By Lea Kahn, Staff Writer
Seven Lawrence Township police officers all active members of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 209 or the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 119 have filed a federal lawsuit against top Police Department administrators and the municipal manager for violating the officers’ civil rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The civil lawsuit, which was filed April 18 in U.S. District Court, alleges that the police officers have been punished for union activities in violation of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment guarantees citizens’ ability to engage in union activity, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit also says the officers’ civil rights were violated under the New Jersey Constitution, which also guarantees the right of free speech to all citizens and that also protects them from retaliation for the exercise of those rights.
The seven police officers who filed the lawsuit are Sgt. Joseph Caloiaro and Officers Marc A. Caponi, Andrew F. Lee, Andres Mejia, Hector Nieves, Steven R. Simon and Scott W. Stein. Sgt. Caloiaro and Officers Lee and Simon belong to the FOP, and Officers Caponi, Mejia, Nieves and Stein are members of the PBA. The two unions represent Lawrence police officers.
The lawsuit alleges that Chief of Police Daniel Posluszny, Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Prettyman and Municipal Manager Richard Krawczun have “consistently and systematically retaliated against the plaintiffs.”
Filed by Moorestown-based attorney Katherine D. Hartman, the lawsuit seeks “compensatory damages including damages for emotional distress, loss of reputation, lost wages and other personal injury, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, equitable remedies and all costs of suit.”
In reaction to the police officers’ lawsuit, Mr. Krawczun said the township’s response is being prepared by its labor attorney and that “we will vigorously defend ourselves and the township in this matter.”
According to the lawsuit, Sgt. Caloiaro became involved in a dispute with Deputy Chief Prettyman over a newspaper article that addressed the concerns of the Superior Officers Association, which represents police officers with the rank of sergeant and above. The deputy police chief accused the sergeant of “tipping off” Mr. Krawczun about those concerns.
Deputy Chief Prettyman refused to speak to Sgt. Caloiaro, the lawsuit said. The deputy chief took over the task of making crew assignments and despite Sgt. Caloiaro’s seniority he has been a Lawrence police officer since 1993 he was given an undesirable assignment that would have meant up to 100 schedule changes in the upcoming year.
Sgt. Caloiaro also was denied a request to move one block of his vacation time because of an opening created by a departmental transfer, the lawsuit said, noting that “the adverse job actions taken against Sgt. Caloiaro, as well as the general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights.”
Officer Caponi, who is a former sergeant-at-arms for the FOP, claims that in 2009, he received nearly $9,000 in a workman’s compensation settlement for a skin condition that he contracted while wrestling on a team for the Lawrence Township Police Department.
But two years later, the township sent him a letter accusing him of making a fraudulent claim and also making “scurrilous and completely false allegations about sexual activity at a bachelor party,” the lawsuit said. The township did not pursue the fraud allegation when presented with the truth, the lawsuit said.
”The adverse job actions taken against Officer Caponi, including but not limited to being threatened with charges of fraud, being subject to scandalous and false accusations about his personal life and being subject to general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of his exercise of his First Amendment rights,” the lawsuit said.
Officer Lee alleged that retaliation was taken against him when, acting in his role as FOP president, he forwarded a suggestion to Mr. Krawczun in December 2010 to eliminate the position of deputy chief, the lawsuit said. It was a cost-saving measure suggested in lieu of other concessions suggested by the township, and approved by the union membership.
Officer Lee also filed a complaint with the FOP Labor Council in January 2011 that objected to the conduct of the police chief, the deputy police chief and a former police captain (who was not named in the lawsuit) over their refusal to allow FOP members to attend meetings and to dock them their “training time earned,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit claims that Deputy Chief Prettyman “began to take actions which plaintiffs believe were retaliatory” such as the launching of multiple internal affairs investigations involving Officer Lee, “using shift assignments to punish those who were active in the union and/or had filed grievances against the department,” and trying to organize a campaign to force out Officer Lee as FOP president.
Officers Mejia and Nieves filed a grievance against the township over a previously approval that allowed them to switch vacation time with each other. Officer Mejia also filed a grievance which was denied contesting a denial of his request to take training classes in November 2011.
A few days later, Officer Mejia was served with a preliminary notice of disciplinary action regarding three incidents that occurred eight months previously, the lawsuit said. He has been served with two additional notices of disciplinary action for other incidents and requested hearings on the notices, but none have been held. None of the grievances have been resolved, either, the lawsuit said.
Officer Nieves has been subjected to several preliminary notices of disciplinary actions for an incident that involved a simple assault against another police officer which was later dismissed and for insubordination when he declined to answer a question posed by the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the incident that he believed he was not obligated to answer.
None of the disciplinary actions or grievances (involving vacation time) have been resolved.
”The adverse job actions taken against Officer Nieves, including but not limited to being subject to frivolous investigations and disciplinary actions, and general hostility and ostracism, were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights,” the lawsuit said.
Officers Simon and Stein claim they were passed over for promotion to sergeant in September 2009, despite having ranked first and second, respectively, on the sergeant’s test, the lawsuit said. The third-ranking candidate had retired and was not eligible, so the promotion went to the fourth-ranking candidate who had served a six-month suspension for a drunk driving violation when the sergeant’s slot became available in June 2011.
Officer Simon, who is a charter member of FOP Lodge 209, claims in the lawsuit that the police chief had promised to help him become a better candidate, but later decided he would not speak to the patrolman about his advancement opportunities. He subsequently received a proposed 10-day suspension and requested a hearing in December 2011, but the matter has not been heard.
Officer Stein has served as PBA vice president for six years and has a “far superior disciplinary history” having been disciplined once in 2003 but he was passed over for promotion to sergeant in favor of the fourth-ranking candidate, who is not active union member, the lawsuit said.
”Since Prettyman has been appointed to the position of deputy chief, no one who has been an officer in the union has been selected for promotion. The adverse job actions taken against (Simon and Stein), including but not limited to being passed over for promotion, and general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of (their) First Amendment rights,” the lawsuit said.

