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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DNISION- COUNTy-OF MORRIS
DOCKET NO. YY\OS.- ---- \I b ~-\s
Civil Action

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
and in her official capacity, MARIA OJEDA
as an individual and in her official capacity,
LORETTA HOUSTON as an individual and
in her official capacity, RENETTA AIKENS
as an individual and in her official capacity,
LINDA MACNAMARA as an individual
and in her official capacity,

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

-..

'

<..,.'1

'--'
.-

'-"-'

Defendants.
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, RENETTA AIKENS, 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 ofNew 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 ofNew Jersey and 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, plaintiffwas

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. It 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 of bilingual 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.

In 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 plaintiffs filing of the complaint with the EEOC, an investigation was

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,

plaintiff 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 the 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.
reference.

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

-23.

Plaintiff contends-that hertreatment at the hands ofDCF 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.

Plaintiff is a member of a protected class as defined by the statute.

25.

Named defendants maliciously-discriminated against plaintiff 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 plaintiff 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 LAW AGAINSTniSCRIMINATION
(NJLAD)-N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 ET SEQ.
All preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated and repeated herein by

30.
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.
Similarly, the laws of the State of New Jersey prohibit an employer from engaging

32.

in acts of retaliation, negative treatment-and/or reprisal due to an empluyee asserting their rights
under the laws.
Defendant, The State of New Jersey, is an employer as defined by the New Jersey

33.

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 the 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 ofthe 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 of a 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
(CEPA), and Common Law libel per 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
Plaintiff 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 of any 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