Rutgers Lawsuit

MID-L-000132-20 01/07/2020 6:15:43 PM Pg 1 of 16 Trans ID: LCV202040296
YVETTE C. STERLING, ESQ.

Sterling Law Firm, L.L.C.
300 Atrium Way, Ste. 200
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
ELEANOR BULLOCK SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
CIVIL NO. MID: L
Plaintiff,
Vs.
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF
NEW JERSEY, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT , DAVID
FENKEL (in his, personal and business
capacities)
DOES 1-7
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, through her undersigned counsel, hereby Complains against (collectively
"Defendants”) in their official and personal capacity, capacities and John Does 1–7, allege, upon
knowledge as to their own conduct and upon information and belief as to the conduct of others:
Introduction
1. This action seeks damages and injunctive relief to redress Defendants’ past and
continuing violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights based upon her race, her complaints about being
(remove: sexually harassed) (replace with: discriminated against, treated unfairly, experienced
inequity, experience prejudice, a subject of racism, over looked, sidelined, and treated
disparately. Plaintiffs is a Black, female. She believes that her continued mistreatment including
1
not being provided a job promotion, higher job title, senior position, upward mobility,
opportunity for upgrade, same raises as the seniors and absolutely no advancement is directly
related to her complaints, and or the department's continued disparate treatment of her, due to her
race and/or to further suppress, repress against her and keep her down in one or the same position
for several years despite her work quality, work experience and her academic achievements.
Defendants and their associates allowed racism to pervade it, and conspired to target the Plaintiff
for improper, illegal, unreasonably and discriminatory, harassing treatment, which has resulted in
financial and mental hardships and distress.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
2. ELEANOR BULLOCK ("Plaintiff"), is a Black, female African American of
Belizean Carib ancestry and was a resident of New Jersey during the relevant times of these
incidences and is an employee of defendant Rutgers University
DEFENDANTS
3. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY (“RUTGERS UNIVERSITY” (”
Rutgers”) is a registered government agency with a principal place of business in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
4. DAVID FENKEL, is currently and recently is the Director (acting), University
Procurement Services whose address is 33 Knightsbridge Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 08901
on information and belief is a resident of the State of New Jersey. He is a white male and at some
relevant times a supervisor with Rutgers. Primarily, it is alleged conspired with (David Hamlin,
Kevin Lyons, Mat Kaiser, Natalie Horowitz, Stanley Makarevic, Michael McLatcher, Ms.
Jennifer Eliopoulus and Maurice Peredez who were previously Directors in University
2
Procurement, but are no longer employed at Rutgers University, all who had the power to affect
the conditions of the Plaintiff employment. All instead acted, aided and abetted and conspired
with the other defendants to violate Plaintiff's civil rights by not providing her the title of senior
buyer/analyst and instead burdening her with the responsibility without the title or the salary.
This violating her rights under other federal and state Constitutional guarantees.
5. JOHN DOES 1–7, residents of the State of New Jersey, were all Directors,
Supervisors in Rutgers University Procurement and were conspirators and co-conspirators
with Defendants, and other individuals and/or entities were all involved in, inter alia, depriving
Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the
United States and the State of New Jersey.
JURISDICTION and venue

