Desha Jackson Law Group, LLC.

Desha Jackson, Esq.

Attorney ID #014591996
4400 Route 9 South, Suite 1000
Freehold, NJ 07728
Phone :732-409-5172
Fax: 201-603-1800
djackson@dljlawgroup.com
Attorney for Plaintiff, Kamil Warraich

KAMIL WARRAICH, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MONMOUTH COUNTY
Plaintiff(s), LAW DIVISION
-vs-
Civil Action

ASBURY PARK , DAVID DOCKET NO.: MON-L-000854-20

KELSO, GUY THOMPSON, JOHN
CRESCIO, JOEL FIORI, MICHAEL
CAPABIANCO, ANTHONY SALERNO, FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DAVID DESANE, COMPREHENSIVE JURY DEMAND
PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, BETTY
P. MCLENDON and JOHN DOES 1-10

Defendant(s)

Plaintiff, Kamil Warraich, who resides in the State of New Jersey says:
FIRST COUNT
(Parties)
1) The Plaintiff, Kamil Warraich, was hired as a Class II Special Police

Officer by the Asbury Park Police Dept. (APPD) on or about September 2004. Plaintiff was

hired as a full-time APPD Police Officer in July of 2007.

2) The Defendant, Asbury Park, is a Municipal Corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, located at One Municipal Plaza, Asbury Park,

New Jersey.

3) The Asbury Park Police Department, hereinafter (APPD), is a Department within the

1
City Administration, and at all times relevant herein, its officers were acting in such capacity as

its agents and employees of Defendant Asbury Park, executing its policies and procedures.

4) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant David Kelso is the current Police Chief

and ranking supervising officer within the Asbury Park Police Dept.

5) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Guy Thompson is a Deputy Chief and

ranking supervising officer within the Asbury Park Police Dept.

6) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant John Crescio is a Captain and

ranking supervising officer within the Asbury Park Police Dept.

7) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Joel Fiori is a Police Officer

within the Asbury Park Police Dept.

8) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Anthony Salerno (retired) was the Acting

Chief and ranking supervising officer within the Asbury Park Police Dept.

9) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Michael Capabianco, was the (former)

City Manager for the City of Asbury Park and was the appointing authority for disciplinary

matters involving the Plaintiff.

10) The aforementioned APPD Defendants are being sued in their individual capacity

and in their official capacity.

11) At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Betty P. McLendon, Psy.D. as agent

employee of the Comprehensive Psychological Services, P.D. and was hired by Defendant

Asbury Park Police Dept, conducted a fitness for duty assessment of the Plaintiff as an

independent contractor for Asbury Park and/or as Asbury Park Police Dept and otherwise

conspired with the individual Defendants named herein and the defendant City of Asbury Park to

produce a fraudulent and false fitness for duty evaluation report concerning the Plaintiff for

purposes of terminating his employment with defendant Asbury Park and stigmatizing his ability
2
and or opportunity to gain employment in the law enforcement field generally.

12) Defendant John Does 1-10 are unidentified potential Defendant.

Background Information

1) In September of 2004, Plaintiff was hired as a Class II Special Police Officer with the

Asbury Park Police Department (APPD).

2) Plaintiff began working in Asbury Park as the first Middle-Easterner, Pakistani

American officer and the second Muslim officer in the history of APPD.

3) Plaintiff was hired by an African American Police Director named Louis Jordan and

labeled by many Caucasian officers/Supervisors as “Loui Jordan’s boy.”

4) Plaintiff received minimal on-the-job training, received conflicting orders from his

superior officers, and was the victim of openly bigoted comments from all ranks and ethnicities

of officers with the APPD.

5) Plaintiff was commonly referred in the department as “Taliban” and as a terrorist by

his coworkers/supervisors and subjected to other stereotypical racial slurs towards Middle-

Easterners.

6) Plaintiff was hired by APPD as a full-time police officer in July of 2007.

7) In early 2009 Plaintiff was assigned to APPD Narcotics and Gang Unit where he was

one of the leading, if not the leading officer in gun arrests. Plaintiff annually participated in

hundreds of arrests over the next several years. Plaintiff proactively enhanced gang

investigations/arrests and data collection by identifying gang members.

8) In 2009 Plaintiff was also selected to join the faculty of the Top Gun (Narcotics,

Gangs, Guns Investigation and Prosecution), and Undercover Narcotics Investigation Training

(UNIT) training courses, two of the most coveted classes provided to Federal/State/County and

Municipal police officers by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. Plaintiff was initially
3
involved as a role player, and eventually moved up to Squad Coordinator and Classroom

Instructor.

9) In September 2012 Plaintiff was sent on loan to the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s

Office (MCPO). Plaintiff was sent back to APPD after just a few days, and advised the reason

was Plaintiff had too many open Internal Affairs (IA) complaints. Lieutenant David DeSane

(now Captain), his supervisor at the time in Narcotics & Gang Unit, had a meeting with Chief

Mark Kinmon to review the IA complaints. It was determined that all the open IA complaints

were left open for an extended period (some over a year or more) and merely needed to be closed

out.

10) Despite the simple need to close the completed IA investigations, which resulted in

the appearance that Plaintiff had a number of opened pending IA complaints, Plaintiff was not

sent back to the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office as a Task Force officer.

11) In November of 2012 Plaintiff was passed over for a position in the Detective

Bureau for two junior Caucasian officers. A review of Plaintiff’s work record would show

Plaintiff was far more qualified for the position than the two officers selected and had more

experience.

12) In October 2014 Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant after scoring number one on the

promotional list generated by Civil Service.

13) In June 2015 Plaintiff was assigned as a Supervisor to the Narcotics and Gang Unit,

where he ran a highly productive Unit.

14) In July 2016 soon to be retiring Acting Chief, Anthony Salerno, wrongfully ejected

Plaintiff from Narcotics and Gangs Unit.

15) Acting Chief Salerno assigned Plaintiff to midnights on Patrol, a well-known

“punishment assignment” recognized in the APPD and prematurely mandated Plaintiff to several
4
other corrective actions.

16) Plaintiff was also banned by Acting Chief Salerno from participating as faculty in

Top Gun and UNIT which are desirable and distinguished training programs for police officers

causing Plaintiff further embarrassment and harm to his reputation amongst Plaintiff’s outside

agency colleagues across the State of New Jersey.

17) Acting Chief Salerno stated all of this was done at the recommendation of the

Monmouth County Prosecutor’s office.

18) From September to December 2016 Plaintiff made repeated requests to IA

investigators Police Officer Danny Newman (now a detective assigned to Internal Affairs in the

Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office) and Sgt. Michael Barnes (now Lieutenant) to close out

the long overdue IA complaints against the Plaintiff.

19) After receiving several excuses on why his IA complaints remained open, Plaintiff

was later advised by Det. Newman that all his cases were closed. However, Newman refused to

provide Plaintiff with disposition letters for these cases as required by the Attorney General

Guidelines. Plaintiff also spoke to IA commander, Lt. Mary Bulsiewicz, and she also refused to

provide him with the disposition letters. Plaintiff reported the issue to then SOA (Union)

President, Lieutenant Guy Thompson (now Deputy Chief), who spoke to Lt. Bulsiewicz and Det.

Newman regarding the matter.

20) On 12/16/2016, after reporting Lt. Bulsiewicz and Det. Newman, Plaintiff was

retaliated against by Lt. Mary Bulsiewicz who wrote Plaintiff up for a previously settled matter

by the Patrol Captain, Terrence Fellenz, (for calling out sick 15 minutes late). In effect,

disciplining Plaintiff twice for the same incident. Thereafter, Plaintiff was repeatedly and

excessively charged with rules and regulation violations (Conduct Unbecoming) and threatened

by Lt. Bulsiewicz who stated, “don’t expect me to look out for you”, “can’t wait to put this
5
(write-up) in Guardian Tracker (discipline tracking system used by the department), “you had to

run to the big shot (Captain Thompson)” etc. She made these comments in the presence of Sgt

Michael Barnes (now Lieutenant), who was temporarily working in Patrol Division as Shift

Commander.

21) Plaintiff notified then SOA President, Lieutenant Guy Thompson (now Deputy

Chief) of this retaliation incident, however, no action was taken against Lt. Bulsiewicz for the

retaliation by any member of the Administration or APPD when reported.

22) On 01/02/2017 Det. Newman provided Plaintiff with IA disposition letters, all of

which were backdated, and the dispositions were “not-sustained”. Det. Newman asked for the

disposition letters back from Plaintiff when Plaintiff pointed out to Newman the

letters/investigations were backdated.

23) Plaintiff immediately notified SOA President, Captain Guy Thompson (now Deputy

Chief) and advised him he was requesting an internal affairs investigation by the Acting Chief of

the matter. Plaintiff time stamped the disposition letters as evidence of their receipt. Plaintiff

received no response, and no action was taken by the APPD Administration.

