Defendants ever provided Plaintiff with any final determination on the IA
investigations opened on him, nor the alleged administrative charges against him or the provided him
17
with the required departmental hearing on any alleged charges.
119. During Plaintiff’s summons to the Boonton municipal court on April 14, 2022,
Administrator Henry hostilely asked: “How do we remove him [Plaintiff] from the building?”
120. When Plaintiff voluntarily attempt to leave the meeting after Henry’s question, PSD
Gurney, still illegally armed with a weapon, moved toward Plaintiff in a threatening manner, forcing
Plaintiff to instruct Gurney and Henry to “stay away” from Plaintiff.
121. PSD Gurney refused to comply with Plaintiff’s defensive request and continued to
physically advance toward Plaintiff while still openly armed with a weapon.
122. Plaintiff had no choice but to quickly leave the building, after which he immediately
called Chief Kimker of the MCPO and explained to him what had just occurred.
123. Chief Kimker informed Plaintiff that he was free to go back inside the Boonton police
department, which Plaintiff did.
124. After Plaintiff left police headquarters on April 14, 2022, Town Administrator Henry and
PSD Gurney attempted to have a locksmith break into the Boonton police department in order to allow
Gurney entrance to police headquarters.
125. Sgt. Christian Trowbridge, who was left in charge and next highest-ranking officer in the
Boonton PD after Plaintiff’s suspension, contacted the MCPO, who, in turn, informed the Town to cease
and desist from their attempted break-in.
126. Following Plaintiff’s unlawful suspension, Defendants were ordered in writing to abide
by Plaintiff’s prior and repeated complaints and positions regarding operations of the Boonton PD, and
for which Plaintiff had allegedly been suspended.
127. Even after his unlawful suspension, Defendants have continued to engage in a continuing
pattern of multiple vicious acts of retaliation against Plaintiff in furtherance of their intent to prevent him
from ever becoming Chief of Police in Boonton, and to permanently destroy his personal and
18
professional reputation, including, but not limited to: (a) filing at least three (3) false and frivolous
criminal complaints against Plaintiff to the MCPO and/or the NJ DCJ, which lead to Plaintiff being
subjected to target interviews as a suspect and search warrants being executed at Plaintiff’s personal
residence, causing fear and embarrassing to Plaintiff and his family; and (b) bringing additional false
and frivolous administrative charges against Plaintiff, all of which were emotionally distressing and
humiliating to Plaintiff.
FIRST COUNT
(CEPA)
128. Plaintiff repeats and restates all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 127
above, as if repeated verbatim herein.
129. The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et
seq., was enacted to protect and encourage employees, such as Plaintiff in this action, to report illegal or
fraudulent workplace activities, and to discourage public sector employers, such as Defendants, from
engaging in such activity. Pursuant to CEPA, an employee like Plaintiff may, without fear of retaliation
from his supervisors and employer, lawfully and rightfully object, refuse to participate in, or disclose, or
threaten to disclose, to a supervisor, public body or government agency, a policy or practice of the
employer or another employee that the whistleblower employee reasonably believes is, inter alia, in
violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law or a policy of the employer.
130. When signing CEPA into law, former Governor Kean stated: “It is most unfortunate—
but nonetheless, true—that conscientious employees have been subjected to firing, demotion or
suspension for calling attention to illegal activity on the part of his or her employer. It is just as
unfortunate that illegal activities have not been brought to light because of deep-seated fear on the part
of an employee that his or her livelihood will be taken away without recourse.” Accordingly, there is a
clear public policy to protect employees who protest illegal activity by their employers.
19
131. CEPA seeks to overcome the victimization of employees and to protect those who are
especially vulnerable in the workplace from the improper or unlawful exercise of authority by employers.
Consequently, CEPA is intended to provide broad protections against employer retaliation for workers
whose whistle-blowing activities benefit the health, safety and welfare of the public.
132. CEPA is a civil rights statute and is ‘remedial legislation, designed to expand employee
protection.’” Therefore, it is construed liberally by the courts of this state to effectuate its important
social goal, namely, to encourage, not thwart, legitimate employee complaints.
133. Under CEPA, it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee like Plaintiff
who reports illegal or unethical workplace activities. A “retaliatory action” under CEPA is defined as
“discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against
an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.”
134. To establish a prima facie case of a CEPA retaliatory action(s) against the Defendants in
this action, Plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that: (1) he reasonably believed that the Defendants’
violated either a law, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy;
(2) Plaintiff performed a “whistle-blowing activity” contemplated by CEPA; (3) Defendants took
adverse employment actions against Plaintiff and created a hostile work environment for him at the
Boonton PD; and (4) a causal connection exists between Plaintiff’s whistle-blowing activity and the
adverse employment actions and hostile work environment perpetrated against him by Defendants.
135. In furtherance of its purpose to protect and encourage whistleblowers, CEPA is not
intended to make lawyers out of conscientious employees like Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff is not required
to show that the relevant legal authority or clear mandate of public policy actually would be violated if
all the facts he has alleged are true, but rather, Plaintiff only needs to set forth facts that would support
an objectively reasonable belief that a violation has occurred.
136. As set forth in detail in paragraphs 1-127 above, Plaintiff repeatedly reported the
20
misconduct of the Defendants to numerous Boonton officials and employees, as well as to outside
government and law enforcement agencies with oversight authority, including, but not limited to, former
Boonton PSD, DeGroot, Boonton Mayor Corcoran, numerous elected and sitting Boonton Council
officials and/or employees, including Police Commissioner James Lynch, Boonton Town Administrator
Henry and current Boonton PSD Gurney, the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and the New Jersey
Division of Criminal Justice, because he rightfully believed that, inter alia, the misconduct of Defendants
violated several New Jersey state civil and criminal laws, including, but not limited to, public purchasing
laws, including, inter alia, Local Public Contracts Law N.J.S.A. 40A:11- 1 et seq. and NJ Local Unit Pay
to Play Law, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.4 et seq, CSC rules and procedures, and administrative rules,
regulations, procedures and policies of Boonton and the Boonton PD.
137. Through his repeated reporting of the official misconduct of Defendants and other
Boonton employees and officials both to, inter alia, high-level and elected Boonton officials and to
outside law enforcement agencies, such as the MCPO and NJ DCJ, and Boonton’s repeated refusal and
failure to, inter alia, investigate and discipline the involved employees and elected officials for that
misconduct, Plaintiff clearly performed repeated “whistleblower” conduct and activities specifically
protected by CEPA.
138. Yet, as the direct result of Plaintiff’s repeated reporting of, and complaints about, inter
alia, Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been subjected to a continuing pattern of severe,
relentless and continuous retaliation, and multiple adverse employment actions, by Defendants, as
described in detail in paragraphs 1-127 above, including, but not limited to: (a) his indefinite suspension
from employment; (b) a severe and hostile work; (c) removal of Plaintiff’s take-home vehicle for long
periods of time; (d) lost compensation commensurate with his extra job duties and, since his suspension,
loss of overtime; (e) false, fabricated and exaggerated IA investigations/complaints and disciplinary
charges against him; (f) exclusion from meetings and decisions necessary to the successful performance
21
of his duties as the CLEO and OIC of the Boonton PD prior to his unlawful suspension.
139. As a result of Defendants’ numerous and repeated acts of retaliation and hostility against
Plaintiff in violation of CEPA, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish, pain,
humiliation and reputational damage, as well as lost wages, benefits and promotional opportunities.
WHEREFORE, with cause having been shown, Plaintiff demands judgment against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief:
(a) Compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, lost
employment opportunities, and lost wages and benefits;
(b) Punitive damages;
(c) Attorney’s fees and costs; and
(d) Such other relief the court may deem equitable and just.
Date: October 3, 2022 ______________________________

