Special Police Org. of N.J. v. City of Newark
| Decision Date | 25 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-4168-19 |
| Parties | SPECIAL POLICE ORGANIZATION OF NEW JERSEY and THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS: HERIBERTO ACEVADO, JUAN ALVIRA, JAMES ANDREWS, PALMER AMOS, JOAQUIN AYERBE, JORGE ALEX BARBOSA, JABREE BELL, RENALDO BARTE, ALPHONSO BENTON, THIAGO BETHONICO, KYLE BROWN, CLIFTON BURCHETT, CARLOS CABRERA, ALBALINE CARABALLO, TRACY CHILDRESS, CAROLINE CLARK, LUCIANO COLLAZO, VINCENT CORDI, CHARLIE DAVIS, CURTIS DORCH, TUWAN FLOYD, WILLIE FLOYD, MICHAEL GILLENS, KENDALL GOLDEN, GENNARO GUANCI, ISMAEL GUERRERO, GIOVANNI GIIDA, HARRISON HOGUE, MARK HALLOWAY, JEROME JEWELL, WILBERT JOHNSON, VICTOR JORGE, LARRY KING, DARRELL LAMPLEY, ALANA LAWRENCE, GIUSEPPE MAIORANO, BENJAMIN MAURIELLO, MARIA MELENDEZ, DELVIS MATOS, WALTER MELVIN, HORTENSE MERRITT, REGINALD MERRITT, JOHN MEYERS, EUSEBIO MOREIRA, MARK ODOM, DAVID PAIGE, OSCAR PANNELLA, RONALD M. PETFORD, IRIS PHILSON, RICARDO PRATT, MANNY REBIMBAS, JAMIE RIVERA, GARY ROBINSON, MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ, CARMINE RUSSO, HAKEEM SALEEM, ISRAEL SEGARRA, JOHN SILVA, SHAWN SIMMONS, ALBERTO SMITH, LUIS SOTO, ANTHONY SUTTON, ELLIOT TAYLOR, DIKRAN TEHLIKIAN, ROBERTO TELLEZ, ALAIN VARELA, GEORGE VASQUEZ, LOUIS WALKER ADMIRAL WIMBERLY, TIMOTHY WISE, TARIQ YASIN, DEVIN ZAMORA, and on behalf of ALL SPECIAL POLICE HIRED BY THE CITY OF NEWARK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEWARK, ANTHONY AMBROSE, CITY OF NEWARK MAYOR RAS BARAKA, NEWARK CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, LAMONICA MCIVER, LUIS A. QUINTANA, JOHN SHARPE JAMES, JOSEPH A. MCCALLUM JR., ANIBAL RAMOS JR., AUGUSTO AMADOR, EDDIE OSBORNE and CARLOS M. GONZALEZ, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Submitted October 25, 2021
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Essex County, Docket No. L-7121-19.
Eldridge Hawkins, attorney for appellants.
Yvette Gibbons, attorney for respondents City of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, Newark City Council Members LaMonica McIver, Luis A. Quintana, John Sharpe James, Joseph A. McCallum Jr., Anibal Ramos Jr., Augusto Amador, Eddie Osborne and Carlos M. Gonzalez.
Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for respondent Anthony Ambrose (Gary F. Werner, Jeffrey T. LaRosa and Ryder T. Ulon, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Vernoia and Firko.
The complaint in this matter asserts eleven separate causes of action arising from a simple and singular factual basis. Plaintiffs Special Police Organization of New Jersey and seventy-two of its members allege that as a condition of a special police officer's retention as independent contractors by the City of Newark, the officer is required to voluntarily perform twenty hours of service each year on behalf of the City without compensation. Each of plaintiffs' eleven causes of action is founded, in one fashion or another, on the premise the requirement violates a special police officer's constitutional, common law, and statutory rights.
Plaintiffs appeal from orders granting summary judgment to defendants, the City, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, and Newark City Council members Lamonica McIver, Luis A. Quintana, John Sharpe James, Joseph A. McCallum, Jr., Anibal Ramos, Jr., Augusto Amador, Eddie Osborne, and Carlos M. Gonzalez.[1] Plaintiffs also appeal from an order granting the City's Public Safety Director Anthony Ambrose's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs further appeal from orders denying their cross-motion for partial summary judgment and for reconsideration of the summary judgment and dismissal orders. Unpersuaded by plaintiffs' claims the court erred by entering the orders, we affirm.
