BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer
Two Red Bank Borough Council members named in a claim of a hostile work environment may be left to pay damages of up to $1 million without help from the borough.
An investigation is under way into a tort complaint that has been filed on behalf of Parking Director Neil Burnip claiming that he has been the victim of a hostile work environment as well as being discriminated against on the basis of his nation of origin, England.
Councilwoman Jennifer Beck and Councilman John Curley have been specifically named in the complaint as being those who have created the hostile work environment and who have discriminated against Burnip.
The tort states that the amount of the claim is not known at this time, but “is estimated to be in excess of $1 million.”
“It’s my position that if there are any damages to be paid, or legal fees, that they [Beck and Curley] pay them,” Red Bank Mayor Edward J. McKenna Jr. said Monday.
“We shouldn’t be picking up the tab for this.”
McKenna said that it would be legal, when and if the question of who would pay any damages comes up, to have it decided that the responsible parties are Beck and Curley, not the borough.
“We,” he said, “as a governing body have never been guilty of these violations. All employees deserve to be treated with respect.”
The tort claims that since about January 2004, “Neil Burnip has been a victim of a hostile work environment and had his rights violated in contravention of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination N.J.S.A. 10:5-4 by his employer, the borough of Red Bank, and its agents, servants, and/or employees.
According to the official state of New Jersey Web site, a hostile work environment is defined as “a situation in which complained-of conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.”
“As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff suffers severe and extreme emotional distress and other injuries,” the tort reads.
Jamie Plosia, of Apparuzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, Warren, the borough’s labor attorney, said Friday he has begun an investigation into Burnip’s claims that he has been the victim of a hostile work environment.
The investigation will consist of interviews with relevant parties as well as reading relevant documents, according to Plosia.
“Hopefully,” he said, “we’ll have it finished by the end of the month.”
Beck and Curley, the only two Republicans currently sitting on the council, and whose seats are up for election this year, have both stated that they believe the timing of the complaint to be suspect, given the short time to the elections.
Curley said this week that at this point, neither he nor Beck has retained counsel to represent them in the matter.
McKenna said Monday that the charges made by Curley and Beck that the claim is politically motivated is “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.”
“If anybody has made this thing political,” he said, “they have. “Borough Attorney Kenneth Pringle said last week he would not want to speculate about the possible financial damages that the borough may incur, but that even if the claim is found baseless, the borough would still be responsible for additional attorney’s fees.
According to Plosia, in the United States all parties must pay their own attorney fees, unless a law which is found to have been broken contains a “fee shifting statute” which places the cost of the attorney on the opposing party.
The defamation law contains no fee shifting statute, but the law against discrimination does.
“In England,” said Plosia, “the loser pays.”
Plosia said that the best case scenario for the borough would be that all charges be dismissed based upon a motion or after discovery, without ever going before a jury. He said that 95 to 98 percent of cases such as these are settled without jury trials.
Burnip is still showing up for work at the borough offices at 90 Monmouth St., and declined to comment on Monday.
On Sept. 16, Burnip’s attorney, Todd Wallman of Lucas & McGoughran, Oakhurst, requested that the borough undertake an investigation into the claim.
“Further,” the letter states, “we demand that the hostile work environment immediately cease and desist, we request on behalf of our client that monetary damages be paid to him for humiliation, pain and suffering, loss of career opportunity, and other compensatory and punitive damages for conduct of two council persons, Beck and Curley. There may also have been cause of action for defamation.”
Borough Clerk Carol Vivona received a similar letter dated Sept. 26, which additionally states the plaintiff’s intent to claim in excess of $1 million in damages.
Plosia said that a tort is a notice of intent to sue, and that no tort is required to be filed for a case of discrimination, but that a claim of defamation must be filed 180 days before a lawsuit can be filed.
“An entity cannot defame someone,” he said. “Only another person can defame someone.”