6. This action arises under NJ LAD under N.J.S.A. 10:5 ET SEQ, THE NEW
JERSEY CONSITUTION AND COMMON LAW.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS:
7. Plaintiff ELEANOR BULLOCK is Black, female.
8. Mrs. Bullock was hired by the Rutgers University (Purchasing) Procurement
Department as an Assistant Buyer in 1998. She was promoted to a Buyer position approximately
5 years later.
9. In approximately fifteen years and just recently, the job title “Buyer” was changed
to the job title called” Category Analyst”.
10. When Plaintiff commenced her employment in 1998, she had a Bachelor’s Degree
from Syracuse University, which she earned in 1982 and the Plaintiff also possessed an
Associate of Art Degree from NY Technical College that she earned in 1979. She was employed
3
to work at Rutgers University (Purchasing) Procurement Department. In addition to her
Associates of Arts Degree and her Bachelor’s Degree, and in her effort to continue to seek
upward mobility in University Procurement, the Plaintiff pursued further education and earned a
Master’s Degree in Liberal Studies from Rutgers University in 2008, and another Master’s
Degree in Public Affairs and Administration also from Rutgers in 2009.
11. Today the Plaintiff still has the same title a “Buyer” or the recent changed title
“Category Analyst”. Although she has done over and beyond and continued to perform the job of
a “Senior Buyer” or the title known today as a “Senior Category Analyst”.
12. In or around 2013 (Natalie Horowitz, Rutgers University Purchasing Department
Director dates currently unknown) noticed the work load discrepancy and noted that the Plaintiff
work responsibilities and work load as a ‘Buyer’ was exactly and no different from the “Senior
Buyer’. As a result, as the then Director, Natalie Horowitz made a minor change to the job
responsibilities of a Buyer and a Senior Buyer in which the Buyer no longer created Request for
Proposals (RFP) and designated the RFP job responsibility to Senior Buyers only. All other job
responsibilities of a Senior Buyer and a Buyer remained the same.
13. For several years and several time, the Plaintiff has applied for the Senior
Buyer/Category Analyst position and was denied the position each time by the Rutgers
University (Purchasing) Procurement Department and Rutgers Human Resources.
14. The records in Rutgers Human Resources will show that in her effort to be
granted a promotion or upward mobility, the Plaintiff for years has consistently applied for a
Senior Buyer or Senior Category Analyst position in Rutgers University Procurement
Department, as well as several other related jobs that were posted in different departments in
Rutgers University and the Plaintiff was consistently turned down for all the Senior Buyer or
4
Senior Category Analyst promotion or upward mobility opportunity she applied for without any
explanation, any meeting, any discussion, any consultation, any reason, any justification except
the Plaintiff received a template email from Rutgers Human Resources indicating that another
candidate was selected, despite the fact that the Plaintiff had performed the same Senior Buyer
job duties and job responsibilities for years, and despite the fact that the Plaintiff met all the
criteria including academic qualification. Most recently the Plaintiff applied for a Category
Analyst position as recently in 2017 and applied again for a related or similar position in
University Procurement in 2018 and 2019 and was not provided the position.
15. Plaintiff has never been provided and answer as to the reason why she was not
promoted, instead most of the time, she received an email that they have provided the job to
anther applicant nad thanking her for her application.
16. After the Plaintiff obtained her two masters from Rutgers, one in Liberal Studies
and the other in public administration, she has placed these qualifications and her experience on
all the resume and on her cover letters, however, she has not been promoted and she was never
ben ever provided a reason or explanation for not getting the job and never was she informed
why she has not been promoted. Plaintiff recalled only once being called to a meeting where she
was told that she would not be obtaining the position. Plaintiff has also had some hope when the
current Acting Director David Fenkle sent her this email:
“David Fenkel
Mon 9/4/2017 9:44 AM
Eleanor –
Thank you for the head’s up about your intentions. I was not able to open the attachment. Perhaps,
you could send a regular word version.
While I certainly understand a desire to move into a better position, I am concerned that you seem so
desperate to leave University Procurement. I would like to talk with you, and understand why. I am
5
not trying to dissuade you from seeking other opportunities – especially if they are career advancing –
but having just moved into my new position, I would like to see what, if anything, there is I can do to
help.
Dave“
17. This attitude has persisted for the last three years. Rutgers University (Purchasing)
Procurement Department has hired several white female and males, and the Plaintiff recalled
several white or Caucasian workers who were hired in the same Rutgers University (Purchasing)
Procurement Department for the jobs the Plaintiff applied for, including Jeff Hadley, Sarah
Vecchio, Katherine Kuhnert, Gary Willan, Danielle Lasalle, Dennis Demarino, Natalie Mayfield
and Maryse Bloom who the Plaintiff can recall and who also were hired or promoted and most of
them did not have the level of the job experience or perhaps didn’t even have a degree or the
required academic qualification that was requested of the position .
18. About five years ago one of the Plaintiff supervisors name Douglass Dennis, saw
the discrepancy and noted that the Plaintiff she was not earning the same salary or annual wage,
or close to the same salary and annual wage that the Senior Buyer’s salary and wages were
although the Plaintiff was performing the same Senior Buyer job duties and responsibilities
which in actuality were not the job duties and responsible of her Buyer job title. Mr. Doug
Dennis went to his supervisor who at that time was (Natalie Horowitz) to inform her of the parity
in Plaintiff job duties and responsibilities and compared it to her wages, this resulted in the
Plaintiff obtaining a small pay increased, but not a promotion to a Senior Buyer, and not a new
job title. At the same time, the Plaintiff still was not provided the Senior Buyer title and to date,
the Plaintiff salary is still substantially less than that of a Senior Buyer/Category Analyst.
19. Plaintiff believes the difference in salary amounts to nearly $20,000.00 to $30,000
dollars annually.
6
20. In 2019, in another effort for a promotion, the Plaintiff again applied for another
job posting in her department University Procurement titled “Strategic Sourcing