Because plaintiffs challenge orders granting summary judgment pursuant to Rule 4:46-2 and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), we summarize both the factual allegations in the complaint and the undisputed material facts presented to the motion court. The material facts, as alleged in the complaint and established by the summary judgment record, are not disputed.
The individual plaintiffs are, or were, special police officers. According to plaintiffs, special police officers are "[]independent contractors[]" who comprise a "class of person[s] . . . who obtain employment from private entities under the authority of the City." In their brief on appeal, plaintiffs reiterate, as a matter of fact, special police officers are independent contractors and not employees of the City; they emphatically state "THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES" of the City.[2] The policies and requirements applicable to the City's special police officers are promulgated in General Orders issued by the Newark Police Department. The General Orders provide special police officers are not members of the Newark Police Department; their appointments to the position expire annually on December 31; and applications for renewal of their appointments must be made no later than October 1.[3]
The pertinent iterations of the General Orders have included different versions of the volunteer requirement plaintiffs' challenge in their complaint.[4] The 2014 General Order stated:
Special [p]olice [o]fficers are required to volunteer, on a yearly basis, twenty hours of service for Special Events to the City of Newark while working in the capacity of a Newark [s]pecial [p]olice [o]fficer. It shall be the responsibility of all [s]pecial [p]olice [o]fficers to fulfill this obligation. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.
The 2016 General Order modified the volunteer requirement, stating:
Special [p]olice [o]fficers are required to volunteer, on a yearly basis, for a minimum of eight (8) hours for training and twelve (12) hours of service for a total of twenty (20) hours per calendar year, for Special Events for the City of Newark while working in the capacity of a Newark [s]pecial [p]olice [o]fficer. It shall be the responsibility of all [s]pecial [p]olice [o]fficers to fulfill this obligation. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.
The 2017 General Order imposed a different volunteer obligation:
Special [p]olice [o]fficers are required to volunteer twenty (20) hours within a one (1) year period, beginning on December 1st and ending on November 30th of the reporting year. These hours can be completed by working in the capacity of a Newark [s]pecial [p]olice [o]fficer at special events or by conducting other functions as instructed by the Public Safety Director or the Chief of Police for the City of Newark. All volunteer hours MUST be satisfied by November 30th of each year. It shall be the responsibility of all [s]pecial [p]olice [o]fficers to fulfill this obligation. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.
In March 2019, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants in federal district court alleging various federal and state law causes of action challenging the volunteer requirement. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
In a written opinion, the district court found plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their claim the volunteer requirement violated the prohibition against "slavery [and] involuntary servitude" in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court explained the Thirteenth Amendment "prohibits 'compulsory labor akin to African slavery'" and "[t]he twenty hours of volunteer work required to maintain [a special police officer's] contract[] of employment is not the type of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment."
The court dismissed the federal causes of action and, in an exercise of its discretion, dismissed plaintiffs' state-law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint in the Law Division alleging eleven state law claims against the same defendants based on the same facts as those in the federal action.
In their Law Division complaint, plaintiffs allege the Special Police Organization of New Jersey is an organization of special police officers, and the individual plaintiffs are special police officers in the City. The complaint further alleges the individual plaintiffs "are a class of person[s]" who are "independent contractors" and "who obtain employment from private entities under the authority of the City."
Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the volunteer requirement imposed by the various General Orders, special police officers have been, and continue to be, required to work twenty hours per year without compensation at various City events.
Plaintiffs claim the individual defendants, acting in their official capacities, recklessly and intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress by depriving the individual plaintiff special police officers of their "[c]ivil and [c]onstitutional rights" (first count), and negligently, recklessly, and wantonly disregarded the special police officers' rights by failing to ensure their protection and by failing to train and supervise others who deprived them of their rights (second count).
Plaintiffs allege defendants violated the prohibition against "involuntary service" in violation of Article I paragraph 20 of the New Jersey constitution (third count), and violated plaintiffs' rights under Article I, paragraphs 2(a), 6, 9, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the New Jersey constitution (fourth count). The complaint further avers individual defendants' actions constituted intentional and reckless infliction of severe emotional...
To continue reading
Request your trial