24) On 01/10/2017 Plaintiff again requested Captain Thompson (now Deputy Chief) to

initiate an investigation regarding the backdated disposition letters and the retaliation against him

by Lt. Bulsiewicz for reporting the matter. On 01/11/2017 Plaintiff followed up with a letter to

Captain Thompson regarding his complaints and received no response.

25) Thereafter, Plaintiff was advised he had two additional pending IA matters.

26) On 01/16/2017 Plaintiff retained an attorney and shortly thereafter, both open IAs

were closed with the dispositions of “exonerated”. Plaintiff noticed a clear disparity in

dispositions of cases in which he was represented by an attorney vs. cases of other APPD

officers without an attorney, even with similar circumstances and/or witnesses.

6
 27) On 01/17/2017 Plaintiff had a meeting with Deputy Chief David Kelso (now Chief)

and Captain Thompson (now Deputy Chief) regarding his complaints, during which both made

excuses for the actions or lack thereof for IA officers, stating Bulsiewicz, Barnes and Newman

didn’t know they were supposed to provide Plaintiff disposition letters at the conclusion of their

investigations despite AG guideline requirements. No further action was taken by the APPD

Administration in this regard.

28) On 01/23/2017 Plaintiff followed up with a second Letter to Captain Guy Thompson

(now Deputy Chief), regarding the meeting on 01/17/2017. In this letter, Plaintiff repeated the

complaint of retaliation by Lt. Bulsiewicz and Plaintiff addressed the refusal to accept his IA

complaint against IA officers. Plaintiff also respectfully disagreed with the excuses given by

Deputy Chief Thompson and Chief Kelso that experienced IA investigators didn’t know they

were supposed to provide him disposition letters at the conclusion of the investigations per

Attorney General IA Guidlines. No further action was taken by the APPD Administration.

29) On 02/02/2017 Plaintiff had a telephonic conversation with Deputy Chief Thompson

and again inquired into the status of his complaint. Deputy Chief Thompson stated his complaint

was forwarded to Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office due to the nature of the allegations.

30) On 02/15/2017 Plaintiff had an in-person conversation with Captain Thompson

regarding his complaint and received a conflicting answer from his previous conversation on

02/02/2017. Deputy Chief Thompson now stated Plaintiff’s complaint was not forwarded to the

Prosecutor’s office because the complaint wasn’t criminal in nature. No further action taken by

the Administration.

31) On 03/07/2017 Plaintiff had a telephonic conversation with Captain Thompson who

stated he did not hear anything from A/C Salerno regarding his complaint, and added, “maybe

because they didn’t find anything wrong”. Thompson made demeaning comments and verbally
7
chastised Plaintiff while he (Thompson) was on his way to a PBA function in Atlantic City.

32) On 03/07/2017 Plaintiff followed up with a third Letter to Captain Thompson,

respectfully requesting the Administration’s response to his complaint against IA in writing.

Captain Thompson did not reply to this letter. Ten days later on 03/17/2017 Plaintiff had another

telephonic conversation with Captain Thompson regarding his complaint on IA staff. Captain

Thompson stated as per A/C Salerno “there is nothing there.” Per Captain Thompson, Acting

Chief Salerno threatened Plaintiff with an Insubordination charge if he continued to pursue the

matter.

33) On 03/7/2017 Plaintiff wrote another letter to Deputy Chief Thompson, requesting to

file a grievance regarding an issue pertaining to scheduling, which involved retaliation and

nepotism, where Plaintiff was affected negatively. In October of 2016 Sgt. Armento was

intentionally advised by the Administration to pick a schedule after he submitted his paperwork

for retirement knowing he will not be returning to work starting 2017. Yet Armento was assigned

the best schedule due to his seniority on the midnight shift over Plaintiff and another Sergeant,

Eddy Raisin, a Haitian American. In 2017 Armento’s assigned schedule was kept open and

assigned in March to an “Acting” Sergeant, Michael Casey over Sgt. Raisin, and Plaintiff, two

minority, permanent and senior Sergeants to him. Sgt. Casey remained in that position for the

rest of the year until he was assigned back to Community Relations’ Unit.

34) On 03/14/2017 Deputy Chief Thompson filed a grievance on Plaintiff’s behalf

regarding the scheduling conflict. On 03/15/2017 Plaintiff’s grievance was denied by A/C

Anthony Salerno without any explanation.

35) On 04/07/2017 City Manager Michael Capabianco held a hearing regarding the

scheduling conflict. On 04/13/2017 City Manager Capabianco denied Plaintiff’s grievance

without giving a reason as well. In Addition, Deputy Chief Thompson refused to further file a
8
complaint with Public Employee Relations Committee (PERC) on Plaintiff’s behalf but had

recently filed such a complaint through an attorney for a Caucasian officer, Lieutenant Amir

Bercovicz (now Captain), by his own admission to Plaintiff.

36) Plaintiff believed he was continuously being retaliated against for submitting multiple

letters to Deputy Chief Thompson requesting accountability for the Internal Affairs’ Unit and for

demanding fairness and equality in scheduling amongst officers of different races and ethnicities.

37) On 03/08/2017 a single vacation day was denied by Patrol Commander Captain John

Crescio, which was previously approved by him for Plaintiff.

38) On 03/10/2017 Plaintiff was wrongfully suspended by Officer Joel Fiori from

working outside employment (departmental overtime details) and the suspension was upheld by

Sgt. Carmen Gagliano (now Lieutenant) in retaliation to Plaintiff.

39) On 4/17/2017 Plaintiff prepared and submitted a memorandum to Monmouth County

Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni titled “Misconduct by the APPD Administration”. Plaintiff

submitted his complaint to MCPO per Attorney General Guidelines because Acting Chief

Salerno and the IA investigators were the accused.

 Plaintiff reported A/C Salerno for exposing matters from Plaintiff’s IA file to

unauthorized Department and City personnel, under unwarranted and prohibited

circumstances, pursuant to the A.G. Guidelines.

 Plaintiff reported unjust and excessive punishment, inconsistent with A.G. Guidelines for

an IA complaint (electronically recorded), for which he was exonerated. Plaintiff was

advised by A/C Salerno that the punishments served upon him were recommendations by

the Monmouth County Prosecutor, which reportedly also recommended his termination.

Plaintiff asked the Prosecutor to verify this statement by A/C Salerno.

9
  Plaintiff reported APPD IA Investigator Daniel Newman’s (now working for Monmouth

County Prosecutor’s Office IA Unit) refusal to provide Plaintiff with disposition letters,

inconsistent with the A.G. Guidelines.

 Plaintiff reported retaliation by Internal Affairs Commander Lt. May Bulsiewicz, for

consistently demanding the disposition letters. Plaintiff reported IA Investigator

Newman for backdating official documents, which Plaintiff reasonably believed could

constitute a criminal offense of falsification of office documents.

 Plaintiff reported IA Sgt. Michael Barnes for refusing to accept Plaintiff’s IA complaint

against his subordinate, Det. Newman.

 Plaintiff reported Deputy Chief David Kelso (now Chief) and Captain Guy Thompson

(now Deputy Chief) for not accepting his complaint against the IA Unit, and in fact

covering up for them.

 Plaintiff reported serious concerns regarding the IA Unit not following the A.G.

Guidelines themselves.

40) On 05/16/2017 Plaintiff received a response from Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Lipp

of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s office regarding his complaint of Misconduct by the

APPD Administration. MCPO returned the matter back to City Mayor John Moor, who returned

the matter back to City Manager Michael Capabianco, who then returned the matter back to

APPD Internal Affairs to investigate themselves. Instead of investigating Plaintiff’s allegations,

MCPO started their response letter by pointing out that Plaintiff used departmental stationary

(letterhead and an envelope), the matters were personal in nature and the incidents Plaintiff

mentioned were employee-employer conflict in nature.

41) On 06/08/2017 Plaintiff was charged by APPD IA with using department stationary

as pointed out by MCPO.

10
 1. Misuse of Public Property

2. Other Sufficient Cause

3. Use of Department Property and Equipment

4. Insubordination

5. Communication, Correspondence Restriction

42) Chief Kelso had a meeting and later a telephonic conversation with the Plaintiff and

attempted to convince Plaintiff to plead guilty to the outstanding charges, but Plaintiff adamantly

requested a departmental hearing as soon as possible instead.

43) Between 06/08/2017 and 01/22/2018 Plaintiff made multiple verbal/written requests for

a departmental hearing, which were all ignored by the Administration.

44) Plaintiff, frustrated with the lack of response by the department, e-mailed Chief Kelso,

again inquiring into getting a hearing date for the charges now pending for over eight months.