Analyst” position (Job Posting # 18ST1329) that has been recently posted on the official Rutgers
University Job Posting website. The Plaintiff wrote:
“I enthusiastically write to inform you that I have applied for the Strategic Sourcing Analyst
position. In my current position as a Category Analyst, and with the length of years I have been
employed in Rutgers University Procurement, I feel that my duties and responsibilities have
provided me with strong skills in Contract Management, Purchasing, Procurement, Strategic
Sourcing, Leadership Skills and Abilities, basic Accounts Payable skills, Special Project Assistance
skills which I believe I can easily transfer to the Strategic Sourcing Analyst position.
I strongly believe I can bring my skills, my abilities along with my enthusiasm for change and
challenges, my desire to learn and acquire new skills and my effort to continue to work hard to
any of the positions. I also believe that the skills, the capabilities and the strengths that I
possess can easily be transferred to the Strategic Sourcing Analyst position.
I have outstanding teamwork and leadership skills, where I have demonstrated my ability to
both contribute to our organization and to motivate others. I am a dedicated worker with a
desire to make a difference and to become a change agent. Based on these competencies, I am
certain that my experience and professional diligence could be an asset to our University
Procurement Department, and to the University as a whole.
Please know that I am confident if given the opportunity to serve as the Strategic Sourcing
Analyst, I will bring enthusiasm, hard work, flexibility, and diligence to the role. I know I am
capable of carrying all the functions in each of the positions, and I am also capable of carryout
out the work that is required in many other capacities in our department. If you give me an
opportunity, I will prove that I can be one of your best University Procurement Strategic
Sourcing Analyst worker.”
21. However, she obtained the same result no response and no job assignment or
promotion. The job was not offered to her, the job was offered as a promotion to a Caucasian
who did not have the same qualification as the Plaintiff, and not one director, manager, or the
Plaintiff direct supervisor met with her to inform her why she didn’t get the job, why she
continuously is not offered an opportunity for a promotion and, or what she need to do in order
to get a promotion. No one, absolutely no one of authority in University Procurement has ever
7
sat with the Plaintiff to help, to guide, to consult, to direct, to assist, to support except to simply
deny her of the opportunity which she believes is the result of blatant discrimination and racism.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I – Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Under NJ CONSTITUTION
21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained all foregoing paragraphs
as though fully set forth herein.
22. Under color of state law, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of her rights, privileges, and
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the NJ because of her race black,
ancestry and or nationality.
23. Under color of state law and their official positions, Defendants have denied plaintiff
equal protection under the law by discriminating against her on account of her race and
treating her less favorably than similarly-situated white, employees.
24. Under color of state law and their official positions, Defendants have deprived
Plaintiffs of her property without due process of law, without just cause, and without
providing any right to a hearing.
25. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, plaintiff has suffered serious and
continuing injury.
26. Defendants committed the foregoing acts intentionally and with actual malice.
27. Because Defendants’ conduct is ongoing, Plaintiff have no adequate remedy at law to
redress all of their injuries and to prevent further injury.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray on this count for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate, including
attorneys’ fees and costs.
8
Count II – DISCRIMINATION Under NJ LAD
28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained all foregoing paragraphs
as though fully set forth herein.
29. Plaintiff is a black female, college educated, citizen of the United States, born in
Belize, Central America.
30. She has conducted herself on the job better than the employer’s expectations.
She was not only doing her job as a Buyer but has performed, the Senior Buyer’s duties
for years.
31. This was evidenced by her supervisor Mr. Douglass Dennis, who recognized that she
was performing the job of a Senior Buyer without the compensation and promotion and
decided to request that his supervisor increase Plaintiff’s pay because she was doing the
Senior Buyer duties. Plaintiff contends that she did more than her duties called for.
32. However, that pay increase obtained by Mr. Douglass Dennis was not equal to the
pay received by the White Senior Buyers.
33. Defendants, on the basis of race, and/or her nationality and her ancestry have
deprived Plaintiff of the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, the terms and conditions of
her employment. She was not provided the promotion nor the pay of a Senior Buyer,
although she continues to perform the work of a Senior Buyer. She was not given the
same raise or the same pay.
34. She continued to apply for these positions and still was not provided the promotion
even after she had obtained two masters degrees and had been working at Rutgers
University Procurement for more than 20 years.
9
35. Instead defendants gave the jobs to other less qualified white employees. She was
never provided an interview; she was never informed of why she was not provided the
job. Instead she only received word that she would not be getting the position by email
and just one time in a meeting.
36. Plaintiff has applied for numerous Senior Buyer or Senior Category Analyst jobs and
she was never given the position, nor the proper pay.
37. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, plaintiffs have suffered serious and
continuing financial, emotional and mental injury.
39. Because Defendants’ conduct is ongoing, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to
redress all of her injuries and to prevent further injury.
40. Plaintiff believes but for her race, she would not be subjected to this treatment and
conduct by defendants.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray on this count for compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate,
including attorneys’ fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant jointly and
severally as follows:
(a) Damages in an amount in excess of her damages for her pain and suffering;
