Otero et al v. Port Authority of New York And New Jersey et alBRIEF in OppositionD.N.J.October 5, 2016IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY __________________________________________ : Sharon Otero, et al., : Plaintiffs, : v. : CIVIL ACTION : 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Port Authority, et al., : Defendants. : __________________________________________: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES MARK FROST, ESQUIRE RYAN LOCKMAN, ESQUIRE 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1929 P: 215-351-3333, F: 215-351-3332 RLockman@MFrostlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated: October 5, 2016 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 63 PageID: 4200 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………….......……...……………………..….…..1 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.....……………………………………………………………...…1 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS………………………………………………………….……...2 A. PORT AUTHORITY POLICE FORCE……………………………….…...…….2 B. THE 2010 PORT AUTHORITY SERGEANT PROMOTIONAL PROCESS…....3 C. PAPD’S PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF UNFAIR PROMOTIONAL PROCESSES..........................................................................................................5 1. ‘RANDOM’ SELECTION OF OFFICERS…………………………………..7 2. QUALIFICATION REVIEW MEETINGS…………………………………..7 3. SELECTION OF OFFICERS TO BE PROMOTED…………………………8 D. PROMOTIONS MADE BASED ON IMPERMISSIBLE POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS, AFFILIATIONS AND POLITICAL SUPPORT….………..9 E. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY ACADEMY CAPTAIN FERRIGNO……………………………………………………………………..11 F. FIRST PROMOTIONAL LIST – JULY 8, 2011……………………………….13 G. SEPTEMBER 2011 UNLAWFUL PROMOTIONS…………………………....16 H. SECOND PROMOTIONAL LIST – JANUARY 23, 2013…………………….16 I. THIRD PROMOTIONAL LIST – JULY 29, 2013…….……………………….18 J. FOURTH PROMOTIONAL LIST – JANUARY 15, 2014…………………….20 K. FIFTH PROMOTIONAL LIST – FEBRUARY 7, 2014……………………….21 L. SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS TO SERGEANT …………………………....21 M. SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS TO LIEUTENANT – MARCH 4, 2014 AND AUGUST 19, 2014………...……………………………………………..23 N. 2015 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROMOTIONAL EXAM FOR RANK OF SERGENT…………………………………………………………………...24 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW………………………………………………………………….33 V. LEGAL ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………....33 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 63 PageID: 4201 A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIM ON BEHALF OF ALL PLAINTIFFS IS VALIDLY PLED………………………..…………………....33 B. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM HAS BEEN TIMELY FILED……………………………………………………………………………..…..38 C. PLAINTIFFS HAVE PLED A CLAIM FOR FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY …………………………………………………………………..41 D. PLAINTIFFS CAN MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS ……………………………………………………………………………......45 E. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM UNDER THE NEW JERSEY AND NEDW YORK CONSTITUTIONS ARE ACTIONABLE………...………………………………….47 F. PLAINTIFF’S ESTOPPED CLAIM IS ACTIONABLE………………….………….48 G. THE COMPLAINT IS VALIDLY PLED AGAINST DEFENDANT FERRIGNO…………………………………………………………………….……..49 H. PLAINTIFF KRUESI’S FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM IS ACTIONABLE.............................................................................................................52 VI. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….……………...…55 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 63 PageID: 4202 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Aiellos v. Zisa, Civ. A. 2:09-cv-03076 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2009)………………………………….36 Aiellos v. Zisa, 09-3076, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8640, 2010 WL 421081 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2010)…………………………………………………………………………………………50, 54 Allah v. Hayman, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2011)……………………..….47 A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 2004)…............49 Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984)……………………………………40 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)………………………………………..…33 Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1987)…………………………………………………...34 Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 387 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2004)………………………………..……41 Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980)…………………………………………………………....39 Celestine v. Foley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132511, 2010 WL 5186145 (D.N.J. 2010)………...47 Chapman v. State of New Jersey, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75720, 2009 WL 2634888 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2009)……………………………………………………………………………….......47 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)………………………………………..………………….33 Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)…………………………………………………………37 Crane v. Yurick, 287 F. Supp. 2d 553 (D.N.J. 2003)………………………………………..36, 54 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)………………………………………………………...36, 38 Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2005)…………………………………………………49 Galli v. N.J. Meadowlands Comm'n, 490 F.3d 265 (3d. Cir. 2006)……………………………..34 Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 691 A.2d 350, 148 N.J. 582 (N.J. 1997)…………………….41 Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999)…………………………………51 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)……………………34 Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)………………………..…………………………47 Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005)…………………………………………..33 Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ____ (2016)……………………………………………37 Jefferson v. Twp. of Medford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133682, 2010 WL 5253296 (D.N.J. 2010)..............................................................................................................................................47 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 63 PageID: 4203 Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994)……………………..33 Justice v. Danberg, 571 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D. Del. 2008)…………………………………………..54 Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010)………………………………………..39 Kuzian v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 599 (D.N.J. 2013)……………………..41 Lundy v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 34 F.3d 1173 (3d Cir. 1994)……………………………...39 Maestas v. Segura, 416 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2005)………………………………………………50 Marrakush Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, 2009 WL 2366132 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009)……..…49 Myers v. County of Somerset, 515 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D.N.J. 2007)………………………….33, 53 O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc., v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996)…………………………...37 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 475 U.S. 1 (1989)………………………...34 Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993)…………..33 Petitt v. State of New Jersey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35452 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2011)…………..47 Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3rd Cir. 2008)…………………………………...49 Professional Ass'n of Coll. Educators v. El Paso County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 730 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1984)……………………………………………………………………………………51 Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988)……………………………………………49 Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62 (1990)…………………………………….....34, 36 Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007)……………………………………………...33 Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 27 106 S.Ct. 2379, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986)………………….39 Schwartz v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation, 28 A.2d 482 (N.J. 1942)…………………………..45 Slinger v. New Jersey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71723, 2008 WL 4126181 (D.N.J. 2008)……...47 Strahan v. Kirkland, 287 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2002)………………………………………………50 Stroby v. Egg Harbor, Twp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130734, 2010 WL 5036982 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2010)………………………………………………………………………………………....47 Toll Bros., Inc. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, 194 N.J. 223 (2008)...48 United States ex Rel. Wilkins v. United Health Group, Inc., 659 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011)……..41 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 63 PageID: 4204 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs at all times material have been police officers for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and were all candidates for the 2010-2014 promotional process for the rank of Sergeant, as well as the subsequent examination for the rank of Sergeant that began in 2015. Plaintiffs’ principal claims are that their First Amendment rights were violated through Port Authority’s practice of favoring those with affiliations with local politicians and associations, and that the Port Authority committed fraud via their conducting of the promotional examination. As set forth below, the Port Authority’s promotional examination has been riddled with cheating, political favortism, and other improper practices which give rise to the claims set forth by the Plaintiffs. For these reasons, the motion to dismiss must be denied and the Fifth Amended Complaint must survive. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The original three Plaintiffs in this case, Sharon Otero, Steve Pisciotta, and Veronica Escobar, initially filed a Complaint on March 14, 2014 against Defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”), as well as Port Authority Superintendent Michael Fedorko and four former supervisors within the Port Authority Police Department (“PAPD”), Captain John Ferrigno, Inspector Brian Sullivan, Inspector Nicholas Tagarelli, and Captain Richard Brazicki. ECF Doc. #1. Subsequent plaintiffs filed actions under a separate docket, Arias v. Port Authority, which were then consolidated under the Otero caption by agreement of parties and by Order of the Court1. 1 Therefore, by consent Order, all Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint and then a Second Amended Complaint, on October 17, 2014. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, which merely added an ADA claim on behalf of Plaintiff Otero. Then, with leave of Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 6 of 63 PageID: 4205 2 On April 28, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. See, Exhibit A. The Fifth Amended Complaint added new legal claims and also incorporated the claims brought by the same Plaintiffs in a related matter, Otero v. Port Authority, 15-2292 (“Otero II”), which pertained to the 2015 promotional exam for the rank of Sergeant. Thus, the Fifth Amended Complaint pertains to both the 2010 exam and 2015 exam for the rank of Sergeant; the plaintiffs are the same. The claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint are as follows, with all plaintiffs bringing said claims against all defendants, unless noted otherwise: 1) First Amendment violations under 42 USC 1983; 2) Action in Lieu of Prerogative Writs; 3) Violation of the New Jersey Constitution; 4) Violations of the New York Constitution; 5) Fraud; 6) Estoppel; 7) Plaintiff Kruesi’s First Amendment retaliation claim; 8) Plaintiff Otero’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants have not moved to dismiss Count 8, Plaintiff Otero’s ADA claim. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. PORT AUTHORITY POLICE FORCE The Port Authority maintains a Police Force to protect all facilities owned by the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶79. Port Authority officers are designated by statute as police officers of both New York and New Jersey. Exh. A, ¶80. Both uniformed police officers and detectives are supervised directly by police officers who have obtained the rank of Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶83. There are other supervisory ranks above the rank of Sergeant and the pay scale for each progressively higher rank in the hierarchy is higher than the rank below Sergeants are paid a base salary that is Court and consent of the parties, the plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on June 5, 2015, which consolidated all outstanding plaintiffs, who were Plaintiffs Camus, Rotondo, and O’Leary. Thereafter, on March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint but granted leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint within thirty days. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 7 of 63 PageID: 4206 3 higher than that paid to uniformed officers. Exh. A, ¶84. A police officer cannot be promoted to higher ranks without first being promoted to Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶85. At all times material, the PAPD consisted of approximately 1,400-1,700 officers at any given time. Id. ¶90. B. THE 2010 PORT AUTHORITY SERGEANT PROMOTIONAL PROCESS On or about March 3, 2010, the PAPD announced that it would be conducting a promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶91. As will be set forth below, the below promotional announcement – and subsequent announcements – made various false and fraudulent statements regarding the promotional process and the manner in which officers would be promoted. The criteria and requirements set forth in the announcement were inconsistently applied and used as pretext for promoting some and disqualifying others. At the time of the announcement, officers were informed that all discipline would have to be resolved in order to be promoted. Exh. A, ¶92. Additionally, officers would not be permitted to partake in the promotional process if said officer had 5 or more sick occasions or 13 or more days lost in the 12 months prior to the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement. Exh. A, ¶93. Officers also would be required to have 3 years of in-grade experience at the time of the written examination, and 4 years of in-grade experience at the time of promotion. Exh. A, ¶94. The candidates first took a written examination, which occurred on April 17, 2010. Exh. A, ¶95. On December 1, 2010, the Port Authority sent out letters to each applicant containing that particular candidate’s own examination score, indicating only the percentage of questions that the candidate correctly answered. Exh. A, ¶96. Those officers who received a passing score of 70% on the written exam would be placed in a pool of officers called the “Police Sergeant Horizontal Roster” (“Horizontal Roster”). Exh. A, ¶97. Upon information and belief, 465 officers, including Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 8 of 63 PageID: 4207 4 all plaintiffs, passed the written examination and were placed on the horizontal roster. Exh. A, ¶98. Through the procedure described herein, all officers on the Horizontal Roster would be eligible to be chosen to proceed to the selection and appointment process, which consisted of evaluation by the PAPD’s Promotion Review Board and an interview with a rotating three- person panel of members from the Public Safety and Human Resources (HR) Departments. Exh. A, ¶99. When a vacancy for Sergeant was to be filled, the Office of Inspector General (“IG”) was to oversee the random selection of officers on the Horizontal Roster to be evaluated, interviewed, and selected for promotion. Exh. A, ¶100. When the Horizontal Roster was created via the random selection process, the chosen candidates would be evaluated by the Promotion Review Board to determine that they meet the promotional screening criteria. Exh. A, ¶101. As part of the evaluation and interview process, each candidate would be rated by the Promotion Review Board in seven (7) categories: 1) Breadth of Experience/ Exposure, 2) Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal, 3) Qualifications Review Meeting, 4) Attendance, 5) Discipline, 6) CCIU Complaints, and 7) Investigation. Exh. A, ¶104. These interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Exh. A, ¶105. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Exh. A, ¶106. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 9 of 63 PageID: 4208 5 Category number 2, the Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal was a recommendation by each candidate’s respective immediate supervisor. In this section, candidates could receive a rating of “Highly Recommended”, “Recommended”, or “Not recommended.” Exh. A, ¶108. Category number 3, the Qualification Review Meeting, constituted an interview between the candidate and a rotating three-person panel consisting of members of the Public Safety and Human Resources Departments. Exh. A, ¶109. Of the seven (7) categories listed above, categories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were rated on the following scale: Needs Development/Unacceptable, Fully Competent/Acceptable, and Outstanding. Exh. A, ¶110. Of the seven (7) categories listed above, category 2 was rated on the following scale: Not Recommended, Recommended, and Highly Recommended. Exh. A, ¶111. Ultimately, based on the above seven (7) categories, each candidate would receive an “Overall Recommendation” by the Promotion Review Board of Not Recommended, Recommended, or Highly Recommended. Exh. A, ¶112. Promotions would then be made by Superintendent Fedorko from the list of those officers interviewed. Exh. A, ¶113. No appeal procedure was in place, and the candidates were deprived of the opportunity to appeal the results or have a hearing regarding their results if they were dissatisfied with same. No reasons or explanations for the results of each candidates’ ratings were provided, and the results themselves were not disclosed to each candidate. Exh. A, ¶114. C. PAPD’S PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF UNFAIR PROMOTIONAL PROCESSES The Port Authority Police Department has developed and maintained a continuing, fraudulent scheme designed to achieve desired promotions, based on the officers’ political affiliations, associations with various organizations and political figures, cronyism, and nepotism. Exh. A, ¶115. Despite its promulgation of the policy procedure set forth in the various promotional Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 10 of 63 PageID: 4209 6 announcements and postings, the Port Authority intentionally and knowingly ignored and violated said policies as part of a “bait and switch” tactic of setting out policies and criteria, selectively enforcing said policy, and then changing the policy when it did not further their interests. The defendants knew that the policies and procedures set forth with regard to promotions to the rank of Sergeant were false, intended to mislead and fraudulent. Exh. A, ¶116. As is set forth below, this scheme included setting out a lottery process, not following a lottery, and then eliminating the lottery process all together when it decided that it would not achieve the desired results; subsequently claiming that everyone would receive a qualifications review meeting, but then refusing to provide them to certain officers based on their alleged attendance and discipline records, while permitting others to proceed with similar records; allowing cheating to occur when Ferrigno distributed exam materials to certain officers; disqualifying plaintiffs for reasons not established in the written policy; permitting officers to proceed in their promotional exam based simply on their political associations; putting preferred officers in a Sergeant’s training course, and then promoting these officers under the claim that they had received training that other non-preferred officers had not. Finally, as the coup de grace, once the Port Authority had promoted everyone who they desired to be promoted, they announced a brand new promotional exam in 2015, with a new horizontal roster, even though over 300 qualified officers remained on the original horizontal roster. The 2015 promotional announcement then repealed many of the checks and balances which existed – and were selectively enforced – in the 2010 announcement. By engaging in the above-referenced promotions, the Port Authority deprived Plaintiffs of promotions by depriving them of promotional spots. Over 100 officers were promoted, which Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 11 of 63 PageID: 4210 7 meant that said officers took promotional positions which otherwise could and should have gone to the Plaintiffs, all of whom were qualified and on the horizontal roster. 1. “Random” Selection of Officers Additionally, although 60 officers were purportedly to be randomly chosen from the horizontal roster by the IG to be evaluated and interviewed, these officers were not randomly chosen, and candidates were in fact chosen to proceed in the examination process by other means which were not random or objective. Exh. A, ¶103. The Port Authority promoted one officer who initially was not on the randomly-selected “sub-list” of 60. Exh. A, ¶126. After the officer learned he was not on the list on information and belief he made a phone call to a connection within the Port Authority and was then placed on the sub-list. Exh. A, ¶127. Despite the fact that the “General Rules and Regulations For all Port Authority Employees” and the “Guide to Port Authority Ethical Standards” state that “[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited”, the Port Authority honored calls and recommendations made by influential connections of those who were promoted. Exh. A, ¶128. 2. Qualification Review Meetings The promotional interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well- versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Exh. A, ¶118. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 12 of 63 PageID: 4211 8 scoring system. Exh. A, ¶119. Rather, as set forth below, these evaluations were used as a pretext to promote certain favored individuals while not promoting others. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, but rather were used as a pretext to fraudulently promote whom the Port Authority wanted to promote. The ratings given to the candidates were influenced by political affiliation, nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the QRM. Exh. A, ¶107. 3. Selection of Officers to Be Promoted Defendant’s actions in breaching its adopted Sergeant Promotion policies and procedures did not meet or satisfy any legitimate goal or interest of the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶122. Specifically, the Port Authority promoted Officers to the rank of Sergeant who variously: a. had pending, major disciplinary charges as defined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement; b. had attendance records that, according to the criteria established by the Port Authority, were facially unacceptable; c. had not been recommended by their commanding officers for promotion; d. had civil lawsuits brought against them regarding their conduct as Port Authority Police Officers; e. had investigations against them which resulted in the officer being administratively suspended; and f. had failed their oral examinations. Exh. A, ¶123. The Port Authority Police Officer Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that, [a]ny candidate who would otherwise be eligible to be considered for promotion but who has been given a major disciplinary penalty . . . shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion until six months shall have elapsed after the completion of such penalty. Exh. A, ¶124. Nevertheless, at least one officer was promoted in violation of this provision. Exh. A, ¶125. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 13 of 63 PageID: 4212 9 Upon information and belief, promotions were made of officers because said officers were associated with the following organizations, and contacts were made to the Port Authority to influence said promotions: a. Intra-Port Authority societies based on religion and race, such as the Port Authority Shomrim Society, Inc. and the Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York & New Jersey, Inc.; b. Intra-Port Authority departments including the Port Authority’s Office of Emergency Management and the Port Authority’s Human Resources Department; c. Other Police Departments in New York and New Jersey including the New York City Police Department and the Hudson County, NJ Police Department; and d. Other groups powerful in New York City. e. Various political affiliations, as set forth below. Exh. A, ¶129, 139-165. The Port Authority’s failure to promote officers, including the Individual Plaintiffs, is in violation of the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Exh. A, ¶135. As the Port Authority required the consent of Congress in order to be established, and as its establishment was pursuant to Article 1, §10 of the United States Constitution, the Port Authority sufficiently constitutes a federal entity for jurisdictional purposes. Exh. A, ¶136. As the Port Authority is an instrumentality of both New York and New Jersey, these violations were committed under the color of state law. Exh. A, ¶137. As a result of the improper action of Defendants, individuals who would not otherwise have been promoted were in fact promoted by Fedorko. By being promoted, these officers took away promotional spots from the Plaintiffs. Thus, as a direct result of these improper promotions, Plaintiffs were deprived of the ability and opportunity to be promoted. Exh. A, ¶138. D. PROMOTIONS MADE BASED ON IMPERMISSIBLE POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS, AFFILIATIONS AND POLITICAL SUPPORT. As discussed herein, various individuals were promoted based on political connections and/or affiliations with other organizations. Exh. A, ¶139. Defendants gave preference in the Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 14 of 63 PageID: 4213 10 promotional process to those candidates who supported the preferred political candidates, were associated with preferred political candidates, or belonged to preferred political organizations and/or associations. Exh. A, ¶140. As a direct result, Plaintiffs were not promoted. Exh. A, ¶141. Making promotions based on political association was not necessary for the operations of the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶142. However, those with political associations were favored in promotions. For example, Kevin Gormley’s wife works for Congressman Peter King. Id., ¶144. Luis Mancuso has ties to Lt. Macaluso, the treasurer of the Lieutenant’s Benevolent Association (LBA), and Jeff Baumbeck, who is the head of the LBA. Id., ¶145. Keith Kostonoski’s wife worked for former Governor Pataki. Id., ¶146. Arelys Matos was associated with NJ Senator Menendez. Id., ¶147. Leticia Perez is friends with NJ State Senator M. Teresa Ruiz. Id., ¶148. Daniel McCabe’s family owns McCabe Ambulance Service, which does business with various local municipalities and law enforcement agencies. Id., ¶149. Robert Zafonte’s father was a retired NYPD officer, was president of the East Meadow Civic and Community Service Organization, and chief investigator for the Town of Hempstead, and is otherwise connected with the Nassau County Republican Party. Further, Robert Zafonte, was only promoted after he contacted high ranking PAPD officers, in order to be promoted. Id., ¶150. Richardo Kuncken is the son of Dian Kuncken, mayor of Stanhope, NJ. Id., ¶151. All of these individuals were promoted. Michael Kennedy is the son of Thomas Kennedy, retired officer and Hoboken councilman. Exh. A, ¶152. Scot Pomerantz is the president of the Shomrim Society, an organization for Jewish police officers. Moreover, Scot Pomerantz contacted a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority in order to be promoted. Id., ¶153. Sergeants Woody and Harrison are associated with the “Bi-state Coalition” fraternal organization. Id., ¶154. Sean Dale’s father is a retired Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 15 of 63 PageID: 4214 11 NYPD chief and former commissioner of the Nassau County Police Dept. Id., ¶155. James Flanigan’s father in law is retired PAPD Lt. William Corrigan; Flanigan’s wife is a police officer with the NJ Regional Operational Intel. Center, and Flanigan’s brother-in-law is a police officer who is a driver at police headquarters. Id., ¶156. Brian Boel’s father-in-law was the Chief of North Bergen Police Department. Boel has made comments to various officers that “hooks” got him promoted, “just like everyone else.” Id., ¶157. All of the above officers were promoted. A disproportionate number of PBA delegates were also promoted, even though union support is not an appropriate requirement for Sergeant. This includes but is not limited to Jordon Esposito, John Garrone, John Rice, Pat Monihan, Mike Scivetti, and Ray Butler. Exh. A, ¶158. Members of the Asian Jade Society were promoted due to their association with said organization. Id., ¶159. Members of the Bi State Coalition, such as President Aaron Woody and Lance Harris, were promoted due to their association with said organization. Id., ¶160. Lisa Orlando is the niece of Frank Orlando, the head of the NYS insurance fraud division. Id., ¶161. Chief Security Officer Belfoire indicated that the PA received daily calls for promotion favors. Id., ¶162. Various other officers who were promoted had donated monies to support various political organizations and/or candidates. Exh. A, ¶163. Various other officers who were promoted had personal and/or family connections to political figures, organizations and/or associations. Exh. A, ¶164. All of the above-referenced political figures and/or organizations facilitated the promotions of the above-referenced candidates, to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. Exh. A, ¶165. E. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY ACADEMY CAPTAIN FERRIGNO At all times material herein, Ferrigno was the Lieutenant responsible for the supervision of the Port Authority Police Academy (“the Academy”). Exh. A, ¶166. The Academy is a small Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 16 of 63 PageID: 4215 12 division, with only roughly two to three dozen officers assigned there at any given time. Id., ¶167. Ferrigno took photographs of the list of questions posed to candidates during the QRM, as well as ideal and/or acceptable answers to said questions. Id., ¶168. Ferrigno then disclosed these photographs – containing questions and answers for the QRM – to certain officers who were presently assigned to the Academy and who had recently been assigned to the academy. Id., ¶169. Upon information and belief, Ferrigno disclosed said information on multiple occasions from 2010 until he was forced to retire in May of 2012. Id., ¶170. Upon information and belief, certain officers who were promoted received these questions and answers and used said information to gain an unfair advantage over Plaintiffs and the other promotional candidates. Id., ¶171. As a result, officers from the academy were highly recommended for promotion and were indeed promoted at an exceedingly disproportionate rate compared to officers who had not been assigned to the Academy. Exh. A, ¶172. Upon information and belief, Defendant Breznicki, then a Captain in PAPD, witnessed Defendant Ferrigno taking the aforementioned photographs of examination materials. Id., ¶173. