MILLSTONE – Municipal officials in Millstone Township are taking action in response to a local business owner’s allegations of racial discrimination by a municipal employee.
In August, the business owner filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against Millstone Township and the code enforcement official.
The code enforcement official and municipal officials submitted answers to the complaint in September.
On Oct. 21, Township Committee members passed a resolution in response to the litigation. The resolution authorizes a defense in regard to one count in the complaint which seeks injunctive relief against Millstone Township.
According to the initial complaint, the business owner has a significant number of Hispanic employees.
The business owner has alleged acts of discrimination were committed toward his Hispanic employees which date back to 2015 and subsequently led to unjust actions against himself and his business.
In the complaint, the business owner alleges that the code enforcement official violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment; and the procedural due process clause of the 14th Amendment; and that the code enforcement official retaliated against the business owner for exercising his (the business owner’s) First Amendment rights.
The business owner also alleges tortious interference with an economic advantage and defamation against the code enforcement official, as an individual.
Toward Millstone Township and the code enforcement official, the business owner alleges violation of New Jersey’s law against discrimination. The business owner is seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief against the defendants.
The answers to the complaint, submitted separately by the defendants, deny any wrongdoing on their part. The code enforcement official and municipal officials are demanding judgment against the business owner dismissing the complaint.
The defendants assert the complaint is frivolous and that the business owner’s claims are barred by an unreasonable delay in making the claim and that the complaint was made in bad faith, among other reasons.
The code enforcement officer asserts the business owner’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Assumption and Risk and that any injury occurring to the business owner was the direct and proximate result of that individual’s own conduct.
The answer also asserts that the initial complaint does not factually set out any malicious intent of causing a deprivation of the business owner’s civil and/or constitutional rights; while also denying the allegations of improper conduct, the answer asserts the alleged misconduct does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
The code enforcement officer asserts he acted in good faith and without malicious intent to deprive the business owner of his constitutional rights.
Millstone Township’s answer to the complaint denies negligence and alleges the complaint fails to set forth a claim where relief may be granted from the municipality.
The code enforcement official and municipal officials state that the U.S. District Court lacks jurisdiction regarding certain aspects of the matter. Municipal officials are demanding damages from the business owner.