(b) Judgment against defendants for compensatory damages, including damages for not
receiving the proper pay, the promotion, emotional and mental stress and distress,
consequential damages, punitive damages, pre and post judgment interest, reasonable
attorney’s fees as multiplied under the Law Against Discrimination;
10
(c) Other incidental costs of the lawsuit and any such other relief as the Court deems
proper.
(d) Declaring that Defendants have violated; N.J. Const. art 1., §§ 1, 5; NJ LAD § 1 by,
inter alia, targeting Plaintiff for discrimination on account of her, race and/or
nationality, denying Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws
(e) Permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all
persons working in concert with them, from such conduct in the future.
(f) Reinstating Plaintiff to her right position and providing her full back pay, seniority and
all that is necessary for her to be made whole.
(g.) All equitable relief that the Court deems just and proper to effectuate the remedial
measures of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and to make the Plaintiff whole.
(h) Allowing all discrete acts not sued upon to be included in the complaint regardless of
the statute of limitations.
COUNT III NATIONALITY AND ANCESTRY DISCRIMINATION UNDER N.J.S.A.
10:3-1
41. Plaintiff incorporates all the facts, allegations and parties as presented in the
preceding paragraph as if fully included herein.
42. Defendants, on the basis of race, and/or her nationality and her ancestry have
deprived Plaintiff of the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, the terms and conditions of
her employment. She was not provided the promotion nor the pay of a Senior Buyer,
11
although she continues to perform the work of a Senior Buyer. She was not given the
same raise or the same pay.
43. She continued to apply for these positions and still was not provided the promotion
even after she had obtained two masters degrees and had been working at Rutgers
University Procurement for more than 20 years.
44. Instead defendants gave the jobs to other less qualified white employees. She was
never provided an interview; she was never informed of why she was not provided the
job. Instead she only received word that she would not be getting the position by email
and just one time in a meeting.
45. Plaintiff has applied for numerous Senior Buyer or Senior Category Analyst jobs and
she was never given the position, nor the proper pay.
46. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, plaintiffs have suffered serious and
continuing financial, emotional and mental injury.
48. Because Defendants’ conduct is ongoing, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to
redress all of her injuries and to prevent further injury.
49. Plaintiff believes but for her nationality/ancestry or race, she would not be subjected
to this treatment and conduct by defendants.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant jointly and
severally as follows:
(g) Damages in an amount in excess of her damages for her pain and suffering;
(h) Judgment against defendants for compensatory damages, including damages for not
receiving the proper pay, the promotion, emotional and mental stress and distress,
12
consequential damages, punitive damages, pre and post judgment interest, reasonable
attorney’s fees as multiplied under the Law Against Discrimination;
(i) Other incidental costs of the lawsuit and any such other relief as the Court deems
proper.
(j) Declaring that Defendants have violated; N.J. Const. art 1., §§ 1, 5; NJ LAD § 1 by,
inter alia, targeting Plaintiff for discrimination on account of her, race and/or
nationality, denying Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws
(k) Permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents and successors in office, and all
persons working in concert with them, from such conduct in the future.
(l) Reinstating Plaintiff to her right position and providing her full back pay, seniority and
all that is necessary for her to be made whole.
(g.) All equitable relief that the Court deems just and proper to effectuate the remedial
measures of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and to make the Plaintiff whole.
(h) Allowing all discrete acts not sued upon to be included in the complaint regardless of
the statute of limitations.
THE CONTINUING VIOLATION DOCTRINE
The Court is asked to invoke the Continuing Violation Doctrine to allow all her claims to
move forward because Defendant’s acts are continuous and Plaintiff continues to be injured.
Defendants had requested that Plaintiff wait before taking any action however that was several
years ago and she has been waiting to no avail. Plaintiff contends this was a stall tactic to keep
her from reaping the benefits of her employment, and guarantees under NJ Constitution/.
13
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray on this count for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate, including
attorneys’ fees and costs.
January 6, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Yvette Sterling
Yvette C. Sterling
Sterling Law Firm,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to New Jersey Court Rules, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all
issues so triable.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Yvette C. Sterling, Esquire is hereby designated as trial counsel. Plaintiff requests a trial
by Jury.
STERLING LAW FIRM,
/S/ Yvette Sterling
________________________________
BY: Yvette C. Sterling, Esquire
14
Dated: January 6, 2020
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1
I hereby certify to the best of my information, knowledge and belief that the matter in
controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending
arbitration proceeding, that no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated, and I am
not aware of any person who should be joined in this matter.
/S/ Yvette Sterling
______________________________
Yvette C. Sterling, Esq.
Dated: January 6, 2020
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Plaintiff will be seeking, all back wages and raises that she did not receive. (2) She will be
seeking the acting pay for doing the job of a Senior Buyer for at least 18 years. (3) She will be
seeking back pay for all that the time she worked as a Senior Buyer or a Senior Category
Analyst. (4) She will be seeking compensation for pain and suffering, and for humiliation, (5)
She will be seeking punitive damages (6) Full reinstatement of pension rights at the pay she
should have been receiving if promoted. (7) Interest from the date of the law suit. (9) Cost of
suit and attorney’s fees with all multipliers.
/S/ Yvette Sterling
______________________________
Yvette C. Sterling, Esq.
15
Dated: November 18, 2019
16