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant Tagarelli also was aware of Defendant Ferrigno taking the aforementioned photographs of examination materials. Id., ¶174. Upon information and belief, Breznicki and Tagarelli took no immediate action to report Ferrigno’s conduct or halt the dissemination of examination materials. Id., ¶175. Finally, approximately ten (10) months later, Breznicki finally informed Inspector Sullivan of Ferrigno’ actions. Sullivan was also on Plaintiff Otero’s panel for her Qualification Review Meeting. Exh. A, ¶176. However, upon information and belief, neither Breznicki, Tagarelli nor Sullivan took any further subsequent action to report Ferrigno’s conduct or halt the dissemination of these examination materials to certain promotional candidates. Exh. A, ¶177. In Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 17 of 63 PageID: 4216 13 fact, Sullivan was on at least one panel for Qualification Review Meetings – Plaintiff Otero’s panel. As such, he provided recommendations regarding promotion regarding officers, even though he was fully aware that certain officers had seen the questions and desired answers ahead of time, while others had not. Exh. A, ¶178. One-hundred (100) total officers have been promoted since July 8, 2011; as a result of Defendants’ aforementioned actions and dissemination of examination information, at least twenty-two (22) – or more - of these one-hundred (100) officers had been permanently and/or temporarily assigned to the Academy. Exh. A, ¶179. F. FIRST PROMOTIONAL LIST – JULY 8, 2011 On June 15, 2011, the PAPD issued a promotional job posting for Sergeant. This posting described the promotional process for those officers already on the horizontal roster. Exh. A, ¶180. As was set out in the initial March 3, 2010 promotional announcement, the IG was still in charge of ensuring a random selection of officers from the Horizontal Roster to be evaluated and interviewed. Id., ¶181. However, the June 15, 2011 posting changed the promotional policy that was set out in the 2010 promotional examination announcement. Specifically, this listing changed the promotional criteria with regard to absences. Under the new criteria, officers on the horizontal roster would only be eligible if they had 3 or fewer sick absence occasions and 11 or fewer sick days over two of the last three years. Id., ¶182. Approximately one week later, on or about June 22, 2011, the PAPD issued a memorandum cancelling the June 15, 2011 job posting. Id., ¶183-84. As such, the PA continued with its promotional process. A list of 60 officers was randomly chosen to be evaluated and interviewed. Exh. A, ¶185. Thereafter, evaluations and interviews were held on or about June 25-27, 2011. Id., ¶186. These interviews were conducted by various panels consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 18 of 63 PageID: 4217 14 consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the PA Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well- versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Id., ¶187. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Id., ¶188. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the PA knew that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the QRM. Id., ¶189. On or about July 8, 2011, on behalf of the PAPD, Superintendent Fedorko promoted fourteen (14) officers to Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶190. Upon information and belief, a number of the aforementioned individuals were ineligible to be promoted since they did not meet the aforementioned criteria required for promotion. Id., ¶191. Upon information and belief, one of these promoted officers was ineligible to be promoted due to having pending disciplinary charges at the time of promotion. Id., ¶192. The Port Authority Police Officer Collective bargaining Agreement provides that, "[a]ny candidate who would otherwise be eligible to be considered for promotion but who has been given a major disciplinary penalty . . . shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion until six months shall have elapsed after the completion of such penalty." Nevertheless, upon information and belief, said officer was promoted in violation of this provision. Id., ¶193. Upon information and belief, another promoted officer was ineligible to be promoted, due to the fact that he was not recommended in his Qualification Review Meeting and Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 19 of 63 PageID: 4218 15 was not recommended by his immediate supervisor as part of his promotional/developmental appraisal. Id., ¶194. Upon information and belief, another promoted officer was ineligible to be promoted, as he was not originally randomly chosen to be evaluated and interviewed by the PRB. However, upon information and belief, said officer contacted an administrator within the Port Authority and was then placed on the list of 60 officers to be evaluated. Id., ¶195. This violated Port Authority policy. The "General Rules and Regulations For all Port Authority Employees" and the "Guide to Port Authority Ethical Standards" state that "[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited". Id., ¶196. Additionally, as noted above, John Ferrigno, a Lieutenant assigned to supervising the Police Academy, provided certain candidates assigned to the Academy with the questions to be posed during the QRM and appropriate answers to these questions, thereby giving those officers an unfair advantage over officers as to whom such information was kept secret. Exh. A, ¶197. Moreover, Ferrigno and other PAPD officers permitted this information to be disseminated to other officers who had been assigned to the Academy. Id., ¶198. As a result, of the fourteen officers promoted, seven (7) either worked at the Academy or had recently been instructors at the Academy, at the time of, or just before, their promotion. Id., ¶199. Upon information and belief, at least three (3) officers who were promoted received the aforementioned questions and answers, and were also directly involved in the dissemination of Ferrigno’s examination materials. Id., ¶200. Upon information and belief, the Academy is one of the smallest commands of the Port Authority Police Department, and has only approximately two-to-three dozen full time police officers permanently and/or temporarily assigned to it at any given time. Id., ¶201. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 20 of 63 PageID: 4219 16 The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant was part of the continued fraudulent scheme by the Port Authority. Exh. A ¶116, 202, 2374, 2414-2416. G. SEPTEMBER 2011 UNLAWFUL PROMOTIONS In September, 2011, the Port Authority again breached its promotion policy and procedures by promoting two police officers who served as drivers to Michael Fedorko to the rank of Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶203. The two drivers who were promoted, Officers Coccodrilli and Masouridis, were on the Horizontal Roster, but were not on the list of randomly-chosen 60 officers to be evaluated, and they were not subjected to other selection requirements, such as the Qualification Review Meeting. The decision to promote the two drivers was made by Michael Fedorko. Exh. A, ¶204. This was done as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme to promote those preferred by the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416. H. SECOND PROMOTIONAL LIST – JANUARY 23, 2013 On November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. Exh. A, ¶208. The November 21, 2012 changed the aforementioned original absence policy. This new policy, which was the same policy that had been set out in the cancelled June 15, 2011 promotional posting, was different from and significantly stricter than the initial absence policy from the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement, despite the fact that the March 3,2010 qualification criteria were still in effect. Exh. A, ¶209. Further, the November 21, 2012 contained contradictory language regarding the relevant time periods with regard to the eligibility criteria for attendance. The November 21, 2012 states in one area that attendance will be evaluated since January 1, 2007, but at another point it states that the relevant time period for attendance will be a rolling time Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 21 of 63 PageID: 4220 17 period from November 2, 2009 to November 2, 2012. Likewise, this is contradictory to the relevant time period for the developmental/promotional appraisal, which was based on attendance and other performance from March 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011. Exh. A, ¶210. Further, this announcement changed the promotional policy that was set out in the March 3, 2010 promotional examination announcement. Specifically, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the allegedly random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be considered for promotion. This was contrary to the procedure set forth in the original promotional announcement. Exh. A, ¶211. Despite the fact that the November 21, 2012 promotional announcement indicated that all candidates on the horizontal roster would be evaluated, the PAPD did not in fact evaluate all candidates prior to making promotions. Rather, PAPD evaluated only a portion of the candidates on the horizontal roster. Those candidates who were not interviewed included several plaintiffs. Exh. A, ¶212. These interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Exh. A, ¶213. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Exh. A, ¶214. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 22 of 63 PageID: 4221 18 cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Exh. A, ¶215. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. Exh. A, ¶216. As a result of this partial and incomplete evaluation and interview process, on or about January 23, 2013 the PAPD promoted the following thirteen (13) officers to the rank of Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶217. Again, officers who had worked at the Police Academy were promoted in disproportionate numbers, as a result of the aforementioned manipulation by John Ferrigno. Exh. A, ¶218. Upon information and belief three (3) of the thirteen (13) officers promoted had been assigned to the academy and/or had recently been instructors for the academy. Exh. A, ¶219. Further, two officers promoted were both related to high ranking officers in PAPD. Exh. A, ¶220. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. Id., ¶221. Additionally, upon information and belief, another officer was only promoted after he contacted high ranking officers in PAPD, in an improper effort to be promoted. Id., ¶222. As noted above, this violated Port Authority policy, which indicates that "[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited". Id., ¶223. This was done as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme to promote those preferred by the Port Authority. Id., ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416. I. THIRD PROMOTIONAL LIST – JULY 29, 2013 Upon information and belief, in approximately February of 2013, the PAPD evaluated the remaining candidates on the horizontal roster. Exh. A, ¶224. These interviews were conducted Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 23 of 63 PageID: 4222 19 by various panels, consisting of three individuals. Exh. A, ¶225. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Exh. A, ¶226. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Exh. A, ¶227. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. Exh. A, ¶228. After the evaluations and interviews were conducted, a list was promulgated on July 26, 2013 of every officer who received an overall recommendation rating of Highly Recommended, as well as those who received a rating of Recommended. Id., ¶229. Upon information and belief, the PAPD had never previously promulgated such a list for any of the previous rounds of evaluations. Id., ¶230. Of the forty-six (46) officers who received a rating of Highly Recommended, 12 of them – 26 percent – were from the Police Academy. Given the extremely small number of officers assigned to the academy at any given time, this was again a highly disproportionate amount of officers to have received a rating of Highly Recommended. Id., ¶231. On July 29, 2013, Superintendent Fedorko issued a new promotional list, indicating that twenty-nine (29) officers would be promoted. Id., ¶232. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 24 of 63 PageID: 4223 20 The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. Exh. A, ¶233. As explained above, two of these officers included Officers Coccodrilli and Masouridis, who had been placed there, in contravention of PAPD policies and as part of a settlement of a federal lawsuit, and were promoted. Exh. A, ¶234. Additionally, of the twenty- nine (29) officers promoted, ten (10) of them had been assigned to the academy and/or had recently been instructors at the academy. Exh. A, ¶235. Moreover, upon information and belief, at least one of these promoted officers did not meet the criteria for promotion. Exh. A, ¶236. Moreover, one of these promoted officers did not meet the criteria for promotion, but was promoted due to his status in the local Police Benevolent Association (PBA). Exh. A, ¶237. Additionally, upon information and belief, one promoted officer was promoted due to the fact that his close relative was a high-ranking supervisor in PAPD and was improperly provided information regarding the Qualification Review Meeting. Exh. A, ¶238. This was done as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme to promote those preferred by the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416. J. FOURTH PROMOTIONAL LIST – JANUARY 15, 2014 On December 23, 2013, the Human Resources Department emailed twenty-seven individuals that they would be promoted. Exh. A, ¶239. On January 15, 2014, using the list of Highly Recommended and Recommended officers from July 26, 2013, Superintendent Fedorko made twenty-seven promotions on behalf of PAPD. Id., ¶240. However, two of the individuals who received the December 23, 2013 email were not on the promotional list. Id., ¶241. In their place were two new officers who were not initially on the December 23, 2013 list of officers to be Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 25 of 63 PageID: 4224 21 promoted. Id., ¶242. These two officers were listed on the January 15, 2014 promotional list, and were promoted effective January 17, 2014. Id., ¶243. Further, upon information and belief, another officers to be promoted had disciplinary charges pending at the time, but was promoted. Id., ¶244. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant was part of the continued fraudulent scheme by the Port Authority. Id., ¶245. K. FIFTH PROMOTIONAL LIST – FEBRUARY 7, 2014 On February 7, 2014, Defendant Fedorko, on behalf of the PAPD, issued another list of thirteen (13) officers to be promoted to Sergeant, effective February 18, 2013. Exh. A, ¶246. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers, as part of a fraudulent scheme designed to prevent Plaintiffs and others from being promoted. Id., ¶247. The interviews were conducted in the same manner as set forth above. Id., ¶248-49. None of the Plaintiffs were included on this list to be promoted. Id., ¶250. Between the five aforementioned promotional lists, a total ninety-six (96) officers have been promoted. Id., ¶251. L. SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS TO SERGEANT Since the filing of the instant action on March 14, 2014, the Port Authority has made repeated and continuing promotions of officers to Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶252. On March 27, 2014, days after the filing of the instant action, Fedorko ordered the arbitrary promotion of eight (8) additional officers to Sergeant, but none of the plaintiffs were promoted. Id, ¶253. In further manipulation of the promotional examination process since the inception of the instant action, the PA subsequently sent officers to “Sergeant’s Supervisory Development Training”, in order to Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 26 of 63 PageID: 4225 22 promote the Port Authority’s favored candidates. Id, ¶254. This was done as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme to promote those preferred by the Port Authority. Id, ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416. On April 15, 2014, twenty-five (25) officers were arbitrarily chosen to be sent to Supervisory Development Training. No explanation was provided as to why said officers as opposed to others were chosen. Exh. A, ¶255. Subsequently, nineteen (19) of the twenty-five (25) officers who attended the supervisory development training have been promoted. Id., ¶256. On August 5, 2014, the Port Authority arbitrarily promoted three (3) officers who attended said training, but none of the Plaintiffs were promoted. Id., ¶257. On September 22, 2014, Fedorko arbitrarily promoted one (1) officer who attended said training to Sergeant. Id., ¶258. On December 3, 2014, Fedorko arbitrarily promoted three (3) officers who attended said training to Sergeant. Id., ¶259. On January 30, 2015, Fedorko again arbitrarily promoted one (1) officer who attended said training to Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶260. On February 20, 2015, the Port Authority arbitrarily promoted ten (10) officers who had attended said training to Sergeant, effective March 1, 2015. Id., ¶261. Moreover, on March 11, 2015, Fedorko again arbitrarily promoted just one more officer who had attended said training, effective March 22, 2015. Id., ¶262. In fact, every single officer promoted since April 15, 2014 had been chosen by the Port Authority to attend said training. Exh. A, ¶263. Access to this training was selectively provided, under the guise of bolstering the credentials of those whom the PA wanted to promote, and attendance at this training became mandatory in order to be promoted. Id., ¶264. However, the Port Authority has denied Plaintiffs the ability to attend said training and has not explained how or why officers are selected to attend said training. Id.. Thus, by being denied access to said training, in addition to the other improprieties stated, the Plaintiffs have been denied the ability to be promoted. Id., ¶266. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 27 of 63 PageID: 4226 23 In sum, since the filing of the instant action, Fedorko has promoted a total of twenty-seven (27) officers over seven different (7) occasions, but none of the plaintiffs have been promoted from the 2010 exam, even though all of them remain on the horizontal roster of officers eligible to be promoted. Exh. A, ¶267. The interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the PA Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Id., ¶268. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Id., ¶269. All of the Plaintiffs were and/or should have been eligible to be promoted from the August 5, 2014 promotional list. Exh. A, ¶270. However, as part of the continuing fraud and preference given to those with favorable political associations, the Plaintiffs have not been promoted, despite being qualified for promotion. Id., ¶271. Port Authority has made promotions on at least six occasions arising out of the 2010 exam, and have promoted over one-hundred (100) officers on these lists. Id., ¶272. However, because of PAPD’s manipulation and changes to the promotional process and promotional criteria, Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to be promoted. Id., ¶273. By promoting additional individuals, the PA has further violated the rights of Plaintiffs. Id., ¶274. M. SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS TO LIEUTENANT – MARCH 4, 2014 AND AUGUST 19, 2014 On December 20, 2013, a horizontal roster for promotion to Lieutenant was promulgated. Exh. A, ¶275. Only Sergeants are eligible to be promoted to Lieutenant. Id., ¶276. The December 20, 2013 Lieutenant’s Horizontal Roster contained a list of 26 Sergeants eligible for promotion to Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 28 of 63 PageID: 4227 24 Lieutenant. Id., ¶277. Of those 26 names, ten (10) were promoted to Sergeant from the July 8, 2011 promotional order, and six (6) were promoted from the January 23, 2013 promotional order. Id., ¶278. 2113. On or about March 4, 2014, PAPD promoted eight (8) Sergeants to the rank of Lieutenant. Id., ¶279. Six (6) of these Sergeants had been among the fourteen (14) officers who were promoted to Sergeant on or about July 8, 20112. All six of these officers had applied for promotion from the rank of Officer to Sergeant through the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement, and said officers had been part of the first group of officers to be promoted on July 8, 2011 as part of this promotional examination process. Id., ¶281. Moreover, on August 29, 2014, PAPD issued a new promotional announcement for the rank of Lieutenant. Exh. A, ¶285. Because Plaintiffs were not promoted to Sergeant, they have been ineligible to be promoted to Lieutenant and are ineligible to be promoted to Lieutenant in the future under the August 29, 2014 promotional announcement. Exh. A, ¶286. Due to Plaintiffs not being promoted as part of the July 8, 2011 promotional order or subsequent promotional orders, Plaintiffs there therefore denied subsequent promotion to the rank of Lieutenant. Exh. A, ¶287. N. 2015 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROMOTIONAL EXAM FOR RANK OF SERGEANT. On March 4, 2015, a new promotion evaluation announcement was issued, to be held on April 18, 2015. Exh. A, ¶2317. Even though the plaintiffs remained on the 2011 horizontal roster and were therefore eligible to be promoted (Exh. A, ¶98, 2321), the Port Authority issued a new exam under the pretext that no qualified candidates remained. Exh. A, ¶2352. This new exam was issued as part of the continuing and ongoing and self-perpetuating scheme of manipulation and 2 These six (6) officers were Jason Bailey, Vincent DeSimone, Scott Erickson, Daniel McCabe, Kenyetta Pichardo, and Jaime Sandoz. Id., ¶280. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 29 of 63 PageID: 4228 25 fraud to promote those whom the Port Authority desires, regardless of their qualifications and eligibility. Exh. A, ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416. The Port Authority continues to promote based on candidates’ political associations and/or connections with political figures. The pattern of making politically-influenced promotions continued in the 2015 exam. Exh. A, ¶2318. Whereas the last two promotional examinations were nine (9) years apart (2001 to 2010), this promotional exam is being held only five years after the March 2010 announcement. Exh. A, ¶2319. This announcement established a completely new test, to establish a new “horizontal roster of those eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Sergeant.” Exh. A, ¶2320. This was done even though over three-hundred (300) officers eligible for promotion – including all plaintiffs - remain on the existing horizontal roster. Exh. A, ¶2321. As a result, the new horizontal roster has superseded the old horizontal roster, which served as the eligibility list for the 2010 exam. All of the Plaintiffs were placed on the 2010 horizontal roster and thus were eligible for promotion to Sergeant. However, as a result of the new exam, the existing eligibility list will be dissolved. Exh. A, ¶2322. Further, this was done even though the Port Authority continues to promote from the existing horizontal roster. In fact, as indicated above, ten (10) officers were promoted effective March 1, 2015, and one (1) officer, Craig Hoo, was promoted on March 11, 2015, which was one week after the issuance of the March 4, 2015 promotional announcement. Exh. A, ¶2323. The March 4, 2015 promotional announcement has established completely new criteria and requirements, which will enable the Port Authority to have absolute discretion to promote officers to Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶2324. A number of the criteria requirements are new to the exam and designed to contain arbitrary and manipulated scoring and results of the promotional exam. Exh. A, ¶2325. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 30 of 63 PageID: 4229 26 For example, unlike the previous exam, there are no other eligibility requirements other than a seniority/experience requirement, which will be explained below; there is no longer a discipline requirement or an attendance requirement, even though Appendix J of the CBA itself indicates that officers with major disciplinary may not be promoted. App. J (III)(B)(1). Exh. A, ¶2326. In the 2010 exam, several officers did not qualify under the examination criteria but were nonetheless promoted by the Department; thus, the elimination of these criteria appears to be the Port Authority’s attempt to skirt the criteria under the prior exam and CBA, and simply promote whomever they want. Exh. A, ¶2327. This too was done as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme to promote those preferred by the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416. Further, the new promotional announcement indicates that “at the discretion of the Port Authority, a random selection process, monitored by the Office of the Inspector General, may be conducted…” Page 4. Exh. A, ¶2328. However, the prior exam mandated this random selection, stating that “a random selection process, monitored by the Officer of the Inspector General, is conducted from those who applied to the bulletin to identify a pool of applications for further consideration.” Page 3. The new examination announcement eliminates this requirement. Exh. A, ¶2329. What was once a mandated random selection process – with oversight by the inspector general – is now completely at the discretion of the Port Authority, and presumably Defendant Fedorko, to promote whomever he wants without regard to the seniority and/or qualifications and/or written exam ratings of the candidates. The written exam is the only objective portion of the examination process. Exh. A, ¶2330. This was changed to further enable the Port Authority to promote officers who are affiliated with political figures and/or political organizations, as previously discussed. Exh. A, ¶2331. Again, this demonstrates the Port Authority’s attempts to Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 31 of 63 PageID: 4230 27 eliminate any obstacle or process that could hinder its desire for unfettered control in promoting its Sergeants and promoting officers with less experience and qualifications. Exh. A, ¶2332. This new promotional announcement also eliminates other promotional criteria. Whereas the 2010 promotion review board was to consider ten (10) different criteria for promotion, the new announcement only lists four such criteria: the Promotion/Development Appraisal, attendance history, discipline history, and any pending or prior complaints against the officer. Page 4. Exh. A, ¶2333. Similarly, whereas, in the 2010 announcement, all candidates to be considered by the PRB would also receive a qualifications review meeting (QRM), the new announcement indicates that “only the most competitive candidates will be invited to participate in the QRM” (Id.), without defining who or what constitutes the “most competitive” candidates. Exh. A, ¶2334. Thus, regardless of how well a particular officer performs on the written exam or even in the aforementioned four (4) criteria for promotion, said officer can still be denied an opportunity to be promoted because the Port Authority unilaterally said so, without giving an explanation. Exh. A, ¶2335. Further, the 2015 examination announcement also contains an inconsistency with regard to the requisite amount of in-grade experience to be promoted. Said announcement established a requirement that each candidate possess 5 years of in-grade experience. However, on page 8 of the very same announcement, the minimum experience necessary is only two years. Exh. A, ¶2336. As part of the continuing fraudulent scheme to promote those preferred by the Port Authority (Exh. A, ¶116, 2374, 2414-2416), these changes were made to promote the PAPD’s favored candidates with more than two but less than five years of experience, while holding other officers to a five-year standard. Exh. A, ¶2337. Additionally, in prior exams, candidates for the promotional exam have been given booklets with reading materials for the exam, which included Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 32 of 63 PageID: 4231 28 only department orders, memos, and other official policies and procedures. Exh. A, ¶2338. Unsurprisingly, unfair advantages are already being provided to favored candidates. Exh. A, ¶2339. For this new exam, the candidates not only received similar materials, but also received “training materials” from the training academy that were written by members of the academy, some of whom will be taking the 2015 examination and were not eligible to be promoted on the 2010 promotional process. Exh. A, ¶2340. These training materials, which are to be used as part of the exam, were written by members of the academy, including candidates for the exam. Exh. A, ¶2341. The following officers assigned to the academy wrote testing materials, and are now eligible to take the same exam for which they helped write the testing materials: Lisa Orlando, Lawanda Irving, Scott Benoit, Milka Moran, and L. Averhoff. Id., ¶2342. These members of the academy wrote testing preparation materials and are being permitted to take the said exam in which they helped write testing preparation materials. Id., ¶2343. These candidates are studying the very same materials that they themselves wrote and clearly will have an advantage regarding those materials. Id., ¶2344. Further, none of these individuals were eligible to be promoted in the 2010 exam, was the most recent exam held, because they did not at that time possess sufficient in-grade experience. Id., ¶2345. Thus, the first time that these four individuals from the academy are eligible for promotion, they are being given a significant advantage in the promotional exam. This is further evidence that the Port Authority intends to manipulate the examination process to provide advantages to its favored candidates, including but not limited to Lisa Orlando, Lawanda Irving, Scott Benoit, Milka Moran, and L. Averhoff. Exh. A, ¶2346. Since the exposure of the cheating scandal in the academy arising from Ferrigno’s misconduct, other steps have been stake to ensure that officers assigned to Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 33 of 63 PageID: 4232 29 the academy receive preferential treatment and advantages in the promotional process. Id., ¶2347. Like in the 2010 examination, candidates who worked in the academy have been provided with testing materials ahead of time. Id., ¶2348. Additionally, the new announcement adds that there is no time period in which the Port Authority may use the horizontal roster, and may stop promoting from said roster “regardless of whether the roster has been exhausted.” Id., ¶2349. Finally, the only right to appeal pertains to the written portion of the exam; no right to appeal exists for the qualification review meeting or any decisions or scoring by the promotion review board or the promotion of officers by Defendant Fedorko. Exh. A, ¶2350. Further, it was discovered that the Port Authority did not even have a passing score for the written exam until after the written exam was conducted. Exh. A, ¶2351. As is clear from above, there was no need for a new exam, given that hundreds of officers remain on the horizontal roster, including all plaintiffs. Moreover, the PAPD continues to promote officers, even in March of 2015. Thus, clearly, the Port Authority is fully able to make promotions on the existing horizontal roster, instead of instituting a new test. Exh. A, ¶2352. The written exam was conducted in 2015. Exh. A, ¶2353. Of approximately 700 candidates who took the exam, 171 passed the written exam and were placed on the horizontal roster, which is a list of those candidates eligible to be promotion to Sergeant. Exh. A, ¶2354. Of those 171 candidates, approximately 70 were not given qualifications review meetings due to – according to the Port Authority – having unacceptable records with regard to discipline, absences or civilian complaints. Exh. A, ¶2355. Thus, approximately 101 candidates were permitted to proceed to the final section of the exam: the qualification review meetings and review by the Promotional Review Board. Exh. A, ¶2356. All Plaintiffs were among these 101 candidates permitted to receive a qualifications review Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 34 of 63 PageID: 4233 30 meeting. Exh. A, ¶2357. The qualification review meetings were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of a member of the Port Authority Human Resources department and two PAPD superior officers. The H.R. members were not well- versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. Exh. A, ¶2358. Each candidate was asked five questions or hypotheticals by the QRM panel, to which the candidates had to respond. Although the Port Authority has claimed that the questions were proprietary, many of these questions repeated for each candidate that was interviewed for the QRM. Exh. A, ¶2359. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Exh. A, ¶2360. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner, as part of the Port Authority’s scheme of manipulating the exam to promote those whom the Port Authority desires, regardless of their qualifications and eligibility. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. Exh. A, ¶2361. Moreover, even though many of the plaintiffs supposedly failed the QRM, no explanation was provided for their failing rating. Further, for the other two plaintiffs who did pass the qualifications review meeting, they nonetheless still were not recommended for promotion, with no explanation as to why they were not recommended. Exh. A, ¶2362. Essentially, those who failed the QRM automatically were not recommended for Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 35 of 63 PageID: 4234 31 promotion, and those who passed the QRM still were not promoted. Final recommendation ratings for candidates was subjective, arbitrary, not based on merit, and formulated to promote whomever the Port Authority wanted, specifically those who supported preferred political candidates and/or belonged to preferred political organizations and/or associations. Exh. A, ¶2363. On or about November 6, 2015, the Port Authority established a list of officers “highly recommended” for promotion. This consisted of 50 candidates. Exh. A, ¶2364. Then, on or about November 18, 2015, the Port Authority came out with a new “highly recommended list”, with 25 candidates on said list. This list deleted certain individuals from the original “highly recommended” list and added others. Exh. A, ¶2365. Then, on December 10, 2015, the Port Authority issued a list of candidates who were “recommended.” Id., ¶2366. This will likely be the last chance for many of the Plaintiffs to be promoted to Sergeant, since the last exams were in 2000 and 2010, respectively, and thus the next exam would not be expected until at least 2020 or even 2025. At that point, the plaintiffs – who all already have several years of experience - would be at the point where they would be eligible to retire, which would deny them not only promotion and experience, but also a reduction in pension over the course of their lifetime. Id., ¶2367. Further, the actions of defendants will deprive Plaintiffs of a chance of being further promoted to Lieutenant, as it not only will delay their experience and training in the rank of Sergeant, but will also deprive them of the years of service necessary to be promoted to Lieutenant. Id., ¶2368. Accordingly, this exam will in all likelihood eliminate any chance of becoming Sergeant, will eliminate or reduce any chance of subsequently being further promoted to Lieutenant, and will thus affect the plaintiffs’ salaries and retirement pensions. Exh. A, ¶2369. As a result of the improper action of Defendants, individuals who would not otherwise have been promoted were in Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 36 of 63 PageID: 4235 32 fact chosen to be promoted by Fedorko on behalf of the PAPD. Id., ¶2370. Subsequently, on December 15, 2015, the Port Authority has promoted at least 22 individuals from the “highly recommended” list. None of the Plaintiffs were promoted. Id., ¶2371. Upon information and belief, certain individuals who were promoted did so even though they did not adhere to the promotional guidelines and/or they used improper political connections to obtain promotion. Id., ¶2372. The Port Authority developed and maintained a pattern and practice whereby the procedure for promotion of police officers to the rank of Sergeant is manipulated to achieve desired promotions. Exh. A, ¶2373. The qualifications review meetings and recommendations by the Promotional Review Board were arbitrary, not based on merit, done in a manner to benefit favored candidates, and based on nepotism, cronyism and political affiliation. Id., ¶2374. Despite its promulgation of the policy procedure set forth in the various promotional announcements and postings, upon information and belief, the Port Authority has intentionally and knowingly ignored and violated said policies. Upon information and belief, the defendants knew that the policies and procedures set forth with regard to promotions to the rank of Sergeant were false, intended to mislead and fraudulent. Id., ¶2375. The Port Authority had no rational basis for adopting, publicizing, and putting the individual Plaintiffs through its 2015 procedures for promotion to Sergeant only to thereafter arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully disregard its procedures, or to implement them unfairly. Id., ¶2376. The Port Authority had no rational basis for its decision to avoid and unlawfully change its Sergeant promotional policies and procedures. Exh. A, ¶2377. Defendant’s actions in breaching its adopted Sergeant Promotion policies and procedures did not meet or satisfy any legitimate goal or interest of the Port Authority. Exh. A, ¶2378. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 37 of 63 PageID: 4236 33 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Defendant’s motion to dismiss is brought pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated, Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005), and dismissal is appropriate only if, accepting all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the plaintiff has failed to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (abrogating "no set of facts" language found in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). In considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may also consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] document[s]." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). V. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. The First Amendment Claim on Behalf of All Plaintiffs is Validly Pled To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the plaintiff's conduct was protected by the First Amendment because it addressed a matter of public concern, (2) the plaintiff was retaliated against, and (3) the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged retaliation. Myers v. County of Somerset, 515 F. Supp. 2d 492, 500-01 (D.N.J. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 38 of 63 PageID: 4237 34 2007). Defendants claim that Plaintiffs are not protected by the First Amendment. This is incorrect. The First Amendment does not require any affirmative conduct to protect public employees, if in fact the public employer’s personnel decisions are motivated by political association or speech. Transfers or other employment decisions “based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees.” Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 75 (1990). Further, the First Amendment not only protects the affirmative decision to engage in protected speech, but also the decision not to engage in speech. "'The essential thrust of the First Amendment is to prohibit improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas. There is necessarily a concomitant freedom not to speak publicly, one which serves the same ultimate end as freedom of speech in its affirmative aspect.'" Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 559 (1985). “[A]n individual's right not to speak or to associate with the speech of others is a component of the broader constitutional interest of natural persons in freedom of conscience.” Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 475 U.S. 1 (1989); See also, Galli v. N.J. Meadowlands Comm'n, 490 F.3d 265 (3d. Cir. 2006)(“In other words, the right not to have allegiance to the official or party in power itself is protected under the First Amendment”)(emphasis added); See Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 731 (3d Cir. 1987) ("a citizen's right not to support a candidate is every bit as protected as his right to support one."). The Fifth Amended Complaint sets forth scores of officers who were promoted based on their political affiliations and associations. These are not simply vague allegations: Plaintiffs name more than two dozen officers who were promoted based on their political affiliations. For example, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 39 of 63 PageID: 4238 35 Kevin Gormley’s wife works for Congressman Peter King. Exh. A, ¶144. Keith Kostonoski’s wife worked for former Governor Pataki. Exh. A, ¶146. Arelys Matos was associated with NJ Senator Menendez. Exh. A, ¶147. Leticia Perez is friends with and supported NJ State Senator M. Teresa Ruiz. Exh. A, ¶148. Robert Zafonte’s father was a retired NYPD officer, was president of the East Meadow Civic and Community Service Organization, and chief investigator for the Town of Hempstead, and is otherwise connected with the Nassau County Republican Party. Richardo Kuncken is the son of Dian Kuncken, mayor of Stanhope, NJ. Exh. A, ¶151. Michael Kennedy is the son of Thomas Kennedy, retired police office and Hoboken councilman. Exh. A, ¶152. Scot Pomerantz is the president of the Shomrim Society, an organization for Jewish police officers. Moreover, Scot Pomerantz contacted a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority in order to be promoted. Exh. A, ¶153. Sergeants Woody and Harrison are associated with the “Bi-state Coalition” fraternal organization. Exh. A, ¶154. Sean Dale’s father is a retired NYPD chief and former commissioner of the Nassau County Police Dept. Exh. A, ¶155. James Flanigan’s father in law is retired PAPD Lt. William Corrigan; Flanigan’s wife is a police officer with the NJ Regional Operational Intel. Center, and Flanigan’s brother-in-law is a police officer who is a driver at police headquarters. Exh. A, ¶156. Brian Boel’s father-in-law was the Chief of North Bergen Police Department. All of these officers were promoted, and none of the Plaintiffs were promoted. Brian Boel - who was promoted - has made comments to various officers that “hooks” got him promoted, “just like everyone else.” Exh. A, ¶157. Likewise, chief security officer Belfoire indicated that the Port Authority received daily calls for promotion favors. Exh. A, ¶162. Further, that certain officers were favored over others does not turn on party affiliation, but Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 40 of 63 PageID: 4239 36 rather political affiliation and union affiliation more broadly. “The Court is aware of no case expressly requiring affiliation with a political party as opposed to mere political affiliation with, for example, a candidate… as a precondition to bringing a Section 1983 claim founded in First Amendment freedom of association rights.” Aiellos v. Zisa, Civ. A. 2:09-cv-03076, at *15 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2009). In Aiellos v. Zisa, the Court ruled that favoritism based on support in union elections would be protected under the First Amendment. See also, Crane v. Yurick, 287 F. Supp. 2d 553, 560 (D.N.J. 2003)(“The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment extends broadly over union activities as matters of public concern.”) Thus, the fact that PBA delegates were favored in promotions also gives rise to a First Amendment claim. This includes but is not limited to Jordon Esposito, John Garrone, John Rice, Pat Monihan, Mike Scivetti, and Ray Butler. Exh. A, ¶158. Similarly, membership in other union organizations is also not a legitimate basis to make promotions, but the Port Authority did so any way: First, members of the Asian Jade Society were promoted due to their association with said organization. Exh. A, ¶159. Moreover, members of the Bi State Coalition, such as President Aaron Woody and Lance Harris, were promoted due to their association with said organization. Exh. A, ¶160. Further, the fact that Plaintiffs were not politically active is irrelevant. It has long been recognized that employees can be punished neither for engaging in politics nor for not engaging in politics. See, e.g., Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)(plurality opinion). “The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with its employees’ freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe and not associate.” Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 76 (1990) (emphasis Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 41 of 63 PageID: 4240 37 added). For example, the Rutan plaintiffs had not engaged in any political activity. Their supervisors nevertheless violated the First Amendment by denying them promotions because they “did not have the support of the local Republican Party.” Id. at 67 (emphasis added). Likewise, in Elrod, 427 U.S. at 349, the Court found that the government violated the First Amendment by making an employment decision “because of [an employee’s] partisan political affiliation or nonaffiliation” (emphasis added)). Simply put, political patronage is an unconstitutional basis for retaliating against nonpolitical public employees because “government may not make public employment subject to the express condition of political beliefs.” O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc., v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712, 717 (1996). “Official pressure upon employees to work for political candidates not of the worker’s own choice constitutes a coercion of belief in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 149 (1983). Further, and critically, Plaintiffs need not even show that they actually were unassociated or associated with a certain political figure in order to be protected, as long as defendants perceived as such. In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, the Supreme Court this past April found that First Amendment association claims can be premised on the perceptions of the government employer, even if said perceptions were not accurate. Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ____ (2016). Thus, as long as the Port Authority perceived that certain officers were favorably associated, and that others were not (and were not promoted as a result), this gives rise to a First Amendment claims. In sum, Plaintiffs have alleged a pattern and practice of making promotional decisions based on candidates’ affiliations with political candidates, political organizations, and union Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 42 of 63 PageID: 4241 38 organizations. It is undisputed that such a practice would violate the First Amendment, as there is not vital governmental interest in having Sergeants with certain political beliefs. See, Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 517 (1980); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 367 (1976). Thus, Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims are valid. B. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Claim Has Been Timely Filed. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim has been timely filed. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are outside the two year statute of limitations. This is false. First, it is undisputed that the claims arising out of the 2015 exam are within the two year period. Thus, all claims arising out of said exam must proceed. Moreover, any promotion within two years from the filing of the Fifth Amended Complaint on April 28, 2016 – of which there are many – are plainly within two years. Moreover, the claims related to the 2010-2014 exam process are not time-barred because Plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim relates back to Plaintiffs’ original pleadings in March of 2014. The standard for when a claim relates back to the original complaint is governed by Rule 15(c). Rule 15(c) provides: (c) Relation Back of Amendments. An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when (1) relation back is permitted by the law that provides the statute of limitations applicable to the action, or (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, or (3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 43 of 63 PageID: 4242 39 brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Consistent with the purpose of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has recognized that Rule 15(c) "should serve as [a] useful guide[ ] to help, not hinder, persons who have a legal right to bring their problems before the courts." Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 27, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2383, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986) (citation omitted). The decision in Schiavone gives broad effect to 15(c), recognizing its "worthy goals" and that "the spirit and inclination of the rules favored decisions on the merits and rejected an approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep may be decisive." Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 27, 106 S.Ct. at 2383. Additionally, a liberal interpretation of Rule 15(c) is consistent with additional case law recognizing that the Court must construe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure liberally to allow parties their day in court. Lundy v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 34 F.3d 1173, 1186 n.5 (3d Cir. 1994). Relation back is structured “to balance the interests of the defendant protected by the statute of limitations with the preference expressed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in general, and Rule 15 in particular, for resolving disputes on their merits.” Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485, 2494 (2010). Application of Rule 15(c)(1)(B) normally entails a “search for a common core of operative facts in the two pleadings.” Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 387 F.3d 298, 310 (3d Cir. 2004). This is because Rule 15(c) is premised on the theory that “a party who has been notified of litigation concerning a particular occurrence has been given all the notice that Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 44 of 63 PageID: 4243 40 statutes of limitations were intended to provide.” Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149 n.3 (1984); Bensel, 387 F.3d at 310. As set forth above, Plaintiff must show that the “claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). In the instant action, this is undoubtedly true. The facts have remained almost identical since the original pleadings back in 2014. These facts have consistently alleged favortism, fraud, and similar allegations since the beginning. Moreover, as Defendants admit, Plaintiffs claimed as early as the Arias Complaint, which was filed on June 4, 2014 (2:14-cv-03568, ECF #1) and subsumed into the instant action on October 31, 2014 (Id., ECF 16), that the Port Authority favored in promotions certain officers who were affiliated with various politicians, political organizations, and union groups. Thus, the applicable statute of limitations should relate back to the date of their original pleadings. For the original three Plaintiffs, Otero, Pisciotta and Escobar, this is March 14, 2014. For the original Arias Plaintiffs, this is June 4, 2014. Within two years of those dates, scores of improper promotions had taken place. Moreover, even though certain acts of defendants took place before then, the claims did not accrue until the employment action - promotion of certain officers over plaintiffs - took place. Only one set of promotions took place earlier than June 4, 2012 (two years from the filing of the original Arias matter): the July 11, 2011 promotions. The next promotions were not until January 23, 2013, which was well within two years from the filing of the instant action and the Arias action. Thus, at worst, all but the claims related to the July 11, 2011 promotions are timely. However, the July 2011 promotions are timely filed, as they are part of an ongoing promotional process as part of the 2010 exam that began back in March of 2010 and did not end Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 45 of 63 PageID: 4244 41 until March of 2015 when a brand new exam was announced. Moreover, these promotions were part of an ongoing scheme that did not conclude until March of 2015, well within the time to file Plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims are all within two years of improper promotions by the Port Authority, taking place from 2011 through today. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims are timely. C. Plaintiffs Have Pled a Claim for Fraud With Particularity. Plaintiffs have pled their fraud claim with particularity. The elements of common-law fraud are: “(1) a material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting damages.” Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 691 A.2d 350, 148 N.J. 582, 610 (N.J. 1997); accord Kuzian v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 599, 614-615 (D.N.J. 2013). Defendants spend only a page of their brief on the fraud claim, but generally and cursorily argue that Plaintiffs’ claims have not been pled with particularity. Rule 9(b) states, “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). In United States ex Rel. Wilkins v. United Health Group, Inc., 659 F.3d 295, 308 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit noted that it had never “held that a plaintiff must identify a specific claim for payment at the pleading stage of the case to state a claim for relief.” (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted). As the Fifth Circuit has stated, requiring this sort of detail at the pleading stage would be “one small step shy of requiring production of actual documentation with the complaint, a level of proof not demanded to win at trial and significantly Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 46 of 63 PageID: 4245 42 more than any federal pleading rule contemplates.” U.S. Ex Rel Grubb, 565 F.3d 180, 190 (5th Cir. 2009)(citations and footnote omitted). In their very brief argument on this claim, Defendants have seemingly only taken issue with the level of particularity with regard to the false statements made by Defendants. However, Plaintiffs have set forth several allegations whereby the Port Authority made false statements to its candidates. In short, the Port Authority Police Department has developed and maintained a fraudulent scheme designed to achieve desired promotions, based on the officers’ political affiliations, associations with various organizations and political figures, cronyism, and nepotism. Exh. A, ¶115. Despite its promulgation of the policy procedure set forth in the various promotional announcements and postings, the Port Authority intentionally and knowingly ignored and violated said policies as part of a “bait and switch” tactic of setting out policies and criteria, selectively enforcing said policy, and then changing the policy when it did not further their interests. The defendants knew that the policies and procedures set forth with regard to promotions to the rank of Sergeant were false, intended to mislead and fraudulent. Exh. A, ¶116. As is set forth below, this scheme – which has been continuing since the first lottery and first promotions - included setting out a lottery process, not following a lottery, and then eliminating the lottery process all together when it decided that it would not achieve the desired results; subsequently claiming that everyone would receive a qualifications review meeting, but then refusing to provide them to certain officers based on their alleged attendance and discipline records, while permitting others to proceed with similar records; allowing cheating to occur when Ferrigno distributed exam materials to certain officers; disqualifying plaintiffs for reasons not established in the written policy; permitting officers to proceed in their promotional exam based Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 47 of 63 PageID: 4246 43 simply on their political associations; putting preferred officers in a Sergeant’s training course, and then promoting these officers under the claim that they had received training that other non- preferred officers had not. Finally, once the Port Authority had promoted everyone they wanted, they announced a brand new promotional exam in 2015, with a new horizontal roster, even though over 300 qualified officers remained on the original horizontal roster. The 2015 promotional announcement then repealed many of the checks and balances which existed – and were selectively enforced – in the 2010 announcement. Moreover, these claims have been pled with particularity. For example, Plaintiffs allege that the Port Authority falsely claimed that the Inspector General would be randomly selecting officers to proceed further in the exam, yet this process was not in fact random. Exh. A, 100-103. In fact, Plaintiffs specifically pled that the Port Authority promoted one officer who initially was not on the randomly-selected “sub-list” of 60, when promotions were purportedly being made from said list. Exh. A, ¶126. After the officer learned he was not on the list on information and belief he made a phone call to a connection within the Port Authority and was then placed on the sub- list. Exh. A, ¶127. As another example, the Port Authority issued promotional announcements indicating that those individuals that did not meet certain criteria - such as attendance and disciplinary requirements - would not be promoted. However, the Port Authority promoted Officers to the rank of Sergeant who: a. had pending, major disciplinary charges as defined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement; b. had attendance records that, according to the criteria established by the Port Authority, were facially unacceptable; c. had not been recommended by their commanding officers for promotion; Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 48 of 63 PageID: 4247 44 d. had civil lawsuits brought against them regarding their conduct as Port Authority Police Officers; e. had investigations against them which resulted in the officer being administratively suspended; and f. had failed their oral examinations. Exh. A, ¶123. Likewise, the above promotional announcements stated that the candidates “[m]ust meet all promotional screening criteria on the Police Sergeant Roster Promotion/Developmental Appraisal form” and “[m]ust meet attendance standards.” Exh. A, ¶132. Further, the CBA states that promotions may only be given to eligible officers. Id., ¶133. However, Defendants violated the policies, procedures, and rights set out in the CBA and promotional announcements. Id., ¶134. As another example, the Port Authority claimed that all remaining candidates would receive a QRM, yet several of the Plaintiffs did not in fact receive same. Likewise, the Port Authority claimed that its promotions would be conducted pursuant to its promotional announcements, yet the Port Authority promoted two of Fedorko’s drivers, Coccodrilli and Masouridis, in September of 2011. Exh. A, 203-205. Further, while the Port Authority claimed in its "General Rules and Regulations For all Port Authority Employees" and the "Guide to Port Authority Ethical Standards" that "[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited". Exh. A, ¶223. However, as set forth above with regard to the First Amendment claim, this was patently false. Plaintiffs named these individuals specifically, and specifically identified the source of the preferential treatment, in exceedingly particular detail. For the 2015 exam, the Port Authority claimed that the new exam was necessary to creat a list of eligible candidates, yet at the time of the 2015 exam, over three-hundred (300) officers eligible for promotion – including all plaintiffs - remained on the prior horizontal roster. Id, ¶2321. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 49 of 63 PageID: 4248 45 In sum, as set forth in the complaint, “[d]espite its promulgation of the policy procedure set forth in the various promotional announcements and postings, upon information and belief, the Port Authority has intentionally and knowingly ignored and violated said policies. Defendants knew that the policies and procedures set forth with regard to promotions were false, intended to mislead and fraudulent. Id., ¶116. Given the above, Plaintiffs have specifically and particularly pled a series of false and misleading claims by the Port Authority, including the specific documents where these claims were made, the dates of these documents, and individuals to whom these documents were distributed. This is easily sufficient for the pleading stage. D. Plaintiffs Can Maintain An Action In Lieu of Prerogative Writs Plaintiffs can maintain an action in lieu of prerogative writs. After repeatedly arguing in their previous motions to dismiss that Plaintiffs could simply file an action in lieu of prerogative writs, the Defendants now ironically argue that Plaintiffs have no such claim. New Jersey courts, “from an early date, have lent the aid of the appropriate prerogative writ to private persons seeking to remedy wrongful acts of public officials when the applicant is one of the class of persons to be most directly affected in their enjoyment of public rights and the public convenience will be subserved thereby.” Schwartz v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation, 28 A.2d 482, 483 (N.J. 1942). New Jersey Court Rule 4:69 provides the framework for the filing of an action in lieu of prerogative writs. Rule 4:69 states that “No action in lieu of prerogative writs shall be commenced later than 45 days after the accrual of the right to the review, hearing or relief claimed, except as provided by paragraph (b) of this rule.” N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-6. To be sure, the Port Authority continues to make promotions, which fall within 45 days of the filing of the complaint. These ongoing promotions are timely-brought and are valid. Notably, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 50 of 63 PageID: 4249 46 Defendants do not challenge the substance of the action in lieu of prerogative writs, but rather argue that 1) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, 2) failed to bring an action within 45 days, and 3) no exception to the 45 day rule applies. While it is admitted that no exception to the 45 day rule applies here, the Plaintiffs have brought claims within 45 days of promotions, which continue to this day. Moreover, Rule 4:69 indicates that the 45 day rule may be relaxed “in the interests of justice.” R. 4:69. Here, Plaintiffs have clearly manifested their intent to challenge the actions of the Port Authority; they initially brought suit in 2014 and in fact filed the Otero II suit (the allegations of which have been subsumed into the instant action) before any promotions had been made regarding the 2015 exam. Lastly, Plaintiffs did not have any legitimate method of exhausting administrative remedies. First, as noted above, Defendants spent prior briefs claiming that Plaintiffs could in fact have filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs. Now, of course, they claim that such a caim would have been deficient. Further, the candidates were not able to file grievances related to the promotional process, as both Section XXII and Appendix J, clearly state that the grievance-arbitration procedure provided for in the MOA is not applicable to the Police Sergeant Promotion Procedure. Moreover, not only was the promotional process not able to be grieved, no appeal rights were available to Plaintiffs. In fact, the candidates – including the plaintiffs – were not given their examination scores, even when they asked for their results. The lack of appeal procedures was set out as follows in Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, which indicated that for each promotional announcement, no appeal procedure was in place, and the candidates – including plaintiffs – were deprived of the Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 51 of 63 PageID: 4250 47 opportunity to appeal the results or have a hearing regarding their results if they were dissatisfied with same. No reasons or explanations for the results of each candidates’ ratings were provided, and the results themselves were not disclosed to each candidates. By the very terms of the promotional announcement, the candidates had no administrative remedy available to them in order to challenge the results of the promotional examination. Therefore, because there is no “right of review” that exists for Plaintiffs, the administrative exhaustion provision in Rule 4:69-5 does not bar Plaintiffs’ action in lieu of prerogative writes. E. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under the New Jersey and New York Constitutions Are Actionable Plaintiffs’ claims under the New Jersey and New York Constitutions are actionable. For the same reasons that Plaintiff has set forth a valid 42 USC 1983 claim, as set forth above, the NJCRA claim must survive the instant motion. "Courts have repeatedly construed the NJCRA in terms nearly identical to its federal counterpart: Section 1983 . . . ." Stroby v. Egg Harbor, Twp., No. 09-698, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130734, 2010 WL 5036982, at *5 n.5 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2010) (quoting Chapman v. State of New Jersey, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75720, 2009 WL 2634888, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2009)). Accordingly, NJCRA is generally interpreted to be coextensive with its federal counterpart. Allah v. Hayman, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663, *8 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2011)(citing Celestine v. Foley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132511, 2010 WL 5186145, at *6 (D.N.J. 2010); Jefferson v. Twp. of Medford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133682, 2010 WL 5253296, at *13 (D.N.J. 2010); Slinger v. New Jersey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71723, 2008 WL 4126181, at *5 (D.N.J. 2008), rev'd in part on other grounds, 366 F. App'x 357 (3d Cir. 2010)). Therefore, the District of New Jersey analyzes NJCRA claims “through the lens of § 1983.” Petitt v. State of New Jersey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35452, *11 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2011)(citing Hedges v. Musco, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 52 of 63 PageID: 4251 48 204 F.3d 109, 121 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2000)). Similarly, the New York Constitution, in the context of free speech and free association, has been considered co-extensive with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as Defendants admit in their brief. Def. Br. p. 27. Thus, for the reasons set forth above that Plaintiffs’ 1983 claim is timely and actionable, so too are their claims under the New Jersey and New York Constitutions. F. Plaintiff’s Estoppel Claim is Actionable Plaintiff’s estoppel claim is actionable. The traditional elements of promissory estoppel require the party to show that there has been “(1) a clear and definite promise; (2) made with the expectation that the promisee will rely on it; (3) reasonable reliance; and (4) definite and substantial detriment,” Toll Bros., Inc. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, 194 N.J. 223, 253 (2008). Here, as set forth above in significant depth, the Defendants misrepresented and/or concealed to Plaintiffs they would not be following the provisions set forth in the promotional announcements. Exh. A, 2420-23. Defendants expected and/or intended that Plaintiffs would act upon these misrepresentations. As a result, the Plaintiffs spend time and money in preparing for the promotional exam, which was directly caused by their reliance on the misrepresentations and/or concealment of the Defendants. Despite its policies and guidelines, the Port Authority gave preferential treatment to those police officers who were able to bring influence, political or otherwise, in support of their candidacy for promotion. This conduct by the Port Authority satisfies the elements of estoppel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 53 of 63 PageID: 4252 49 G. The Complaint Is Validly Pled Against Defendant Ferrigno The Complaint is sufficiently pled to establish personal liability against Defendant Ferrigno. To be liable under § 1983, each individual defendant "must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing." Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988)). "Personal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence." Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Moreover, "a supervisor may be personally liable ... if he or she participated in violating the plaintiff's rights, directed others to violate them, or, as the person in charge, had knowledge of and acquiesced in his subordinates' violations." A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir. 2004); See also, Marrakush Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, 2009 WL 2366132, at *31 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009) (“Personal involvement can be asserted through allegations of facts showing that a defendant directed, had actual knowledge of, or acquiesced in, the deprivation of a plaintiff's constitutional rights.”)(emphasis added). When analyzing these allegations, it is important to remember that, at the 12(b)(6) stage, the facts must be taken as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in Plaintiff’s favor, even after Twombley and Iqbal: “[O]n a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the facts alleged must be taken as true and a complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those facts or will ultimately prevail on the merits. The Supreme Court did not address the point about drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, but we do not read its decision to undermine that principle.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, at *10 (3rd Cir. 2008). With that principle in mind, it is evident that Plaintiff can make out claims of individual liability against Ferrigno. Defendants may not think that these claims are likely to be proven, but Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 54 of 63 PageID: 4253 50 that is of no moment at this stage. Defendant’s argument as to Ferrigno improperly relies on deposition testimony and other unsubstantiated factual claims, such as “Ferrigno admitted that he took photographs of the QRM materials in 2011 and his actions were fully investigated by the Port Authority’s Office of Inspector General and addressed, which resulted in Ferrigno being terminated.” Def. Br. p. 32. Factual assertions such as these, which are not supported by Defendants, let alone contained in Plaintiffs’ pleading, must be ignored. More importantly, contrary to the arguments of Defendants, Ferrigno’s personal involvement in the alleged activities set forth in the Fifth Amended Complaint is robustly pled3. The law as to personal involvement is set forth in Section B, supra, and is incorporated here. Clearly, Defendant Ferrigno, a supervisor, “participated in violating the plaintiff's rights, directed others to violate them, or, as the person in charge, had knowledge of and acquiesced in his subordinates' violations." A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir. 2004). Further, the fact that Ferrigno himself did not make the final decision to promote Plaintiffs is irrelevant, since they not only helped set the retaliation in motion, but they acquiesced to it as well. See, Maestas v. Segura, 416 F.3d 1182, 1191 (10th Cir. 2005) ("While Segura made the final decision to transfer Plaintiffs, Pratt, though a subordinate, might be liable if he possessed a retaliatory motive which set in motion the events that ultimately led to Plaintiffs' transfers.") (citations omitted, emphasis added)); Strahan v. Kirkland, 287 F.3d 821, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) ("a 3 While Defendant Ferrigno notes that he was no longer employed by the PAPD as of May of 2012, he does not make a statute of limitations argument. As such, such an argument is waived. See, Ghana v. Holland, 226 F.3d 175, 180 (3d Cir. 2000); see also, Aiellos v. Zisa, 09-3076, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8640, 2010 WL 421081, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2010)("A throw-away argument left undeveloped is waived."). Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 55 of 63 PageID: 4254 51 subordinate with a retaliatory motive can be liable 'if an improper motive sets in motion the events that lead to termination that would not otherwise occur…'") (emphasis added), quoting Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 854-55 (9th Cir. 1999); Professional Ass'n of Coll. Educators v. El Paso County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 730 F.2d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 1984)(upholding liability under § 1983 of college president who recommended discharge of faculty members in retaliation for First Amendment activity where the Board of Trustees followed that recommendation, and holding that "[i]t is not necessary that the improper motive be the final link in the chain of causation: if an improper motive sets in motion the events that lead to termination that would not otherwise occur, intermediate step[s] in the chain of causation' do not necessarily defeat the plaintiff's claim") (internal quotation marks omitted). As set forth in the Fifth Amended Complaint, at all times material herein, Ferrigno was the Lieutenant responsible for the supervision of the Port Authority Police Academy (“the Academy”) (Id., ¶197). The Academy is a small division, with only roughly two to three dozen officers assigned there at any given time (Id., ¶198). Ferrigno took photographs of the list of questions posed to candidates during the QRM, as well as ideal and/or acceptable answers to said questions (Id., ¶199). Ferrigno then disclosed these photographs – containing questions and answers for the Qualification Review Meeting – to certain officers who were presently assigned to the Academy and who had recently been assigned to the academy (Id., ¶200). Ferrigno disclosed said information on multiple occasions from 2010 until he was forced to retire in May of 2012 (Id., ¶201). Certain officers who were promoted received these questions and answers and used said information to gain an unfair advantage over Plaintiffs and the other promotional candidates (Id., ¶202). As a result, officers from the academy were highly recommended for promotion and were Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 56 of 63 PageID: 4255 52 indeed promoted at an exceedingly disproportionate rate compared to officers who had not been assigned to the Academy (Id., ¶203). As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned actions, dissemination of examination information, and manipulation of the examination, of the over-100 total officers promoted from July 8, 2011 through present, approximately twenty-two (22) had been permanently and/or temporarily assigned to the Academy (Id., ¶210). Clearly, this alleged conduct by Ferrigno demonstrates that he “participated in violating the plaintiff's rights.” It was Ferrigno himself who caused the dissemination of the aforementioned information; as a result, over 22 officers from the academy were promoted, which was a grossly disproportionate amount of officers. Ferrigno was directly involved in the violation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights until the time that his employment with PAPD ended; the fact that his employment ended in May of 2012 simply meant that his personal misconduct ended at that time. Not only was he still able to engage in misconduct prior to that time, but the effects of his misconduct lasted beyond the termination of his employment, because members of the academy were still being improperly promoted, using the information that they obtained from him. Given the above information, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Ferrigno’s personal involvement, and thus the claims against him must survive the instant motion to dismiss. H. Plaintiff Kruesi’s First Amendment Claim is Actionable Plaintiff Kruesi’s First Amendment claim is actionable. Notably, this is the first motion in which Defendants have moved to dismiss Kruesi’s claim, having not done so in prior motions to dismiss. To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the plaintiff's conduct was protected by the First Amendment because it addressed a matter of public concern, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 57 of 63 PageID: 4256 53 (2) the plaintiff was retaliated against, and (3) the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged retaliation. Myers, at 500-01 (D.N.J. 2007). Defendants argue that Plaintiff Kruesi has not alleged protected activity or a causal link between his protected activity and the adverse action he faced. First, he engaged in protected activity. As set forth in paragraphs 2185-2186 of the Fifth Amended Complaint, from approximately 2006 to 2009, Plaintiff was a union delegate for the PBA local. In such a role, Plaintiff engaged in union activities, including activities pertaining to the rights of his fellow officers and misconduct of superior officers. During this time period, and within Plaintiff’s capacity and duties as union delegate, Plaintiff opposed the conduct of Lt. Rick Munnelly. Thus, Munnelly opposed Plaintiff’s union activities and sought to retaliate against Plaintiff. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement, and he passed the written exam, thus placing him on the horizontal roster. However, Plaintiff was denied an opportunity to be evaluated – let alone promoted – because in 2011, Plaintiff was improperly written up for allegedly being late to a post by fifteen (15) minutes. As a result, Plaintiff was written up by Lt. Munnelly. Munnelly’s charges against Plaintiff were to retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in the aforementioned union activities as union delegate, and were intended to disqualify Plaintiff from promotion and/or consideration for promotion. But for Lt. Munnelly’s disciplining of Plaintiff, Plaintiff would have received a panel interview. Moreover, in or around April 2, 2013, the pending discipline against Plaintiff was dropped, and Plaintiff was given a counseling memo, which was not a form of official discipline. As of April 2, 2013, interviews were still being conducted for promotion. As such, Plaintiff again requested an interview. However, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 58 of 63 PageID: 4257 54 despite the fact that his pending discipline had resolved, Plaintiff was again denied a panel interview and thus denied an opportunity to be promoted. Plaintiff was denied an interview and promotion, due to Lt. Munnelly’s retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in union activities. Here, Plaintiff has engaged in protected activity. Defendants argue that it is not clear whether Plaintiff was acting as a citizen or an employee in serving as a union delegate. In a reported decision from the District of Delaware, the Court ruled that Garcetti disallows claims in circumstances only where the activity is one required by the public employee's official duties, since this would necessarily mean the employee was not speaking as a citizen but as a government official. Justice v. Danberg, 571 F. Supp. 2d 602, 609 (D. Del. 2008). In Danberg, the Court addressed the very question presented by the Defendants here, namely whether a public employee’s union activities were undertaken as a private citizen or as public employee, which would therefore bar a First Amendment claim under Garcetti. The Court rejected this argument by the Danberg defendants, stating as follows: “Applying this rule to the instant case, the initial question for the court is whether plaintiff was acting as a citizen or as an employee when he took part in the union negotiations… [I]f the court were to adopt defendants' interpretation of the rule, union activity would cease to be a fundamental right protected under the Constitution, a holding that would contradict decades of Supreme Court precedent. The court declines to find that Garcetti represents an abrogation of such a well established right. Consequently, the court finds that plaintiff was acting as a citizen when participating in union negotiation activities.” Moreover, his actions as union delegate were protected. In Aiellos v. Zisa, the Court ruled that favoritism based on support in union elections would be protected under the First Amendment. See also, Crane v. Yurick, 287 F. Supp. 2d 553, 560 (D.N.J. 2003)(“The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment extends broadly over union activities as matters of public concern.”). At this stage, the Court must accept these allegations as true. Lastly, a causal link exists between his protected activity and the adverse action taken Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 59 of 63 PageID: 4258 55 against him. First, Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Munnelly specifically opposed Plaintiff’s union activities on prior occasions, and it was Munnelly himself who disciplined Plaintiff. Moreover, while Defendants argue that a disproportionate number of PBA delegates were promoted, Plaintiff Krusi makes it abundantly clear that he was not promoted entirely due to Munnelly’s improper discipline. In fact, that a number of PBA delegates were promoted actually supports Plaintiff’s argument, as it shows that he would likely have been promoted had it not been for this improper discipline. Thus, for these reasons, Plaintiff Kruesi can maintain his First Amendment claim. VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the instant motion to dismiss must be denied. Respectfully submitted, MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES /s/ Ryan M. Lockman Ryan Lockman, Esq. DATED: October 5, 2016 Counsel for Plaintiffs Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 60 of 63 PageID: 4259 56 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHARON OTERO, et al. Plaintiffs, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, et al. Defendants. Civ. A. 2:14-01655-ES-JAD CERTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL I, Ryan Lockman, of full age, hereby certify as follows: 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey and a member of the law firm of Mark B. Frost & Associates, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter. 2. A true and correct copy of the Fifth Amended Complaint is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”. 