Briana Chadwick was a Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) at the Ocean County Sheriff’s Office from July 2020 until April 25, 2023.
Trouble began when she notified her supervisor that she was pregnant, her newly filed lawsuit asserts.
Chadwick is represented by Edison Attorney Justin M. Day, Esq. of Brandon J. Broderick, LLC.
According to the complaint filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Ocean County:
Chadwick is female. She was employed as a Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) from July 2020 until April 25, 2023. Captain Craig Johnson and Sergeant Matthew Scutti were her direct supervisors, and possessed the authority to set the terms and conditions of her employment, including the power to determine her working hours and direct her daily work activities.
In January 2021, she learned she was pregnant with her first child.
In response to the notification that she was pregnant, Captain Johnson asked her: “Did you know you would be getting pregnant when you transferred to CSI?”
While on light duty for her pregnancy, Johnson prohibited Chadwick from wearing Sheriff Office issued sweatpants or any clothing with law enforcement identifiers, as other male officers had done in the past while on light duty. Johnson assigned Ms. Chadwick to sit in the basement, reorganize files and provide chauffeur services. These light duty assignments were inconsistent with those that had been given to male officers.
Upon Chadwick's return to work on December 29, 2021, after the birth of her first child, she was assigned to report to Sgt. Scutti. Scutti immediately retaliated against her for her pregnancy and maternity leave. He openly stated that he had requested not to have to train her.
Scutti refused to take Ms. Chadwick on calls. When she complained about Scutti’s refusal to train her, he responded that this was his “decision.”
Scutti also refused to provide Chadwick with necessary equipment, while providing the same equipment to newer, male detectives.
Scutti also made several comments to Chadwick expressing his displeasure with her friendships with other female officers.
When Chadwick complained about the disparate treatment, Scutti pejoratively referred to her as “a sensitive woman.”
In March 2022, Chadwick learned she was pregnant with her second child. She informed Captain Johnson, stating that she would like to remain on the road and train in CSI. Johnson removed her from the road and reassigned her to communications.
Upon information and belief, there were numerous male, non-pregnant officers who could have been reassigned to communications.
After her second maternity leave, Chadwick returned to work in March 2023 and was again assigned to Scutti’s shift.
On April 14, 2023, Scutti advised Chadwick that he would not be providing her with any additional training. He also told her that he “fought hard” to avoid having her on his team and that he “did not expect much from her.” He then told her that she should “focus on spending time with [her] children” instead of working.
Scutti refused to speak to Chadwick, and went out of his way to avoid her. He provided training to similarly situated officers, but not to Chadwick.
Scutti sent Plaintiff out on solo patrol and calls while he and the male officers socialized at the station. He humiliated her at scenes of calls by having a junior officer oversee her work, rather than one of her superiors.
Scutti required her to process evidence on her own while the male detective went out to eat.
On or about April 25, 2023, given the CSI unit’s steadfast refusal to train her or treat her fairly, and Scutti’s continued discrimination and retaliation against her due to her gender and her pregnancies, Chadwick was left no choice but to request a transfer to another unit.
The complaint includes three counts:
Count I - LAD Discrimination
The above conduct would not have occurred but for Plaintiff’s gender and/or pregnancy. This conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to make Plaintiff reasonably believe that Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile, intimidating, and abusive work environment that altered the terms and conditions of employment.
Defendants’ conduct created a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff’s gender and/or pregnancy that violates the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. (the “LAD”). Defendants’ conduct was willful, reckless, malicious, and/or especially egregious and done with the knowledge and participation and or reckless indifference of upper-level management.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages including: front pay, back pay, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
Count II - LAD Retaliation
At all times, Plaintiff performed at a level that met Defendants’ legitimate expectations. In taking maternity leave and complaining about the disparate treatment she endured, Plaintiff exercised rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. After exercising those rights, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff and refusal to train her constitutes an adverse employment action.
Defendants’ conduct was especially egregious and done with the knowledge and participation and or reckless indifference of upper-level management. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages including: front pay, back pay, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
Count III - LAD Aiding and Abetting
Johnson and/or Scutti served as Plaintiff’s direct supervisor during the above conduct against Plaintiff. They knowingly provided substantial assistance and/or encouragement to the violations of the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. They are liable for aiding and abetting the unlawful harassment and discrimination in violation of the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(e).
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages including: lost back pay, lost front pay, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
The suit seeks judgment against Defendants awarding compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and all other relief that the Court deems equitable and just.
The parties have 35 days to answer the complaint.
To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment