Named as sole Respondent in the Finding of Probable Cause, the Old Bridge Board of Education oversees a school district made up of approximately 9,600 students, 12 elementary schools, two middle schools and one high school. According to the Division, the district failed to deal effectively with the harassment of a Jonas Salk Middle School student – identified only as H.D. because he is a minor – that began in the fall of 2004 and continued through the end of the school year in 2007.

The harassing conduct included derogatory remarks from other students about H.D.’s perceived sexual orientation, as well as his Jewish faith. On one occasion, the student had papers stuffed down the front of his pants by other students. On another occasion, a middle school staff employee allegedly asked him if he was looking for his purse as the youth checked the lost-and-found. The school district has denied that incident.

But the district’s own documentation shows that, during one stretch between early September 2006 and late January 2007, there were at least 11 reported incidents of harassment against H.D. involving 14 different students. In two of the cases, no action was taken because of a lack of information. In the remaining cases, a total of 12 students received discipline ranging from a verbal warning to after-school detention to in-school suspension. However, the bullying of H.D. continued. The Finding of Probable Cause cites Old Bridge for failing to take affirmative steps to prevent the bullying of H.D., and for dealing with it only via “after-the-fact” discipline, without any prevention measures or efforts at broader outreach to students.

“It appears this student went to school in an extremely hostile atmosphere – a climate in which he was subjected to a level of bias-based harassment and torment that no young person should have to endure,” said Division on Civil Rights Director Chinh Q. Le. “With the new school year about to begin, this is the perfect time to remind school districts they have a duty to create and maintain a safe, nurturing and harassment-free learning environment, and to respond effectively when bullying rears its ugly head.”

H.D. entered Jonas Salk Middle School in September 2004, and the harassment began shortly thereafter. According to a log kept by the youth’s mother and provided to the Division, H.D. was repeatedly targeted for such slurs as “fag” and “fruit.” He was also derided for eating “Jew food.” According to the youth and his mother, these taunts and slurs were aimed at him in school, on the school bus, and on the Internet.

In an interview with a Division investigator, a former principal at Jonas Salk Middle School – the educator retired in June 2006 – recalled most incidents of reported harassment against H.D. listed in the log. While the ex-principal apparently did suspend two students involved in a locker room incident in which paper was stuffed down H.D.’s pants, he said he generally couldn’t recall what disciplinary action he took upon learning of other bullying episodes. He said he rarely documented such discipline unless it involved conduct serious enough to warrant suspension.

The same former principal acknowledged telling H.D. during one conversation that he’d understand if H.D. elected to respond to his tormentors physically. He also acknowledged recommending that H.D. transfer out of Jonas Salk Middle School and attend the township’s other middle school as a solution.

“No matter how well intended, a suggestion that the victim consider resorting to physical aggression against his tormentors, or that he transfer to another school, is neither an appropriate nor a sufficient means for the school district to deal with the unlawful, harassing conduct of its students,” said Le.

Ultimately, the Finding of Probable Cause notes, H.D. became reticent about even reporting further incidents of harassment and bullying at Jonas Salk Middle because doing so never improved his situation. In fact, the Finding of Probable Cause notes, the youth felt he was “becoming known as a snitch,” which threatened to make matters worse.

A Finding of Probable Cause does not resolve a civil rights complaint. Rather, it means the State has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) has been violated.

The LAD provides that each Respondent found to have committed a violation is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000. The LAD also provides for other remedies, including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, such as changes in the employer’s policies and management/staff training.

Now that the Division has issued a Finding of Probable Cause, the Old Bridge Board of Education case will be referred for a process known as Conciliation. If Conciliation is not successful, the matter will be referred for a non-jury trial before an Administrative Law Judge. Once the trial is completed, the presiding Administrative Law Judge will issue a written Initial Decision.

Director Le thanked Division Investigator Agnes Roncaglio, Paterson Office Manager Carolyn Paul, Legal Specialist Benn Meistrich, Deputy Attorney General Marisa Slaten and Deputy Attorney General Charles Cohen, Assistant Section Chief, for their work on the Old Bridge investigation and Finding of Probable Cause.

Contact an attorney in New Jersey

Under terms of the agreement, Clementon Fire and Rescue of Clementon, Camden County, paid firefighter Merrissa V. Garretson $15,000 last month. The fire company also agreed to give Garretson a positive letter of employment reference whenever contacted by a prospective employer. Garretson resigned from Clementon Fire and Rescue in April 2010. As part of the settlement with Garretson, the fire company made no admission of liability.

“This is a fair settlement that resolves troubling allegations of discrimination against a young woman in a male-dominated work environment,” said Division on Civil Rights Director Chinh Q. Le. “No employee should be treated like a second-class citizen because of his or her gender, and no worker should suffer reprisals for having reported such treatment.”

At age 13, Merrissa Garretson began her employment with Clementon Fire and Rescue in May 2003 as an Explorer. She was promoted to Junior Firefighter in July 2006, and promoted again to Probationary Firefighter in July 2008. In December 2008, Garretson was promoted to the position of Firefighter. At all times, she was a volunteer employee and was not paid by the fire company.

