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:
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 2/9
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.
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 3/9
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
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 4/9
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.
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 5/9
-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.
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 6/9
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.
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 7/9
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.
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 8/9
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.
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 9/9
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