45) On 02/01/2018 Plaintiff received new and additional charges via U.S. mail, at his

residence, dated 1/29/2018. City Manager Capabianco charged Plaintiff with Insubordination,

Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee and Other Sufficient Cause regarding Plaintiff’s email

to Chief Kelso, with a recommended penalty of 15-days suspension.

46) On 02/27/2018, finally a hearing was held to address the charges from 6/8/2017 and the

new charges from 1/29/2018. On 03/12/2018 City Manager Michael Capabianco decided in a

departmental hearing to dock Plaintiff’s pay for Six-day suspension for the charges of Improper

Use of City Equipment and email Insubordination. Once again, no explanation or reasoning was

given as to his findings. Plaintiff believes the punishment was unfair and not generally practiced

with respect to other police officers of the Department in similar circumstances and an act of

further retaliation for reporting a racist APPD officer to APPD IA in addition to his reports of

misconduct to the Prosecutor’s office and to the Office of the Attorney General concerning the
11
Defendants’ violation of New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines and misuse of the Internal

Affairs process.

47) On 05/15/2017 Plaintiff prepared and disseminated an e-mail to Administration Sgt.

Carmen Gagliano, IA Sgt. Barnes and leaders of PBA complaining about P.O. Joel Fiori’s

actions, behavior and statements including: retaliatory and differential treatment towards

Plaintiff, insubordination in front of room full of officers, racist comments over the years, a

previous racist incident in the Detective Bureau in presence of several officers, repulsive

comments about the Middle Eastern and Haitian taxi drivers when he was assigned to the traffic

Bureau, and racist/inappropriate memes on P.O. Fiori’s (a Community Relation’s officer)

Facebook account regarding various protected groups such as Muslims, Hispanics

(particularly Mexicans), Asians, African Americans, LGBTQ community, Women and

people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Plaintiff later reported to IA Officer Francis

Sangi (now Sergeant) that other officers (Supervisors and high-ranking members of the

Administration) were friends with P.O. Fiori on Facebook, which Sangi also had first-hand

knowledge of and no one from the Administration took any corrective action. In fact, many

“liked” and had similar bigoted memes on their Facebook accounts.

48) On 06/26/2017 Plaintiff received a disposition letter from P.O. Sangi regarding his

complaint of P.O. Fiori (5/15/2017). Sangi stated his investigation found P.O. Fiori (only)

violated the department rules and regulations. Plaintiff believes this complaint was not fully

investigated due to a departmental cover-up.

49) P.O. Fiori has remained in specialized Units (Administration/Community Relations)

since and as part of his duties has been conducting background investigations of police

applicants; some applicants are from the same ethnicities he has shown a clear bias toward.

50) On 06/07/2017 Plaintiff submitted a letter of interest to be transferred to Community

12
Relations Unit. Chief Kelso and Captain Thompson stated to Plaintiff he cannot be assigned to

Community Relations because Plaintiff did not have experience in Community Relations and

Captain Thompson didn’t have the time to train him.

51) Meanwhile five Caucasian officers were recently transferred to Specialized Units,

none of whom had any previous experience in those Units and their jobs were much more

complicated than a position in Community Relations. For example, Sangi was transferred to IA,

N. Townsend and Walsh were transferred to Evidence, Gagliano was transferred to

Administration and Fiori was transferred to Community Relations.

52) Plaintiff believes this to be another discriminatory and retaliatory act by Chief David

Kelso and Deputy Chief Guy Thompson. According to Plaintiff, since that time many other

Caucasian officers have been assigned to Specialized Units without any prior experience since.

53) On 10/20/2017 Plaintiff received a telephone call from Captain Thompson upset at

Plaintiff for going to the mosque for 15 minutes during Plaintiff’s break. Plaintiff viewed this

inquiry as in infringement on his religious freedom.

54) On 12/15/2017 Plaintiff became aware P.O. Fiori excluded him from a group text

message Fiori disseminated to APPD employees regarding overtime details.

55) On 11/15/2017 Plaintiff participated in a recorded interview with Investigators

Thomas Dempsy and Jesus Ramirez under the supervision of Lt. Stanley Beet from the Division

of Criminal Justice - Office of Public Integrity & Accountability (OPIA) regarding his complaint

against APPD Internal Affairs/Administration and the Internal Affairs Unit of Monmouth

County Prosecutor. CJ # 2017-12762/IA #2017-141.

56) On 11/17/2017 Plaintiff prepared and submitted a detailed letter to the Division of

Criminal Justice alleging (1) Monmouth County Prosecutor failed to accept and investigate his

complaint against APPD IA Unit/Commander and the Police Chief. (2) Coverups of misconduct
13
in the department by APPD Administration and failure of the IA Unit to follow A.G. Guidelines

regarding Internal Affair complaints:

A) Timeliness of investigations;

B) Failure to notify subject officers;

C) Not providing disposition letters to officers;

D) Inaccurate dispositions;

E) Retaliation by using the IA process;

F) Disparity in discipline between minority and Caucasian officers;

G) Coercion by IA members;

H) Failure to investigate complaints;

57) On 12/20/2017 Plaintiff received a copy of a letter from Division of Criminal Justice

Assistant Attorney General Michael J. Williams advising MCPO AP Jennifer Lipp that DCJ was

returning the complaint filed against MCPO/APPD IA back to MCPO for “whatever action you

(MCPO) deem appropriate.”

58) 01/18/2018, Plaintiff had a telephonic conversation with Monmouth County

Prosecutor’s Detective, Ryan Mahony, regarding his IA complaint to DCJ being sent back to

MCPO. Det. Mahony asked Plaintiff if there was anything criminal in nature or involving

“corruption” he wanted to report. Plaintiff referred Det. Mahony to his complaint to DCJ. Det.

Mahony stated he would investigate the DCJ complaint and get back to Plaintiff. Plaintiff never

heard from Det. Mahony again.

59) Plaintiff believes the retaliation against him by defendants escalated thereafter as is

evident from the factual events as described in this complaint. Defendants were further

emboldened in their retaliation (para. 41, 45, 46 and continuing forward from below para. 60)

knowing Plaintiff had exhausted his recourse of reporting APPD Administration/IA misconduct
14
to the Prosecutor’s Office and the Division of Criminal Justice. By way of example are the

following acts of retaliation.

60) On 2/23/2018 Captain Crescio falsely accused Plaintiff in a write up for not following

his order and threatened further Progressive Discipline against Plaintiff.

61) In March or April of 2018, Deputy Chief Thompson berated Plaintiff in front of a

room packed with officers and supervisors calling Plaintiff a liar, delusional, and accused

Plaintiff of making up things for merely sharing some of his experiences with other Union

members. This was a very humiliating experience for Plaintiff, especially as a first line

supervisor since there were many new officers present in the room.

62) On 06/12/2018 Plaintiff received a telephone call from Captain Crescio who verbally

berated and harassed him in reference to an approved vacation day by Plaintiff’s immediate

supervisor, Sgt. Marshawn Love as Acting Lieutenant. Crescio did not order Plaintiff in to work.

Instead, on 06/12/2018, as per Lt. DeSane (now Captain), Captain Crescio ordered him to put

Plaintiff out as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) on the manpower sheet. Plaintiff believed this

was another example of harassment and Captain Crescio being vindictive. On 06/28/2018,

Plaintiff prepared and submitted an e-mail to Chief Kelso through SOA President Danny

Kowsaluk in which Plaintiff reported Captain Crescio for lying and requested a formal

investigation. On 07/11/2018 Plaintiff had a meeting with Chief Kelso, Deputy Chief Thompson

and SOA President Lt. Kowsaluk regarding the 6/12/2018 AWOL incident, during which

Plaintiff was given excuses by Chief Kelso and D.C. Thompson for Crescio’s behavior such as

“you know that’s just Crescio, that’s his supervision style” as to justify Defendant Crescio’s

actions which amounted to harassing a subordinate and lying as a Police Captain.

63) On 07/25/2018 Plaintiff submitted another email to Chief Kelso, again formally

requesting an investigation regarding the 6/12/2018 AWOL incident. Plaintiff also provided
15
supporting statements and physical evidence regarding his complaint. On 09/3/2018 Plaintiff

received a disposition letter from Lt. Bulsiewicz exonerating Captain Crescio in reference to his

complaint relating to the AWOL incident and other incidents, notwithstanding the evidence and

statements provided to her. Plaintiff was advised by witnesses they weren’t even interviewed by

Lt. Bulsiewicz, nor was Plaintiff. There was no explanation given as to how she reached her

investigative conclusion.