Rutgers Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rutgers Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MID-L-000132-20 01/07/2020 6:15:43 PM Pg 1 of 16 Trans ID: LCV202040296

YVETTE C. STERLING, ESQ.

Attorneys for PLAINTIFF

ELEANOR BULLOCK SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff, through her undersigned counsel, hereby Complains against (collectively

financial and mental hardships and distress.

2. ELEANOR BULLOCK ("Plaintiff"), is a Black, female African American of

incidences and is an employee of defendant Rutgers University

Rutgers”) is a registered government agency with a principal place of business in New

Brunswick, New Jersey.

4. DAVID FENKEL, is currently and recently is the Director (acting), University

Supervisors in Rutgers University Procurement and were conspirators and co-conspirators

United States and the State of New Jersey.

JURISDICTION and venue

JERSEY CONSITUTION AND COMMON LAW.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS:

7. Plaintiff ELEANOR BULLOCK is Black, female.

8. Mrs. Bullock was hired by the Rutgers University (Purchasing) Procurement

to the job title called” Category Analyst”.

to work at Rutgers University (Purchasing) Procurement Department. In addition to her

Degree in Public Affairs and Administration also from Rutgers in 2009.

a “Senior Buyer” or the title known today as a “Senior Category Analyst”.

12. In or around 2013 (Natalie Horowitz, Rutgers University Purchasing Department

responsibilities of a Senior Buyer and a Buyer remained the same.

University (Purchasing) Procurement Department and Rutgers Human Resources.

Senior Buyer or Senior Category Analyst position in Rutgers University Procurement

anther applicant nad thanking her for her application.

current Acting Director David Fenkle sent her this email:

required academic qualification that was requested of the position .

job posting in her department University Procurement titled “Strategic Sourcing

University Job Posting website. The Plaintiff wrote:

Count I – Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Under NJ CONSTITUTION

as though fully set forth herein.

ancestry and or nationality.

treating her less favorably than similarly-situated white, employees.

providing any right to a hearing.

redress all of their injuries and to prevent further injury.

attorneys’ fees and costs.

Count II – DISCRIMINATION Under NJ LAD

as though fully set forth herein.

Belize, Central America.

pay received by the White Senior Buyers.

same raise or the same pay.

University Procurement for more than 20 years.

and just one time in a meeting.

continuing financial, emotional and mental injury.

redress all of her injuries and to prevent further injury.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray on this count for compensatory and punitive

including attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant jointly and

attorney’s fees as multiplied under the Law Against Discrimination;

nationality, denying Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws

all that is necessary for her to be made whole.

the statute of limitations.

COUNT III NATIONALITY AND ANCESTRY DISCRIMINATION UNDER N.J.S.A.

preceding paragraph as if fully included herein.

same raise or the same pay.

University Procurement for more than 20 years.

and just one time in a meeting.

continuing financial, emotional and mental injury.

redress all of her injuries and to prevent further injury.

to this treatment and conduct by defendants.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant jointly and