Williams v. Twp. of Lakewood
| Decision Date | 09 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 17-cv-11401 (PGS)(TJB) |
| Parties | ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF LAKEWOOD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
This matter comes before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Township of Lakewood ("Lakewood"), Gregory Meyer ("Meyer"), Thomas Henshaw ("Henshaw"), and Robert DeSimone ("DeSimone") (collectively, "Defendants"). (ECF Nos. 24, 26). In the present motions, Defendants seek summary judgment on Elizabeth Williams's ("Plaintiff" or "Williams") twenty-five count Complaint, (ECF No. 1), in its entirety. (See generally ECF Nos. 24, 26). For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff is a sixty-three-year-old Latin-American female of Dominican heritage and a resident of Lakewood, New Jersey. .1 On May 6, 2002, Plaintiff commenced employment with Lakewood within the Lakewood Township Police Department ("LTPD") as a Clerk/Typist. . Plaintiff was forty-four years old when she was hired by LTPD. (DDUMF ¶ 2). On or about March 8, 2017, her employment with LTPD came to an end under allegedly unlawful circumstances. (See Compl. ¶ 5). In this action, Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to age, sex, and racial discrimination; retaliation; and a hostile work environment. She also alleges that LTPD's policies and practices created a racially disparate impact on Latina employees.
Plaintiff is suing Lakewood and individual defendants Henshaw, Meyer, and DeSimone. Henshaw, Meyer, and DeSimone were employed by the LTPD at different times. (PUMF ¶ 4). Meyer has been the Chief of Police since August 1, 2016; Henshaw was the former Lakewood Township Manager from February 2015 to September 2018; and DeSimone was a sergeant on the force until his departure from the LTPD in December 2017.2 (Id.; DDUMF ¶¶ 17, 46, 47).
In May 2002, Plaintiff began her employment with the LTPD as a secretary to then-Captain Robert Lawson. (DDUMF ¶ 3; see also PUMF ¶ 7). On or about April 26, 2006, Plaintiff received a written reprimand from Public Safety Director Al Peters. (Id. ¶ 4; see Certification of Counsel ("Jones Cert."), Ex. E, 26-7). The documentary evidence submitted by Defendants does not clearly indicate why Plaintiff was reprimanded. (See id.). After the written reprimand was issued, however, Director Peters moved Plaintiff from her position as Lawson's secretary in Administration to what Plaintiff claims was a less desirable position in the Records Department (also known as the "Records Room" or "Records"). (See id. ¶ 5; DUMF ¶ 3). Plaintiff contends that Director Peters moved her to Records "as a form of punishment." (PUMF ¶ 21 (disputed)). At oral argument, Plaintiff clarified that her salary did not change as a result ofthe transfer. In December 2006, after Lawson was promoted to Chief of Police, Lawson restored Plaintiff's position in Administration as his secretary. (DUMF ¶ 4).
Plaintiff and Lawson were friends at all times relevant to this suit. (Id. ¶ 5; DDUMF ¶ 8). Lawson co-signed the mortgage on two of Plaintiff's homes, and remains a co-owner and co-signee on the mortgage on the home in which Plaintiff presently resides. (DDUMF ¶ 9; see also DUMF ¶ 6). After Lawson retired, Plaintiff was reassigned to the Records Room.3 Lawson stayed in touch with Plaintiff because he believed "there was an atmosphere within the police department and not only the police department, but finance and the manager's office that people didn't like her." (DUMF ¶ 11; Certification of Counsel Support Mot. for Summ. J. ("Riordan Cert."), Ex. C, Deposition of Robert Lawson ("Lawson Dep.") at 71:4-25, ECF No. 24-7). Lawson also testified at deposition that:
[T]he union president called [Plaintiff] incompetent because she couldn't pass the typing test. And this sort of pervaded. It was a lot of jealousy within the police department towards [Plaintiff] because of her, because of her salary, because of her office, because of her position. You know they felt that somebody more senior or more experienced should have it.
(Id.). Plaintiff explained at oral argument that she was required to pass the typing test in order to receive a promotion - not in order to be deemed qualified for the position she maintained at that time.