64) The harassment from Captain Crescio not only continued but increased in nature. On

10/16/2018 Plaintiff received a direct e-mail from Captain Crescio denying his overtime slip for

attending a department approved UNIT Faculty meeting and asking Plaintiff who had approved

the overtime. This overtime was never denied in the past and approved as recently as a few

months ago. On 10/24/2018 Plaintiff submitted an e-mail to Captain Crescio

answering/explaining the submission of the overtime slip. On 10/25/2018, Captain Crescio

ordered Lt. Jeffery White to write Plaintiff up for breaking the chain of command when Plaintiff

replied to his direct email to Plaintiff asking for clarification. Lt. White made a false entry into

Guardian Tracker by omitting and inaccurately stating some of the facts discussed in his meeting

with the Plaintiff.

65) Once again, the Administration failed to intervene or take any action. Frustrated with

the continued harassment by Captain Crescio, Plaintiff submitted an email to Lt. Bulsiewicz

requesting an explanation of her disposition of “Exonerated” in Plaintiff’s complaint against

Captain Crescio in light of physical evidence (email, memos, etc.) provided to her clearly

indicating lying and harassment from Captain Crescio. No response was given to Plaintiff, the

complainant.

66) On or about 12/19/2018 Captain Crescio made harassing statements to Plaintiff

during a PBA Christmas Party by stating such things as: I don’t like to hold grudges, but I never
16
forget and although Plaintiff walked away from Crescio several times, Crescio followed and

continued with “you have a long way to go” and “you should get with the program”. Plaintiff

was up for promotion to rank of Lieutenant at the time. Plaintiff did not file another complaint

for this incident because he believed his previous complaint against Crescio was not seriously

addressed by the Administration. Plaintiff shared this incident with Sgt. Barnes right after the

party.

67) In 2018, Plaintiff and other minority officers were intentionally kept out of certain

Union activities and the elections by the Caucasian PBA leadership in the department. Plaintiff

had expressed verbal and written interest in running for a Board position to PBA leadership on

several different occasions.

68) On 02/15/2019 Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant after finishing

second on the promotional list.

69) On 03/19/2019 Plaintiff submitted a complaint via e-mail to PBA and IA

Commander Lt. Bulsiewicz against Deputy Chief Guy Thompson (now directly in-charge of IA

as of 2/15/19), Administrative Sergeant Carmen Gagliano and Community Relation’s Officer

P.O. Joel Fiori. Plaintiff complained about overtime issues (economic disadvantage to Plaintiff)

and differential treatment.

70) On 03/22/2019 12 members of APPD (10 African American, one Caucasian and one

Pakistani-American) broke off from APPD Administration backed PBA and joined FOP with

Plaintiff being sworn in as the President of the newly formed Lodge. Four more African

American officers joined the following week, totaling sixteen (16) officers.

71) Plaintiff has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of minority officers in the

department. As of January 2020, Plaintiff as a Lieutenant would’ve been the highest-ranking

minority in the department. Plaintiff does not believe his demotion to be a coincidence.
17
 72) In addition, Plaintiff believes APPD, Asbury Park and the individually named

defendants have deliberately neglected to promote and demoted officers from underrepresented

groups based upon race, religion, and national origin to give certain Caucasian officers

promotional advantage. Plaintiff has been vocal in his beliefs that APPD has failed to recruit

and hire from underrepresented groups including minorities. For example, since October of

2014, when Plaintiff became a supervisor, APPD has hired approximately twenty-nine (29) new

police officers but only approximately six officers from underrepresented groups in a city with

approximately over 70% minority residents.

73) On 03/28/2019 Plaintiff had an in-person conversation with P.O. Samuel Griffith

strictly out of care for him and his career. Plaintiff constructively criticized Griffith’s use of

force incident in November of 2018. PO Griffith had confided in the Plaintiff for guidance in the

past, but this time Plaintiff learned that this conversation was inaccurately reported up the chain

of command through supervisors’ Sgt. Joseph Spallina and Lt. Daniel Kowsaluk and eventually

given to Internal Affairs by Captain Crescio. On 04/10/2019 Plaintiff received a memo from Sgt.

Barnes ordering Plaintiff to prepare a report regarding his conversation with P.O. Samuel

Griffith on 3/28/2019. On 04/22/2019 Plaintiff prepared and submitted an e-mail to Sgt. Barnes

regarding the “Griffith” incident. Plaintiff also reported police misconduct that some of the new

officers, predominantly Caucasian, were engaged in:

 “selective enforcement” targeting minorities of low socio-economic background vs.

Caucasian well-off citizens for the same offenses. This practice can also be referred to as

“over policing” in the minority communities.

 “ego-based policing” involving unwarranted and unjust police actions including use of

force incident and excessive use of force.

18
 “fishing” as in turning minor interactions with members of the minority community into

arrests and an opportunity to issue summons for stats.

 “Quota system,” Plaintiff further reported that the department was engaged in a Quota

system and was pressuring officers for stats regarding summons and arrests, which was

leading to poor police practices for the sake of numbers.

 Plaintiff reported a possible cover up by officers and supervisors in this “Griffith

incident” involving use of force reports and that additional charges were filed against the

injured arrestee as a possible cover-up after pressure from the public.

 Plaintiff requested additional training for new officers in dealing with people of color.

 Plaintiff reported some Officers, with encouragement from certain (Caucasian)

Supervisors, were not filing Use of Force reports in incidents where use of force was in

fact used, in order to avoid additional paperwork and accountability, being detected for

using force inappropriately, and being flagged under the new Attorney General’s Early

Warning System.

 Plaintiff constructively criticized P.O. Samuel Griffith (a new officer) in his conversation

with him. P.O. Griffith and another officer used forced (unjustly in Plaintiff’s opinion)

against a subject while he was being arrested. The subject received visible signs of injury

to his face/head when he was taken down to the ground on the sidewalk. Then the

subject was mocked by several officers that surrounded him during the arrest. The

officers used force against the subject but did not initially charge him with resisting

arrest. The officers also did not take his photograph as required per arrest procedure

because “the camera was broke.” The officers, with the approval of the shift

Commander, did not submit Use of Force forms or complete an investigation report. The

incident received social media attention and was discussed in City Council meetings.
19
 After being scrutinized by the public for the incident, Plaintiff believes the police

department charged the subject with resisting arrest days after the incident and had the

officers fill out use of force reports.

74) On 04/1/2019 Plaintiff emailed Chief Kelso advising him PBA members (officers,

supervisors, and PBA President) were harassing and making derogatory comments to FOP

members. One of Plaintiff’s concern was that the only Caucasian FOP member was particularly

being mocked by other Caucasian officers/supervisors, who allegedly labeled him as a “race

traitor” for standing in solidarity with minority Officers. Plaintiff’s complaint to Chief Kelso

once again fell on deaf ears.

75) On 05/15/2019 Plaintiff was called in by IA and advised by Lt. Bulsiewicz in

presence of Lt. Michael Barnes that he was being demoted to Sergeant because it was his last day

of the working test period (2/15/19 to 5/15/19), the City Manager Michael Capabianco “doesn’t

think it’s working out” and that Plaintiff would get something in the mail at home from the City

Manager. On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff received a letter from the City Manager at home advising

him of the demotion. Plaintiff was summarily demoted in violation of the Civil Service rules for

the working test period, in violation of Plaintiff’s due process and contrary to the Attorney

General’s guidelines and his Collective Bargaining Agreement with the City regarding the

disciplinary process.

76) In addition, Lt. Bulsiewicz served Plaintiff with separate charges of Conduct

Unbecoming (untruthfulness), Insubordination and Other Sufficient Cause for “lying” in the

complaint filed by Plaintiff on 3/19/19 against her immediate supervisor Deputy Chief Guy

Thompson and other members of the Administration. Lt. Bulsiewicz investigating her

immediate supervisor was also contrary to the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs guidelines. In

addition to the demotion, Plaintiff faced an additional penalty of 20 day-suspension for this
20
charge.

77) On 06/07/2019 Plaintiff attended a Departmental Hearing in reference to his pending

charges for “Untruthfulness”, during which, under cross-examination, Lt. Bulsiewicz, IA

Commander, made the following admissions:

(A) she did not follow AG IA guidelines to investigate Plaintiff’s complaint and/or to

assess whether to charge the ones he complained about;

(B) she failed to question witnesses;

(C) she failed to keep investigative notes and other records as required;

(D) she charged Plaintiff with Conduct Unbecoming (lying) because he allegedly made a

“conflicting” statement, yet she never interviewed him as the complainant to clarify the

statement in question;

(E) she never advised Plaintiff, contrary to AG guidelines, that he was now the target of

the investigation in his own complaint on other officers until Plaintiff was summarily demoted

and charged with other offenses.