According to her formal Complaint, Garretson approached the fire company’s deputy chief, Randall Freiling, in March 2009 to report repeated, discriminatory remarks by a male firefighter that were demeaning to women generally, and derogatory toward Garretson in particular. Garretson alleged that she later approached Clementon Borough Administrator Jenai L. Johnson, in July 2009, with the same information.

In the aftermath of those two conversations, Garretson received a letter from Administrator Johnson – in August 2009 — advising that a thorough investigation had been conducted, and that corrective action had been taken.

However, Garretson charged in her Complaint, she saw no evidence of a thorough investigation or corrective action.

To the contrary, Garretson alleged, she was subjected after reporting her concerns to such actions as being “bumped” from fire truck assignments in favor of less qualified, less experienced junior firefighters, and having her gear removed from her locker. Garretson filed her formal Complaint with the Division on Civil Rights in November 2009.

Director Le thanked Division Investigator Maurice Sykes and John Beauchamp, Regional Supervisor in the Division’s Camden Office, for their work on the Garretson matter.

Contact an attorney in New Jersey

Beginning August 20 and running through September 6, police officers will conduct saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints, looking for motorists who may be driving while intoxicated.

“There’s simply no excuse to drink and drive,” Fischer stated. “The decision to get behind the wheel after drinking can change not just your own life, but the life of your family, your friends, and everyone who is on the road with you. Even one drink can impair your judgment and reaction time, creating a potentially deadly situation.”

Fischer noted that last year in New Jersey, 185 people were killed as a result of alcohol-related crashes. That number represents 31 percent of the 583 traffic fatalities reported in the state in 2009. In addition, 67 of those alcohol-related fatalities occurred during the summer travel season.

The Division of Highway Traffic Safety offers the following advice to ensure a safe summer travel season for those who choose to drink alcohol:

• Take mass transit, a taxi or ask a sober friend to drive you home.
• Spend the night rather than get behind the wheel.
• Report impaired drivers to law enforcement. In New Jersey, drivers may dial #77 to report a drunk or aggressive driver.
• Always buckle up, every ride, regardless of your seating position in the vehicle. It’s your best defense against an impaired driver.
• If you’re intoxicated and traveling on foot, the safest way to get home is to take a cab or have a sober friend or family member drive or escort you to your doorstep.

The Law Offices of Garces & Grabler would like to wish everyone a happy and safe holiday weekend.

Contact a DWI Attorney in New Jersey

More DWI Information

Known as “Cops in Crosswalks,” the federally funded initiative places undercover police officers, posing as pedestrians, in marked crosswalks. Motorists who fail to stop for the undercover officers are stopped and issued warnings or tickets by uniformed officers a short distance away. The Division will be providing federal grants of $8,000 each to 13 police departments for the program, which will run from mid-July to mid-September. In addition, towns receiving year-long pedestrian safety grants from the Division will also participate in this initiative, which has been run in towns throughout the state for the past two years.

Fischer noted that the initiative will also help to reinforce New Jersey’s pedestrian safety law, which was amended on April 1, to require motorists to stop and stay stopped for pedestrians in marked crosswalks. Prior to the change, motorists were required to yield.

“By changing the language in the state’s 50-year old pedestrian statute from yield to stop, motorists now know that when they approach a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk, they must stop and remain stopped to allow that pedestrian to cross safely,” Fischer stated. “The law also makes it unlawful for a vehicle to overtake or pass another vehicle that is stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross. It also infers that a motorist is at fault when there is a conflict between a vehicle and a pedestrian in a crosswalk.”

Pedestrians must also do their part under the amended law. “It’s a pedestrian’s responsibility to take due care when crossing the street,” she said. “That means that a pedestrian should never suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the roadway, where it is impossible for a motorist to stop. Pedestrians must also obey all traffic signs and signals, including ‘walk/don’t walk.’ If a pedestrian does enter the roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, he or she must yield the right of way to all motor vehicles.”

Motorists violating the law face a $200 fine, plus court costs, and 2 points on their license. They can also be subject to 15 days of community service and insurance surcharges. Pedestrians failing to comply with the law face a $54 fine, plus court costs.

The towns and townships participating in the Cops in Crosswalks program are:

Linwood, Northfield, Burlington City, Medford Twp, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Vineland, Monroe Twp, New Brunswick, Piscataway, Red Bank.

Contact a traffic ticket attorney in New Jersey

Named as Respondent in the Finding of Probable Cause is the Royal Aluminum Company, Inc., which manufactures insulated glass units at a factory in Newark.

In a complaint filed by former employee Nereira Berrospi Juares and joined by Division on Civil Rights Director Chinh Q. Le, Royal Aluminum is charged with terminating Juares shortly after her left hand was crushed in a machine and she was restricted by a physician to light duty.

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Juares was injured on October 30, 2009 – her third day on the job — when her work glove became caught in a machine. She was treated for a crush injury and directed by the physician to avoid work until November 2, when she would be re-evaluated. On that date, she was told the severe swelling and bruising of her left hand necessitated further rest. On November 4, Juares was cleared to return to work on a “light duty” basis and provided Royal Aluminum a physician’s note documenting that restriction. Two days later she was terminated.

“The Law Against Discrimination was designed precisely to address the kind of conduct alleged here – a complete disregard of the civil rights of someone injured on the job,” said Division Director Le. “We simply cannot tolerate employers who exploit our most vulnerable workers – people who are just trying to earn an honest living.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Royal Aluminum Vice-President Jeff Papa told State Investigators Juares was slated for discharge before her accident because of poor job performance. However, Papa acknowledged that Juares had only worked at Royal Aluminum for two full days at that point, and that no one at the company had raised a concern with her about her performance. Royal Aluminum was also unable to provide any documentation to support its claim.

Papa also maintained that Royal Aluminum was not in violation of the LAD because Juares did not belong to a protected class at the time of her discharge. Specifically, Papa contended that Juares could not be classified as “disabled” because of her hand injury.

However, according to the Finding of Probable Cause, the term “disability” is broadly construed within the meaning of the LAD, and is not limited to “severe” or “immutable” disabilities. The LAD definition of disability includes a “physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement which is caused by bodily injury.”

A Finding of Probable Cause does not resolve a civil rights complaint. Rather, it means the state has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the LAD has been violated.

The LAD provides that each Respondent found to have committed a violation is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000. The LAD also provides for other remedies, including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, such as changes in the employer’s policies and management/staff training.

Now that the Division has issued a Finding of Probable Cause, the Royal Aluminum case will be referred for a process known as Conciliation. If Conciliation is not successful, the matter will be referred for a non-jury trial before an Administrative Law Judge. Once the trial is completed, the presiding Administrative Law Judge will issue a written Initial Decision.

Director Le thanked Division on Civil Rights Investigator Elbia Concepcion, Newark Office Manager Lorraine LeSter and Legal Specialist Benn Meistrich for their work on the Royal Aluminum case.

Named as Respondent in the Finding of Probable Cause is the Wendel Family Wellness Center of Woodbridge, Middlesex County. The center is accused of allowing a male patient to repeatedly harass the alleged victim, former chiropractic assistant Giselle Ramsingh, by making numerous physical and verbal advances toward her while she treated him throughout an eight-month period in 2004.

Ramsingh, of Parlin, Middlesex County, was discharged from her job in early September 2004, approximately one month after she submitted a formal memorandum complaining about being sexually harassed by the patient — the second one she had submitted in a year regarding the same patient. Her dismissal also came less than two weeks after a meeting in which, Ramsingh told State Investigators, she advised her employer she did not feel her concerns had been dealt with appropriately, and that she was contemplating calling the police.

“The allegations in this case are disturbing,” said Director Le. “Employers have a duty under the law to ensure the workplace is harassment-free, and workers have a right under the law to report harassing conduct without fear of reprisals. When an employee reports that she or he has been subjected to harassment, the employer is obligated to investigate the matter and take the appropriate steps to address it and prevent such conduct from taking place in the future.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Ramsingh was subjected to acts of sexual harassment by the same patient during numerous visits for treatment at Wendel Family Wellness Center during the months spanning January through August 2004. Among other things, Ramsingh reported that the patient smacked her on the buttocks with a clipboard during one visit. On other occasions, she charged, he grabbed her ankles and moaned her first name while undergoing a chiropractic massage, grabbed and twirled her hair and, in one instance, told her she was “very sexy” and that “you don’t know all the fun I can have with you if we go out.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Ramsingh not only submitted her memorandums complaining about the patient’s conduct, but also complained directly to Dr. David Wendel and his office manager, Tara Montalvo, to little avail.

The Finding of Probable Cause refers to an anecdote provided by Montalvo in which she described filling in for Ramsingh and treating the harassing patient on one occasion in June 2004. Montalvo described entering the room and beginning to massage the patient without him realizing it was Montalvo, not Ramsingh, providing treatment. Montalvo told State Investigators the unwitting patient began to moan and groan Ramsingh’s first name, “Giselle,” which Montalvo said she found “very gross.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Dr. Wendel confirmed to State Investigators that Ramsingh brought her situation to his attention, and that in response he had taken over treatment of the patient. However, the state’s investigation yielded “sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion” that Ramsingh was, in fact, asked to continue treating the patient on at least a few occasions after submitting her August 2004 memorandum, and that she continued during these sessions to be sexually harassed.

A Finding of Probable Cause does not resolve a civil rights complaint. Rather, it means the state has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) has been violated. The LAD provides that each Respondent found to have committed a violation is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000, provided he or she has not been convicted of a previous violation within the past five years. The LAD also provides for other remedies, including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, such as changes in the employer’s policies and management/staff training. Now that the Division has issued a Finding of Probable Cause, the case will be referred for a process known as Conciliation. If Conciliation is not successful, the matter will be referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a hearing on the merits, which is a non-jury trial. The ALJ will then issue a written Initial Decision.

Director Le thanked State Investigator Elbia Concepcion and Division on Civil Rights managers Atley Tyler and Lorraine LeSter for their work on the Wendel matter.

Contact a New Jersey Civil Rights attorney