NJ EMPLOYMENT LAW CLAIMAINT’S COMPLAINT IN ARBITRATION |
| Date Added: August 01, 2011 06:40:09 AM |
| Author: bLatarshaJamesn |
| Category: County Durham: Tow Law |
| INTRODUCTION This action arises out of Respondents’ violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act and New Jersey common law. NJ Employment Law Claimant alleges that he was unlawfully retaliated against and terminated because he opposed and complained of conduct which he reasonably believed to be unlawful. NJ Employment Law Claimant further alleges that the Respondents, assaulted him. The Respondent requested NJ Employment Law Claimant to misrepresent information to a lender and a title company pertaining to a mortgage issued by Bank of America. NJ Employment Law Claimant reasonably believed such conduct was illegal constituting mortgage fraud and complained of and opposed this request. Approximately three weeks later, NJ Employment Law Claimant and Respondent were discussing the mortgage and NJ Employment Law Claimant again complained about Respondents’ conduct towards the loan. Respondent began yelling at NJ Employment Law Claimant, at which point NJ Employment Law Claimant attempted to return to his workstation. Following NJ Employment Law Claimant’s attempt to leave, Respondent punched NJ Employment Law Claimant. NJ Employment Law Claimant thereafter told Respondents he was going to contact the police and Respondents’ human resources regarding the physical assault and the mortgage fraud. In response, Respondents fired NJ Employment Law Claimant. COUNT I Violations of Conscientious Employee Protection Act (N.J. Stat. 34:19-1 et seq.) The foregoing facts are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. At all times relevant herein, Respondents are and continue to be an “employer” within the meaning of the CEPA. At all times relevant herein, NJ Employment Law Claimant was employed by Respondents as an “employee” within the meaning of CEPA. CEPA prohibits covered employers, such as Respondents, from taking any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee discloses or to threatens to disclose any fraudulent or criminal activity or practice, or objects to or refuses to participate in any activity the employee reasonably believes to be fraudulent or criminal. NJ Employment Law Claimant engaged in multiple activities protected by CEPA, including but not limited to: NJ Employment Law Claimant opposed Respondents’ request that he deceive the lender and title company regarding a mortgage because he reasonably believed that doing same constituted mortgage fraud; NJ Employment Law Claimant opposed and complained of Respondents’ unlawful conduct in physically attacking NJ Employment Law Claimant; and NJ Employment Law Claimant threatened to contact the police regarding Respondent 2’s unlawful conduct in physically attacking NJ Employment Law Claimant. Respondents retaliated against NJ Employment Law Claimant because he engaged in protected activities within the meaning of CEPA by (1) withholding wages and commissions from NJ Employment Law Claimant; (2) physically attacking NJ Employment Law Claimant; and (3) terminating NJ Employment Law Claimant. CONCLUSION In conclusion the respondents were charged for the 3 different counts towards the NJ Employment Law Claimant, Count 1 Violations of Conscientious Employee Protection Act, Count 2 Pierce Claim, and Count 3 Assault and Battery. Respondents are to compensate NJ Employment Law Claimant, reimburse NJ Employment Law Claimant, and/or otherwise make NJ Employment Law Claimant whole for any and all pay and benefits NJ Employment Law Claimant would have received had it not been for Respondents’ illegal actions, as provided by applicable law, including but not limited to past lost earnings, lost future earnings, lost bonuses, lost medical and other benefits, and lost pension contributions. NJ Employment Law Claimant is to be awarded punitive damages, as provided by applicable law, in an amount believed by the Arbitrator to be appropriate given Respondents’ deliberate, malicious, and outrageous conduct, and to deter Respondents and others from engaging in such misconduct in the future; NJ Employment Law Claimant is to be awarded damages for emotional distress and/or pain and suffering, in an amount believed by the Arbitrator to be appropriate, as provided by applicable law; NJ Employment Law Claimant is to be awarded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Arbitrator deems appropriate and just and as provided by applicable law; NJ Employment Law Claimant is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees, as provided by applicable state law. |
|
|