78) On 05/17/2019, without any cause, Plaintiff was placed on Administrative Leave and

sent for a Fitness for Duty evaluation. Plaintiff suspected foul play and recorded his interview

with Dr. Betty McLendon, the City Psychologist. During the fitness for duty evaluation, Plaintiff

states that McLendon criticized and lectured him for over an hour basically implying that

however wrong the Administration is, Plaintiff should stay in his place and just do his job. She

projected Plaintiff will lose in the end and indeed had already lost due to his demotion.

79) Plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Betty McLendon with the State Board of

Psychological Examiners, File # PSY-2019-05595. In addition to her unethical and biased

conduct during Plaintiff’s interview, Dr. McLendon lied in her evaluation report paid for by the

City and intentionally misrepresented Plaintiff unfit for duty. Plaintiff provided the State Board
21
with audio recording and transcripts of the interview as evidence in support of his allegation

against Dr. McLendon.

80) The Department did not inform Plaintiff or his attorney of Dr. McLendon’s

conclusion until 6/25/2019 when Plaintiff received a “Rice Notice” in the mail notifying him the

City Council intended to vote on his termination (involuntary disability) the very next day on

6/26/2019, without the right to a hearing. Plaintiff believes this was done intentionally by the

department because the late notice compromised Plaintiff’s right to defend himself, have a public

hearing and to have an attorney present with him. The Rice notice issued one day before the

hearing violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights to due process.

81) On 06/26/2019, Plaintiff appeared in front of Mayor John Moor, Deputy Mayor Amy

Quinn, City Council members Eileen Chapman, Yvonne Clayton, and Jesse Kendle, Sr. Also

present in the hearing were City Manager Michael Capabianco and Fire Chief Kevin Keddy.

Plaintiff provided the Elected City Officials with his complaints filed against the members of the

APPD Administration and testified his demotion, charges of Untruthfulness and the Fitness for

Duty evaluation were acts of direct retaliation against him. Plaintiff requested them to conduct

an independent investigation of the matters. Elected City Officials advised the Plaintiff they

would review the reports and summon the Plaintiff back in front of the Council for questioning

before deciding on his employment.

82) On or about 7/1/2019 Plaintiff sent letters to the Mayor and City Council members

further explaining his current circumstances and requested an independent investigation by the

elected officials.

83) The following day Plaintiff was ordered to report to Headquarters by IA Commander

Lt. Bulsiewicz where he was served with additional charges of Inability to Perform Duties and

other sufficient cause (unfit for duty) and then told his employment with the City was terminated
22
immediately pending a departmental hearing allegedly due to McLendon’s report.

84) On or about 7/3/2019 Plaintiff sent a second set of letters to the Mayor and City

Council members notifying them of the new charges of Unfit for Duty by Chief Kelso and

Plaintiff’s arbitrary immediate termination using the IA process as a means of retaliation in order

to circumvent the City Resolution which required a decision by the elected City Officials before

Plaintiff could be terminated. Plaintiff again requested an independent investigation into his

matters.

85) It is noteworthy that Plaintiff obtained an independent Fitness for Duty evaluation on

7/25/2019 with the report being issued on 10/14/2019 conducted by Nicole J. Rafanello, Ph.D. of

the Clinical & Forensic Psychological Consulting Services, LLC, which concluded that Plaintiff

does not suffer from a mental or psychological disorder that renders him unable to complete his

duties as an officer.

86) On 10/01/2019, Asbury Park City Attorney Steven Glickman failed to appear for a

conference hearing regarding Plaintiff’s demotion at the Office of the Administrative Law

without giving the Plaintiff, his attorney, or the Court a notice.

87) On 11/26/2019, representatives of the City of Asbury Park failed to appear for a

conference hearing regarding Plaintiff’s demotion for a second time at the Office of the

Administrative Law.

88) On 12/02/2019, Plaintiff sent a third set of letters to the City elected officials

notifying them of the unapproved absence of City officials from court hearings and requested

departmental hearings for the pending charges as soon as possible. To date, the City has not

provided Plaintiff with departmental hearing dates for the pending matters regardless of multiple

verbal/written requests by the Plaintiff.

89. ) Defendant DeSane denied training requests, undermines the authority of the Plaintiff
23
in front of other officers, speaks to Plaintiff in demeaning tone, yells at the Plaintiff in front

of other officers and alone, selectively enforces rules, regulations, laws against the Plaintiff

but no other personnel, harassed the Plaintiff through witness intimidation among other

actions towards the Plaintiff

90.) Based on information and belief, Defendant DeSane ordered that a plaque

be placed on a tree known as the Tree of Knowledge located near the APPD. It is known to

be a place where African American Officers gather. Based on information and belief, this

was put on the tree by officers at the direction of Defendant DeSane. The plague stated:

“Tree of Knowledge Where the disgruntled and misinformed can freely meet to spread lies,

rumor and conspiracy instead of doing the job they were hired to do....”

91.) This was done to intimidate witnesses of racist, police misconduct

By Defendant DeSane and other members of the APPD. This is a violation of department

rules and regulations and the EEO law.

92.) Defendant Kelso & Defendant Thompson took no action to rectify the

situation. They did not take down the plaque even when officers directly complained to

them. The media reported the plaque two months after it was placed there. Both did not

initiate an IA investigation nor did they hold the people responsible.

93.) Defendant DeSane has not been held accountable for violating the rights

or law with regard to the public or violation of any rules or regulations due to his

treatment of other officers over the years including the Plaintiff.

94.) Defendant DeSane leads and encourages an atmosphere and culture of fear,

intimidation. He supports retaliation and discrimination of the Plaintiff and others in the

department.

95.) The APPD recently charged the Plaintiff, October of 2023, with several
24
disciplinary infractions and is seeking a total of 80-days suspension. This was done after he

complained about how he was treated and violation of the rules, regulations and the law via

his complaint herein and to Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office internal affairs.

96.) APPD initiated two additional IA complaints in October of 2023 against the

Plaintiff after he reported the tree incident and after he filed a tort claim against them.

97.) Since Plaintiff became aware of a conspiracy between Individual defendants

Kelso, Thompson and Internal Affairs Unit to the cause the Plaintiff irreparable harm and

subject him adverse employment actions. This knowledge caused the Plaintiff so much

stress he took a 2.5 months of personal sick time to cope with the circumstances. Plaintiff

often takes sick days now because he has trouble sleeping at night, nightmares, and fatigue

due to unrest based upon what the individual defendants have done to him.

98.) Since the time the Plaintiff filed the instant the complaint he has been

harassed based on race and religion as well as retaliated against by Defendant DeSane and

other individual Defendants. The following instances are examples of the continued racial

and religious harassment and retaliation.

 The Defendants have filed fraudulent disciplinary charges against the Plaintiff.

 Plaintiff returned to work in December 2021 after 2.5 years of Admin leave and
Plaintiff was assigned to Patrol starting 2022.

 Plaintiff wrote an email to Defendant DeSane requesting assignment in Community

Relations Unit or Administration. He denied the request.

 Then wrote to Chief & City Manager. Asked to be transferred to Community

Relations Unit, also due to severe conflict and prior harassment incidents by
Defendant Crescio. Request denied. Got written up by Defendant DeSane for
including CM.

 Request to meet with Chief, denied by Defendant Thompson.

 Denial to review IA file when other officers were allowed, no reason given when
asked.
25
  Denial of overtime by Defendant Thompson against own overtime policy. (damage
in thousands of dollars)

 Denial of training every time the Plaintiff asked for training.

 IA Commander Eddy Raisin’s condescending email regarding Internal Affairs File

 Plaintiff was denied a request to appear in uniform to speak at the Plaintiff’s

children’s school, Caucasian officers were granted permission to do so.

 Denied Plaintiff’s request to appear in uniform to Governor Murphy’s Ramadan

iftar.

 Wrote out several polices specifically to negatively affect the Plaintiff and his
working conditions.

 Forced the Plaintiff to do a job of the Sergeant and the Lieutenant.

 Recently issued policy to make the Plaintiff do Sergeant’s job and have a Captain do
the Plaintiff’s job, just to be vindictive and undermine the Plaintiff as well as
embarrass him in front of other officers.

 Created a Hostile Work Environment by pushing other officers to file complaints

against the Plaintiff, which is continuous and still being done presently.

 APPD's previous Table of Organization dated 9/29/19 states PD has four divisions,
each to be commanded by a Captain.

99.) The timeline for failure to promote the Plaintiff to the Captain’s position is as
follows:

A. 9/30/20 A Captain leaves, not sure if they retire or using his time making it three
Captains at the APPD.

B. 6/1/21 Caucasian Lieutenant gets provisionally promoted to Captain making it four

Captains again.

C. 7/29/21 Another Captain leaves, not sure if they retire or using their time bringing it
back to three Captains.

D. 12/6/21 Plaintiff comes back to work as the most senior Lieutenant, in training.

E. 01/03/22 Plaintiff assigned to dayshift as the Commander. Plaintiff should've been

mat made the fourth provisional Captain since the spot was available and the
Organization & Administration and the Table of Organization called for it.