Matthew A. Peluso, Esq.
Counsel for Plaintiff
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues and allegations in this action.
Date: October 3, 2022 ______________________________

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to New Jersey Rule 4:5-1, Plaintiff hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge
this matter is not the subject of any pending arbitration or litigation.
Date: October 3, 2022 ______________________________

22
OCN-L-002171-22 10/03/2022
OCN-L-002171-22 10/03/20228:26:50
8:26:50PM
PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20223523936
LCV20223523936
Civil Case Information Statement

Case Details: OCEAN | Civil Part Docket# L-002171-22
Case Caption: JONES STEPHEN VS TOWN OF Case Type: WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE
BOONTON PROTECTION ACT (CEPA)
Case Initiation Date: 10/03/2022 Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand
Attorney Name: MATTHEW A PELUSO Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS
Firm Name: MATTHEW A. PELUSO Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Address: 103 CARNEGIE CENTER DR SUITE 300 Related cases pending: NO
PRINCETON NJ 08540 If yes, list docket numbers:
Phone: 6093062595 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Jones, Stephen 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: Stephen Jones? 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
I 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)
10/03/2022 /s/ MATTHEW A PELUSO

Dated Signed

Stephen Jones Vs Boonton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stephen Jones Vs Boonton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCN-L-002171-22 10/03/2022 8:26:50 PM Pg 1 of 22 Trans ID: LCV20223523936

Matthew A. Peluso, Esq. (#035721991)

Jane Does 1-10 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), respectively says:

Plaintiff, as that term is defined under CEPA.

matters and products for the Boonton PD.

Boonton and the Boonton PD identified in this Complaint.

Jurisdiction and Venue

at the time of its commencement.”

Delegate, and was on the contract negotiating team.

team for the Superior Officer’s Association (SOA) of PBA 212.

12. In May 2013, Plaintiff was promoted to Lieutenant, assigned supervision of

team for PBA 212 SOA.

on the contract negotiations team for PBA 212 SOA.

responsible for PD security, and all other related facets.

between patrol officers and Boonton.

negotiations on behalf of the SOA with Boonton.

against public workers in Boonton and in general.

bad faith and irresponsible conduct.

Plaintiff as an alleged abuser of overtime in the Boonton PD.

he had with PBA 212.

Town did not exist.

Town’s improper OPRA request.

sworn and high-ranking law enforcement officer.

outsourced dispatching services provided by the County of Morris.

Boonton PD, and, as described below, was criticized by Plaintiff.

and software to police and government emergency service providers.

ranking police officer in the department.

Chief of Police to replace former Chief Mayhood.

by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO).

appointed as the CLEO of the Boonton PD.

Boonton PD by resolution at a Town Meeting.

the newly created and hired Boonton PSD, Daniel DeGroot.

civilian PSD is permitted to do compared to the authority of a Chief of Police.

Boonton PD files and documents.

the clear terms of the agreement Peoples had sent him.

Boonton to use than CSI Technologies InfoShare software.

County would sue the Town.

opinion in writing that there are no legal concerns.

Henry became increasingly hostile in his communications with then-PSD DeGroot.

then-PSD DeGroot had the legal authority to access.

performing since becoming CLEO and OIC in the Boonton PD.

“leading candidate” to become Boonton Chief of Police.

admittedly knows Plaintiff wants to achieve in his law enforcement career.

official written contract

requiring Boonton to buy CSI products.

Town retaliated against him.

unless Boonton bought CSI products.

addition to being a violation of New Jersey public purchasing law.

CSI/Lawsoft issues, and the need to end this issue.

(CLEO, Captain and Lieutenant) in the Boonton PD.

LiMandri be promoted to Lieutenant because of his qualifications, to which Lynch responded by

(3) job functions in the Boonton PD.

designated two senior patrolmen to shift OIC’s.

shaving access to interior offices inside Boonton police headquarters.

described in the paragraphs set forth above.

accused, Administrator Henry of corruption in detail.

meet the new Public Safety Director (PSD), Bryan Gurney.

to find the “next Chief of Police.”

also approached. Limandri refuses and tells me of what occurred.

offer to Sgt. LiMandri.

his attempts to prevent and/or remedy Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

and Chief Kimker, as well as Detectives from their office.

police headquarters, even though he is civilian Town personnel.