Defendants cite numerous instances throughout Plaintiff's employment in which she made mistakes or inadequately performed her duties. Beginning on October 29, 2014, then-Interim Municipal Manager Steven Reinman issued a memorandum suspending Plaintiff for two days after she made "a series of extra duty billing errors that have been time consuming and costly to repair." (DDUMF ¶ 10; DUMF ¶ 7; Riordan Cert. Ex. E, ECF No. 24-9). According toReinman's memorandum, Plaintiff also "mishandled" checks. (Riordan Cert. Ex. E). Similarly, on February 23, 2016, Plaintiff received a written reprimand from Defendant Henshaw, then-Municipal Manager, which indicated that Plaintiff "delayed the deposit of $126,000.00 pertaining to outside duty." (Riordan Cert. Ex. G, ECF No. 24-11). In September 2016, after Plaintiff was transferred from her role in Administration to the Records Room, DeSimone and another officer were cleaning out her office when they found a folder containing eighteen uncashed checks from 2013 and 2014 that were payable to Lakewood, totaling more than $37,000. (Riordan Cert. Ex. H, ECF No. 24-12; Ex. L, ECF No. 24-16.)
Meanwhile, beginning in January 2016, Henshaw allegedly instructed administrative supervisors to begin covertly monitoring Plaintiff's work performance. (See DUMF ¶ 23 (disputed); DDUMF ¶ 20 (disputed)). Defendants contend that Internal Affairs commenced an official "administrative investigation" into Plaintiff's work performance in October 2016, and Plaintiff was notified of that investigation on October 21, 2016. (See DDUMF ¶ 35 (disputed); DUMF ¶ 29 (disputed); DeSimone Reply Br. at 7, ECF No. 31). Apparently, Henshaw had no authority to commence the investigation, (PUMF ¶ 37),4 and Chief Lawson was not informed about it, (see PUMF ¶ 50).5 At Henshaw's direction, DeSimone participated in the investigation by keeping a journal of Plaintiff's work performance from January 2016 to August 2016 and sharing it only with Henshaw. (PUMF ¶ 63, 136; DDUMF ¶ 48). Henshaw instructed DeSimone not to inform Chief Lawson - his boss - about the log. (PUMF ¶ 137).
In October 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that Latina employees were segregated in the Records Room, deniedadvancement opportunities, and subjected to inferior treatment compared to white women at the LTPD. . She also claimed that Lakewood deliberately delayed her application for promotion, denied her the training and materials needed to perform her duties, and replaced her with a younger white woman when she was transferred from Administration to Records. (Id.).
In December 2016, Defendants received a Notice of Charge of Discrimination issued by the EEOC. (Riordan Cert. Ex. Q, ECF No. 24-21). The notice indicated that Plaintiff had filed a charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for purported discrimination based upon her sex, religion, national origin, and age. (Jones Cert., Ex. N, ECF No. 26-16). In August 2017, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights. (ECF No. 38 Ex. D). It stated that it could not conclude that a violation was established and notified Plaintiff of her right to sue the respondent(s) under federal law within ninety days of receiving the Notice. (Id.).
After completing the investigation into Plaintiff's work performance and interviewing Plaintiff on January 4, 2017, Detective Sergeant Cunliffe issued two memoranda on behalf of the Office of Professional Standards, dated February 1, 2017 and February 9, 2017. (Riordan Cert. Exs. L, M, ECF Nos. 24-16, 24-17).
In the first memorandum, Cunliffe found that Plaintiff was incompetent and performed her duties with "gross negligence," leading to various issues such as un-deposited checks, failure to pay vendors, late payments to vendors, overpayments to vendors, and numerous duplication of purchase orders. (Id. Ex. L at 1). For example, "no fewer than" 18 checks were found in Plaintiff's office, all dated between the years 2013 and 2014. (Id. at 2). Cunliffe concluded those checks totaled "$39,013.69 that vendors had never been charged for off-duty workcompleted by township police officers." (Id.). In addition, the memorandum stated that: (1) over the course of 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff either duplicated purchase orders or overpaid vendors no fewer than 81 times; (2) there were 12 instances where Plaintiff either forgot to have purchase orders signed, had conflicting billing accounts, or failed to provide the necessary back-up documents required for purchase orders; and (3) there were no fewer than 6 instances where Plaintiff's late or non-payments caused service disruptions or repossession of items, including with respect to the Township's Ford dealer account that performed all work and maintenance on police vehicles. (Id. at 2-3). Ultimately, Cunliffe "sustain[ed]" disciplinary charges levied against Plaintiff for "poor performance of duty," "incompetence," and "insubordination," and recommended Plaintiff's termination. (Id. at 3).
In his second memorandum, Cunliffe found that, on numerous occasions, Plaintiff was late, absent without leave from her post, failed to properly request time off (as required by her employment contract and special memorandum issued by...
To continue reading
Request your trial