26
 F. 2/24/22 A new Table of Organization was issued with three Captains and a
Lieutenant running the Division.

G. 3/11/22 Plaintiff wrote an email to the Chief requesting to be provisionally

promoted to Captain and pointed out the fourth section should be run by a Captain
as well.

H. 3/31/22 Chief issues new Organization & Administration, now allowing Lieutenants
to Command a division.

I. 5/11/22 The City Council voted to approve the APPD budget, not filling the fourth
Captain's spot belonging to the Plaintiff.

J. Patrol Captain was out sick for months due to a surgery and could’ve made Plaintiff
acting or provisional Captain but didn’t, even when not having a patrol captain was
negatively affecting the patrol operation.

K. Plaintiff was written up by Defendant Thompson for requesting a meeting with the
City Manager re captain’s position, who is the appointing authority. Plaintiff had a
right to speak with her.

101.) The defendants conduct as described above was intentional and designed to bring

about the termination of Plaintiff’s employments and violation of his rights.

102.) As a result of the actions of the Defendants as aforementioned, Plaintiff has

suffered emotional, physical, and psychological interference with employment and continued

interference with employment, damage to his reputation both personally and professionally.

103.) The actions of the Defendants and each of them were in retaliation against Plaintiff

for complaining to his supervisors, city officials, the County Prosecutor’s office and the Office of

the Attorney General about what he reasonably believed to be a violation of the laws, rules and

regulations within the State of New Jersey, including Attorney General Guidelines, illegal and

fraudulent conduct of members of the APPD, racial profiling, violation of civil service

regulations, among others. In violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (N.J.S.A

34:19-1 et seq 50).

27
 104.) It is further alleged in the alternative that the Defendants’ actions set forth above

and specifically the action in terminating Plaintiff’s employment constitutes a common law

wrongful termination in violation of public policy pursuant to the case of Pierce v. Ortho.

105.) The source of public policy includes but are not limited to New Jersey Attorney

General Guidelines, New Jersey Constitution, civil service laws, rules and regulations, criminal

laws of the State of New Jersey, including fraud, official misconduct, falsification of police

reports and records and civil service laws relating to police and other laws and regulations in

New Jersey among others.

106.) The defendant Asbury Park is vicariously liable for the actions of the individual

defendants and its agent’s servants and employees pursuant to principles of respondent superior,

Master servant and agency.

107.) As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants aforementioned,

the plaintiff was wrongfully demoted from the position of lieutenant and wrongfully terminated,

was subjected to a retaliatory fitness for duty evaluation, a hostile work environment and was

caused to experience severe emotional distress and mental anguish, damage to his personal and

business reputation, embarrassment, shock, humiliation, loss of rank, seniority and other benefits

attendant to his employment as a lieutenant with the Asbury Park Police Department including

the loss of past and future wages and pension benefits and has been caused to incur attorney’s

fees and such other damages all to his detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants

jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including lost past and future

wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant and now Captain in the

Asbury Park Police Dept., as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, benefits,

punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief
28
the Court deems equitable and just.

SECOND COUNT

(Violation of LAD Disparate Treatment/ Impact/ Discrimination)

1) Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in Count One of the Complaint and

incorporate same herein by reference as if set forth at length herein.

2) The Defendants’ actions aforementioned were severe, pervasive, and created and

maintained a hostile work environment for Plaintiff including the subjecting of Plaintiff to many

the adverse employment actions and disciplinary actions filed against him that were motivated

by a discriminatory and retaliatory animus due to his race, national origin, religion, and his union

activity.

3) Further, Plaintiff has continuously been referred to on a number of occasions as a

“terrorist” by his supervisors along with some other racial slurs targeted and demeaning to his

race, religion, and national origin, which have materially altered the terms and conditions of

Plaintiff’s work environment and employment.

4) It is further alleged that the Defendants and each of them have retaliated against the

Plaintiff for asserting his rights and the rights of others protected under New Jersey’s Law

Against Discrimination in the form of creating a hostile work environment, imposing adverse

employment actions including unauthorized and excessive disciplinary actions, suspensions, and

eventual wrongful termination from employment.

5.) It is further alleged that Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination and harassment to the

Defendants have not been investigated and/or inadequately investigated and the Defendants have

deliberately failed to take any remedial action in relation to the same, all in violation of the New

Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

6.) It is further alleged that Plaintiff was treated differently due to his race and
29
religion then other similarly situated employees.

7.) It is further alleged that the Defendant implemented polices that had a disparate

impact upon the Plaintiff based on his race, religion and his protected activity.

8.) The above-described conduct of the defendants constitutes unlawful discrimination

and retaliation against the Plaintiff within the meaning of the New Jersey Law Against

Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq) based upon race, religion and national origin.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against the Defendants for

compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a

Lieutenant and now Captain in the Asbury Park Police Dept., as well as proper adjustment of

his employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of

suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just.

THIRD COUNT

(Wrongful Discharge)

1) The Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts of the

Complaint and incorporate some herein by reference as if set forth at length herein.

2) The disciplinary charges filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff

which include conduct unbecoming an officer, insubordination and unfitness for duty are not

supported by the facts and were filed as a pretext for the discriminatory and retaliatory motive of

the Defendants in violation of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.)

3. It is further alleged that the discipline imposed upon the plaintiff was excessive when

compared to other similarly situated police officers within the Asbury Park Police Department

for similar and/or more severe violations of the police department’s rules and regulations and

code of conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants
30
for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank

as a Lieutenant and now Captain in the Asbury Park Police Department, as well as proper

adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney

fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just.

FOURTH COUNT

(Interference with Economic Advantage)

1) The Plaintiff repeat the allegations of the previous Counts of the Complaint

and incorporate same here by reference as if set forth at length herein.

2) The actions of the Defendants as set forth in the previous allegations of this complaint

maliciously interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to seek and obtain employment and advance in rank

as a police officer with the Defendant APPD and other Departments as well and constitutes the

tort of tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants

for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank

as a Lieutenant in the Asbury Park Police Department, as well as proper adjustment of his

employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit,

and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just.

FIFTH COUNT

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

1) Plaintiff repeat the allegations of the previous Counts and

incorporate same herein by reference as if set forth at length herein.

2) The actions of the Defendants were egregious, intentional and were such as to be

considered outrageous in character and so extreme in character as to go beyond all

31
 bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a

civilized community.

3) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has

suffered and will continue to suffer significant and severe emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants

for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full reinstatement to his seniority and rank

as a Lieutenant and now Captain in the Asbury Park Police Department, as well as proper

adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney

fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just.

SIXTH COUNT

(Aider and Abettor)

1) Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts of the Complaint and

incorporate same here by reference as if set forth at length herein.

2) The named individual Defendants aided each other and Defendant Asbury Park in the

harassment, retaliation, demotion, and termination of Plaintiff’s employment as an Asbury Park

Police Officer.

3) The conduct of individual Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under the New

Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.) and as such, are each individually

liable to the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants

jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full

reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant and now Captain in the Asbury Park

Police Dept., as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive damages,

together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems
32
equitable and just.

SEVENTH COUNT

(Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act)

1) Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporate

same herein by reference.

2) The actions of the Defendants separately and individually violated Plaintiff’s rights

under the New Jersey Constitution including his right to freedom of speech on matters of public

concern, the right to petition the government, the right of a public employee to file grievances,

the right of public employees to union representation, the right to be promoted based upon merit

and fitness, and the right to procedural and substantive due process protected under Article 1,

paragraph 1 , as well as Article 1 para. 6,18,19, Article 7, sec.2 and the right to privacy and

bodily integrity and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of one’s person under

Article 1 para. 1 and 7. The Defendants and each of them also deprived Plaintiff of his liberty

interest in his reputation and his property interest in his public employment as a police officer,

and the associational right to be free from retaliation for engaging in Union activity and for

membership in a Union.

3) The acts of the defendants constitute state action or persons acting under color of law

and deprived Plaintiff of the free exercise and enjoyment of his constitutional rights by means of

threats, intimidation and coercion that violated and continue to violate Plaintiff’s state

constitutional rights, all in violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act NJSA 10:6-2

4) It is further alleged that the named individual Defendants have conspired with each

other to deprive Plaintiff of his New Jersey Constitutional rights aforementioned and have

conspired to retaliate against the Plaintiff for asserting his New Jersey Constitutional rights by

means of threats, intimidation and or coercion through the unlawful demotion of the Plaintiff,
33
improper use of disciplinary suspensions, the internal affairs process and the scheduling of

multiple retaliatory Fitness for Duty examinations without sufficient or reasonable cause all for

the purpose of terminating his employment as a police officer with Defendant Asbury Park and

to stigmatize him for purposes of preventing him from obtaining employment in the law

enforcement field in any other capacity and in any other jurisdiction.

5) It is further alleged that the defendant David Kelso the current Chief of Police of

Asbury Park, defendant Guy Thompson the current Deputy Chief of Police of Asbury Park the

and defendant Michael Capobianco the former City Manager of police for Asbury Park as well

as the defendant Anthony Salerno acting Chief in 2016 all are considered final policymakers

within the defendant Asbury Park and specifically within the Asbury Park Police Department for

purposes of promotion, demotion, hiring, firing, termination, decisions to discipline, the amount

of discipline and all other matters relating to the police officers under their command within the

Asbury Police Department as a matter of statute and law.

6) As such, of the defendant Asbury Park is directly liable for the actions of these

defendants while acting in an individual capacity and as the Chief of police, Deputy Chief and

City Manager of defendant Asbury Park as final policymakers for the Asbury Park Police

Department thereby constituting an official policy, practice and/or custom of the defendant

Asbury Park.

7) It is further alleged, that the Asbury Park Police Department has a long-standing

policy, practice and custom of retaliating against police officers such as the plaintiff who engage

in union activity, and that otherwise assert their New Jersey Constitutional rights similar to the

plaintiff and have acquiesced in a long-standing custom and practice and policy of the utilizing

of the internal affairs processes and procedures as an instrument and tool of retaliation against

officers asserting their rights under New Jersey’s Constitution similar to plaintiff. As such,
34
defendant Asbury Park is directly liable under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act to the plaintiff

8) As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s violation of the plaintiff’s New

Jersey civil rights and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, plaintiff has been the wrongfully

demoted and terminated from employment as a police officer, excessively discipline subjected to

multiple fitness for duty evaluations, has been caused to suffer severe emotional distress and

mental anguish, family disruption, health issues, embarrassment shock humiliation, damages to

his personal and business reputation, loss of the past and future wages and pension benefits and

such other damages all to his detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants

jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full

reinstatement to his seniority and rank as a Lieutenant and now Captain in the Asbury Park

Police Department, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive

damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court

deems equitable and just.

EIGHTH COUNT

(Continuing Course Of Hostile Work Environment And Retaliation)

1) Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporates same as if

fully set forth herein.

2) On March 29, 2021, Defendant Chief Kelso, with a malicious intent directed a

letter to the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office requesting that Plaintiff, upon return to his

position as a Lieutenant on the Defendant Asbury Park Police Department be conditionally

rearmed, requiring him to check his duty weapon in a safe at work, and that he submit to months

of anger management counselling, therapy, along with a requirement that he disclose his therapy

records to Defendant Kelso for a period of eighteen (18) months.

35
 3) The aforementioned conditions, including the safe-keeping of his service weapon

at work each day were unilaterally suggested by the Defendant Kelso and were not

recommended by any of the doctors who evaluated the Plaintiff on four (4) occasions.

4) The Defendant’s action in sending this letter to the Prosecutor’s Office occurred

within weeks of Plaintiff refusing to settle his Civil Rights, Discrimination, and CEPA litigation

with the Defendants and was done for the purpose of continuing to maintain a hostile work

environment for the Plaintiff and to retaliate against the Plaintiff for continuing to assert his right

to free speech and to petition the Government by the maintenance of a Civil Rights action,

discrimination action, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and a CEPA claim, all in

continual violation of the NJCRA, NJLAD and CEPA anti-retaliation provisions and

proscriptions.

5) It is further alleged that Defendant Kelso’s actions constitute the common law

claim for malicious abuse of process in the return to work and rearming of the Plaintiff as a

Police Officer.

6) Thereafter, on or about May 4, 2022, the Defendant Asbury Park received a

certified Civil Service List from the Civil Service Commission for the promotional position of

Captain of the Asbury Park Police Department.

7) Plaintiff was ranked #2 on the promotional list. The #1 ranked officer was

serving in a position of provisional Captain for the past year.

8) Within seven (7) days of the promotional list being published, Defendant Kelso,

as Chief of Police, recommended to Defendant Asbury Park Council that the fourth position for

Captain be eliminated from the Asbury Park Police Department budget and that the monies

budgeted instead be used for police recreation, despite the need for a fourth Captain.

36
 9) Further, Plaintiff filed an Internal Affairs Complaint against Defendant/Captain

John Crescio on May 10, 2022, and on May 11, 2022, a resolution was submitted and passed by

the Asbury Park City Council to eliminate the fourth Captain’s spot for which Plaintiff was next

in line.

10) It is alleged that Defendant Kelso and Defendant Asbury Park’s actions in

recommending the elimination of the fourth Captain position was not based upon any bona fide

business decision or need, but was taken in further retaliation against the Plaintiff for his

continual maintenance of his rights under the NJCRA, NJLAD and CEPA within this Complaint

and for his complaints to the Department Internal Affairs for the Asbury Park Police Department,

the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office and the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office

concerning the actions of his Captain, Defendant John Crescio, and Defendant Kelso as Chief, as

to prevent the promotion of the Plaintiff to the fourth Captain Position on the Defendant Asbury

Park Police Department.

11) All actions of individual Defendant DeSane were done to create a hostile

work environment for the Plaintiff.

12) All of the new disciplinary charges served upon the Plaintiff by the

Defendants in October of 2023 created a hostile work environment.

13) All of the actions taken since the filing of this Compliant in Superior Court

taken against the Plaintiff by all Defendants created a hostile work environment.

14) The conspiracy of the individual Defendants to retaliate against the Plaintiff

created a hostile work environment.

15) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ continual actions towards the

Plaintiff in creating a hostile work environment, subjecting the plaintiff to retaliation, denying

the plaintiff the opportunity for promotion to the Captain’s Position, Plaintiff has been caused to
37
suffer severe emotional distress, mental anguish family disruption, health issues, loss of future

wages, and other benefits all to his detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all Defendants

jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including lost wages and full,

reestablish the fourth position for Captain of the Asbury Park Police Department and establish

Plaintiff as #1 in line for said position, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record,

benefits, punitive damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other

further relief the Court deems equitable and just.

NINTH COUNT

Violations Of New Jersey Law Agaisnt Discrimination

N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 Et Seq

Failure To Promote Disparte Treatment/ Impact/ Race Discrimination

1.) Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporates same as if

fully set forth herein.

2.) Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff by treating him differently from

and less preferably than similarly situated white employees at APPD by subjecting

him to discriminatory harassment, hostile work environments, and other forms of

discrimination in violation of NJLAD.

3.) The Plaintiff is a Middle-Easterner, Pakistani and a Muslim, which are protected

classes.

4.) Not one Caucasian employees who sought the Captain’s position prior to the

Plaintiff who were in a similarly situated position as the Plaintiff were ever treated

like the Plaintiff.

38
5.) Defendants failed to promote the Plaintiff, the highest ranking minority officer in

the department, to Captain based on race, religion and to retaliate against him for

his protected activity.

6.) Plaintiff was qualified for the job of Captain.

7.) By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant discriminatory conduct against

Plaintiff, which was persistent throughout his employment in the “APPD”

Defendant’s consistent illegal actions constitute a pattern of behavior under the law.

8.) By reason of the continuous nature of Defendants discriminatory conduct against

Plaintiff, a Pakistani and Muslim that was humiliating and in violation of other laws

as stated herein, Plaintiff is entitled to application of any continuing violation

doctrine to all of the violations alleged herein.

9.) By reason of the race and religious discrimination and retaliation suffered at APPD,

Plaintiff is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under NJLAD.

10.) Defendant’s failure to promote and transfer are adverse actions.

11.) There is a causal nexus between the Defendant’s unlawful actions based on

race, religion and retaliation and the adverse actions of failing to promote the

Plaintiff.

12.) Defendant’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

reckless, negligent and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiff.

13.) Defendant’s policies, practices, and/or procedures have produced disparate

treatment against Plaintiff with respect to the terms and conditions of his

employment.

39
 14.) The stated reasons for the Defendant’s conduct were not the true reasons,

but instead were pretext to hide the Defendant’s discriminatory animus and

retaliatory motives.

15.) As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of

Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and

losses, severe emotional distress, severe anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain

and suffering, mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, family

disruption, health issues and other intangible injuries. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have

incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been incurred but for

Defendants unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all

Defendants jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including

lost wages and full, reestablish the fourth position for Captain of the Asbury Park Police

Department and establish Plaintiff as #1 in line for said position, as well as proper

adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest,

attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and just.

TENTH COUNT
CONSPIRACY

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporates same as if

fully set forth herein.

2. All Defendants and/or their representatives pursued the common goal of treating

Plaintiff a Middle-Easterner, Pakistani differently from and less preferably than

similarly situated Caucasian, Non-Muslim personal who did not complaint about

40
 the unlawful conduct of the Defendants by not subjecting them to discriminatory

and unlawful disciplinary, disparate treatment, harassment, denying training,

meetings, promotions, and other forms of discrimination as described in this

complaint and malicious conduct and/or acts in wanton and willful disregard of

Plaintiff’s rights.

3. All Defendants and/or their representatives agreed to and/or ratified the

aforementioned course of actions that were taken against the Plaintiffs.

4. All Defendants participated in a civil conspiracy to violate the law regarding the

Plaintiff’s rights under the law.

5. The civil conspiracy was to unlawfully harass and discriminate against Plaintiff to

make him leave the job.

6. Plaintiff became aware of a conspiracy between Individual defendants

Kelso, Thompson and the Internal Affairs Unit to the cause the Plaintiff irreparable

harm and subject him adverse employment actions.

7. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants,

Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses,

severe emotional distress, severe anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain and

suffering, mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, family

disruption, health issues and other intangible injuries. Furthermore, the Plaintiff

has incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been incurred but

for Defendants unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all

Defendants jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages, including

lost wages and full, reestablish the fourth position for Captain of the Asbury Park Police
41
Department and establish Plaintiff as #1 in line for said position, as well as proper

adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with interest,

attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems equitable and

just.

ELEVENTH COUNT
NEGLIGENT TRAINING, HIRING, RETENTION

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporates same as if

fully set forth herein.

2. Defendants had a duty to ensure that their employees who were hired and retained

are trained. The Defendants breached this duty.

3. Defendants breached their duty due to their employees being unfit for service as

they were selectively enforcing rules, regulations and discipline based on race,

religion and in retaliation for protected activity inconsistently between Plaintiff,

who is a Pakistani and a Muslim, and other officers who are Caucasian and not

Muslim.

4. Defendants breached their duty when on multiple occasions they filed fraudulent

and unwarranted disciplinary charges against the Plaintiff, found the Plaintiff to be

unfit for duty when he was fit for duty, denied him a promotions, training, meetings

and even the opportunity to speak at his daughters school etc. based on his race,

religion and in retaliation for his protected activity. Yet they failed to discipline

Caucasian non muslim police officers for worse conduct.

5. These individuals were not acting covertly when they were illegally discriminating

and impose unjust discipline and unlawful restrictions upon the Plaintiff.

6. The Defendant City of Asbury Park breached its duty when it failed to train, hire

42
 and retain employees who enforced the law without regard for race, religion and to

retaliate based on protected activity against the Plaintiff.

7. All unlawful actions against the Plaintiff constitute negligence on behalf of all

Defendants.

8. Individual Defendants David Kelso, Guy Thompson, John Crescio, Joel Fiori,

Michael Capabianco, Anthony Salerno, David Desane, and other police officers as

well as Comprehensive Psychological Services, Betty P. Mclendon acted on behalf

of their employer and within the scope of their employment with the Defendants

City of Asbury Park and its Police Department.

9. Defendants City of Asbury Park and APPD are government agencies in the State of

New Jersey.

10. Defendants City of Asbury Park and APPD are vicariously liable for the negligent

actions of their employees including individual Defendants David Kelso, Guy

Thompson, John Crescio, Joel Fiori, Michael Capabianco, Anthony Salerno, David

Desane, and other police officers as well as Comprehensive Psychological Services,

Betty P. Mclendon.

11. Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants knowingly departed from the standard

of care and failed to exercise the degree of care, precaution, prudence, and vigilance

which a reasonably prudent person would under the same or similar circumstances.

12. While the Plaintiff need not show that the Defendants had an evil heart or intent to

do harm, he has demonstrated that the Defendants actions were based upon race,

religion and retaliation for protected activity.

13. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants,

Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses,
43
 severe emotional distress, severe anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain and

suffering, mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, family

disruption, health issues and other intangible injuries. Furthermore, the Plaintiff

has incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been incurred but

for Defendants unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all

Defendants jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages,

including lost wages and full, reestablish the fourth position for Captain of the Asbury

Park Police Department and establish Plaintiff as #1 in line for said position, as well as

proper adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive damages, together with

interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further relief the Court deems

equitable and just.

TWELVE COUNT
NEGLIGENCE
1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporates same as if

fully set forth herein.

2. Defendants City of Asbury Park and APPD, Defendants David Kelso, Guy

Thompson, John Crescio, Joel Fiori, Michael Capabianco, Anthony Salerno, David

Desane, and other police officers as well as Comprehensive Psychological Services,

Betty P. Mclendon and other police officers owed Plaintiff a duty of care to not

discriminate against him based upon race, religion and retaliate against him based

upon his protected activity and to enforce the rules and regulations equally against

other Caucasian, non-Muslim officers who did not complain as they did against

him.

44
3. All Defendants and other police officers failed in their duty of care. They continually

charged the Plaintiff with bogus disciplinary charges, failed to promote him and

denied him numerous opportunities for training, to attend events etc. as outlined in

this complaint above.

4. All Defendants did not make any efforts to treat Caucasian Non- Muslim officers

who did not complain about unlawful activity the same. They failed in their duty of

care.

5. The Defendants breached their duty of care by not enforcing the rules and

regulations equally among all officers.

6. Due to the actions of Defendants actions the Plaintiff was not promoted.

7. All Defendants and other police officers acted on behalf of their employer and

within the scope of their employment with the Defendant City of Asbury Park

APPD.

8. Defendants City of Asbury Park and APPD are government agencies in the State of

New Jersey.

9. Defendants City of Asbury Park and APPD are vicariously liable for the negligent

actions of their employees including All Defendants and other police officers.

10. .Plaintiff has demonstrated that all Defendants and other police officers knowingly

departed from the standard of care and failed to exercise the degree of care,

precaution, prudence, and vigilance which a reasonably prudent person would

under the same or similar circumstances.

11. While the Plaintiff need not show that the Defendants had an evil heart or intent to

do harm, she demonstrated that the Defendants actions were based upon race,

religion and to retaliate for protected activity.

45
 12. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants,

Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses,

severe emotional distress, severe anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain and

suffering, mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, family

disruption, health issues and other intangible injuries. Furthermore, the Plaintiff

has incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been incurred but

for Defendants unlawful conduct.

13. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on this Count against any and all

Defendants jointly severally and in the alternative for compensatory damages,

including lost wages and full, reestablish the fourth position for Captain of the

Asbury Park Police Department and establish Plaintiff as #1 in line for said

position, as well as proper adjustment of his employment record, benefits, punitive

damages, together with interest, attorney fees, cost of suit, and any other further

relief the Court deems equitable and just.

THIRTEENTH COUNT

(John Does 1-10)

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of the previous Counts and incorporate same

herein by reference.

2. At the aforesaid time and place, the Defendant, John Does 1-10 fictitious name(s)

(hereinafter referred to as John Doe), were an unknown person or persons authorized to do

business in the State of New Jersey, whose actions caused and/or contributed, directly or

indirectly, to damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff alleges that an insufficient amount of time has passed within which

to determine the identity of any other individuals who may be responsible in whole or in part for
46
damages suffered by Plaintiff. For the purpose of the within Complaint, said individuals have

been nominated as John Doe 1-10. The Plaintiff, pursuant to the Rules of Court for the State of

New Jersey, reserves the right to amend the within Complaint relative to additional Defendants

when, and if, the identity of said individuals or business entities becomes known.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against Defendants, John Does 1-10 for

damages, punitive damages plus interest, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by a jury on all issues herein.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Desha Jackson, Esquire, is hereby designated as trial counsel in this matter.

DEMAND TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

1. The Defendants is hereby directed and demanded to preserve all, documents, physical

and electronic information pertaining in any way to this matter, Plaintiff’s cause of action

and/or prayers for relief, to any defenses to same, and pertaining to any party, including,

but not limited to, electric data storage, closed circuit TV footages, digital images,

computer images, cache memory, searchable data, emails, spread sheets, memos, text

messages and any and all online social or work related websites, entries on social

networking sites (including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.) and

any other information and/or documents which may be relevant to any claim or defense

in this litigation.

47
 2. Failure to do so will result in separate claims for spoliation of evidence and/or for

appropriate adverse inferences.

CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 4:5-1

I, Desha Jackson, Esquire, by certifying, pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:5-1, that to the

best of my knowledge, the claims raised herein are not the subject of any other action pending in

any Court of the subject of any arbitration proceeding, and no such other action or arbitration is

contemplated.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true and accurate to the best of my

knowledge. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I

am subject to punishment for perjury.

DESHA JACKSON LAW GROUP, LLC

____________________________
Desha Jackson, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kamil Warraich

Dated: October 30, 2023

48