3. For the reasons set forth in the attached brief, Defendants Motions to Dismiss must be denied. I certify that these statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of these statements are knowingly false, I am subject to punishment. MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES Dated: October 5, 2016 /s/ Ryan Lockman Ryan Lockman, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 61 of 63 PageID: 4260 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHARON OTERO, et al. Plaintiffs, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, et al. Defendants. Civ. A. 2:14-01655-ES-JAD ORDER AND NOW on this _______ day of _____________ 2016, it is hereby ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint is DENIED. _________________________________ J. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 62 of 63 PageID: 4261 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHARON OTERO, et al. Plaintiffs, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, et al. Defendants. Civ. A. 2:14-01655-ES-JAD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan Lockman, Esquire, hereby certify that on the below date, Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was served upon all parties via ECF. MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES BY:_ /s/ Ryan Lockman Ryan Lockman, Esquire 1515 Market Street, Ste. 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 T: (215) 351-3333 F: (215) 351-3332 rlockman@mfrostlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATE: October 5, 2016 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134 Filed 10/05/16 Page 63 of 63 PageID: 4262 EXHIBIT “A” Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 246 PageID: 4263 1 MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES BY: MARK B. FROST BY: RYAN M. LOCKMAN 7 North Columbus Boulevard, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 P: 215-351-3333 F: 215-351-3332 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY SHARON OTERO, et al. : Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 14-1655 v. : : PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND : NEW JERSEY, et al. : FIFTH AMENDED : COMPLAINT Defendants. : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NATURE OF ACTION 1. This action arises from the deprivation of rights secured to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the United States Constitution, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and §1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. 2. The Port Authority promulgated a policy and procedure which was ostensibly intended to assure the public and its police officers that promotions in 2011 to the rank of Sergeant would be made fairly and based on merit and fitness. 3. However, despite such policy, the Port Authority made promotions to the rank of Sergeant of the Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) based on the political affiliations, associations, and patronage of Port Authority officers. 4. Thus, the Port Authority and the individual defendants have infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 245 PageID: 3387Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 246 PageID: 4264 2 5. Plaintiffs seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, promotions to Sergeant for the Individual Plaintiffs complete with back pay, benefits, and seniority retroactive to the date on which the promotions were first made, damages, attorney fees, and other appropriate relief. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek the appointment of a special master to devise, implement and oversee a fair promotional system for the Port Authority’s police department. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. 7. Jurisdiction lies over the state law claims based on the principles of supplemental jurisdiction, as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 8. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). 9. As set forth herein, the unlawful employment practices complained of herein occurred, and Defendant regularly does business within the District of New Jersey, and Defendants reside within the District of New Jersey. Therefore venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1392 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Sharon Otero is a citizen of the State of New York, residing therein at 63-04 62nd Avenue, Middle Village, NY, 11379. At all times material, Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. 11. Plaintiff Steve L. Pisciotta is a citizen of the State of New Jersey, residing therein at 223 Fairview Avenue, Rutherford, NJ, 07070. At all times material, Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 245 PageID: 3388Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 246 PageID: 4265 3 12. Plaintiff Veronica Escobar is a citizen of the State of New Jersey, residing therein at 188 Everett Place, Englewood, NJ 07631. At all times material, Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. 13. At all times material, Plaintiff David Cortes has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 77 Colonial Ave, Hamilton. NJ 08610. 14. At all times material, Plaintiff Michael Ortiz has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 7 Pomander Drive, White Plains, NY 10607. 15. At all times material, Plaintiff Ralph Sallemi has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 9 Michael Ln, Monroe Township, NJ 08831. 16. At all times material, Plaintiff Bryan Seeley has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 126 Linnea Ln. Brick, NJ 08724. 17. At all times material, Plaintiff John Berardi has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 30 Lindale Ct., Clifton, NJ 07013. 18. At all times material, Plaintiff Chris DePrisco has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 41 Firth Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314. 19. At all times material, Plaintiff Michael Mollahan has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 30 Torview Avenue, New City, NY 10956. 20. At all times material, Plaintiff Jason Malice has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 25 Windmill Ln, New City, NY 10956. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 245 PageID: 3389Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 246 PageID: 4266 4 21. At all times material, Plaintiff Luis Herrera has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 5 Anna Court, Stony Point, NY 10980. 22. At all times material, Plaintiff Angel Correa has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 3 Colonial Heights Dr., Ramsey, NJ 07446. 23. At all times material, Plaintiff Joseph Arias has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 1716 Holland Avenue, Apt. 4, Bronx, NY 10462. 24. At all times material, Plaintiff Anthony Baicich has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 27-14 27th St, Astoria, NY 11102. 25. At all times material, Plaintiff Frank Misa has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 245 N. Kings Ave., North Massapequa, NY 11758. 26. At all times material, Plaintiff John McCabe has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 94 Rhode Island Ave., Massapequa, NY 11758. 27. At all times material, Plaintiff Joseph Abarno has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 37 Mohannis Way, Kings Park, NY 11754. 28. At all times material, Plaintiff John Madigan has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 3 Rose Street Extension, Florida, NY 10921. 29. At all times material, Plaintiff David Guriel has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 13540 77th Ave., Apt E, Flushing, NY 11367. 30. At all times material, Plaintiff Anthony Heinlein has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 145 Deforest Rd, Dix Hills, NY 11746. 31. At all times material, Plaintiff Thomas Pepe has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 67 Moody Ave, Islip, NY 11751-2409. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 245 PageID: 3390Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 246 PageID: 4267 5 32. At all times material, Plaintiff Lawrence Gregg, Jr. has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 46 Brooklyn Ave., West Babylon, NY 11704. 33. At all times material, Plaintiff Matthew Newkirk has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 318 Warwick Drive, Cream Ridge, NJ s08514. 34. At all times material, Plaintiff Jose Sanchez has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 103 Lakeview Ct., Pompton Lakes, NJ 07442. 35. At all times material, Plaintiff Richard Egan has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 2 Lawn Street, Valley Stream, NY 11580. 36. At all times material, Plaintiff LaVern Watson has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 39 Hibbing Way, Newburgh, NY 12550. 37. At all times material, Plaintiff Daniel McCarthy has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 87 Parker Ave., Manasquan, NJ 08736. 38. At all times material, Plaintiff Craig Farrell has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 79 Bette Rd., East Meadow, NY 11554. 39. At all times material, Plaintiff Thomas Rojecki has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 111 Myrtle Ave., West Islip, NY 11795. 40. At all times material, Plaintiff Dewan Maharaj has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 80-42 255th St., Floral Park, NY 11004. 41. At all times material, Plaintiff Daniel Tarpey has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 4 Bishop Cir., Newtown, CT 06482-1267. 42. At all times material, Plaintiff Robbie L. Vaughn has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 276 New Hampshire Ave., Bay Shore, NY 11706-3207. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 245 PageID: 3391Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 6 of 246 PageID: 4268 6 43. At all times material, Plaintiff Mike Burke has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 21 Hunter Blvd., W. Milford, NJ 07480. 44. At all times material, Plaintiff Anthony Stable has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 222 Stonehurst Blvd., Freehold, NJ 07728. 45. At all times material, Plaintiff Giovanni Perrotta has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 36 Winslow Terrace, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410. 46. At all times material, Plaintiff Peter Friedrich has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 8 David Court, Plainview, NY 11803. 47. At all times material, Plaintiff Kameel Juman has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 103-20, 109th St., Richmond Hill, NY 11419. 48. At all times material, Plaintiff Peter Sippel has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 7 Holly Tree Ln., Glen Cove, NY 11542. 49. At all times material, Plaintiff Terence Moti has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 36 Kent Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040. 50. At all times material, Plaintiff Thomas Mancini has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 239 Sussex Rd., Wood Ridge, NJ 07075. 51. At all times material, Plaintiff Anthony Picozzi has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 181 Geary Dr., Middletown, NJ 07748. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 6 of 245 PageID: 3392Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 7 of 246 PageID: 4269 7 52. At all times material, Plaintiff Richard Carlson has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 526 Gorham Ave., Woodbridge, NJ 07095. 53. At all times material, Plaintiff Shawn Murphy has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 1067 Torremolinos Court, Toms River, NJ 08753. 54. At all times material, Plaintiff James Deady has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 44 Yorktowne Dr., Manalapan, NJ 07726. 55. At all times material, Plaintiff Peter Costello has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 3889 Jane Ct., Seaford, NY 11783. 56. At all times material, Plaintiff Philip Mongiovi has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 65 Arbor Field Way, Lake Grove, NY 11755. 57. At all times material, Plaintiff Derek Yuengling has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 132 Walnut St, Massapequa Park, NY 11762. 58. At all times material, Plaintiff Brian Ross has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 9 Big Island Road, Warwick, NY, 10990. 59. At all times material, Plaintiff Daniel DeVirgilio has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 74 Briscoe Terrace, Hazlet, NJ 07730. 60. At all times material, Plaintiff Rajiv Sama has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 49 Demarest Avenue, West Nyack, NY 10994. 61. At all times material, Plaintiff Duane Hatchette has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 18 Jones St., Jersey City, NJ 07306. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 7 of 245 PageID: 3393Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 8 of 246 PageID: 4270 8 62. At all times material, Plaintiff William Kruesi has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. Plaintiff resides at 19 Friar Lane, Freehold, NJ 07728. 63. Plaintiff James Camus is a citizen of the State of New York, residing therein at 4 Dennis Mchugh Ct, Tappan, NY 10983. At all times material, Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. 64. Plaintiff Joseph Rotondo is a citizen of the State of New Jersey, residing therein at 14 Rosemary Drive, Hazlet, NJ 07730. At all times material, Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. 65. Plaintiff Joseph O’Leary is a citizen of the State of New York, residing therein at 298 Malvine Ave., Staten Island, NY 10309. At all times material, Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer in the Port Authority Police Department. 66. Defendant, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (cited variously herein as “Defendant” or the “Port Authority”) is a bi-state transportation agency created with the consent of the United States Congress pursuant to Article 1, §10 of the United States Constitution. 67. At all relevant times, the Port Authority was and is a state actor, has employed over 1,000 police officers, and has been continuously, and is now, doing business in the States of New York and New Jersey. 68. The Port Authority’s main office is located at 225 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10003. The Port Authority maintains offices in and regularly transacts business in New York and New Jersey. 69. The Port Authority is a municipal corporate instrumentality under the laws of New York and New Jersey. 70. The Port Authority’s power derives from the consent of Congress and from the States of New York and New Jersey, the latter two of which appoint the twelve commissioners that govern Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 8 of 245 PageID: 3394Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 9 of 246 PageID: 4271 9 the Port Authority - six are selected by each of the participating states. The Commissioners’ actions are, in turn, subject to veto by the governor of either state. 71. Further, in the event the Port Authority’s revenues are inadequate to meet its expenses, each state is obligated only to pay for the Port Authority’s salaries, office and administrative expenses. 72. Defendant Port Authority controls the Port Authority Police Department. 73. The Port Authority Police Department headquarters is located at 241 Erie Street, Jersey City, NJ 07310. 74. Defendant Michael Fedorko has at all times material served as Superintendent of the Port Authority Police Department, located at 241 Erie Street, Jersey City, NJ 07310. In such a capacity, Fedorko is a policymaker for the Port Authority and/or Port Authority Police Department. 75. Defendant John Ferrigno has at all times material until approximately August of 2011 served as Lieutenant for the Port Authority Police Department, located at 241 Erie Street, Jersey City, NJ 07310. From August of 2011 to approximately May of 2012, Ferrigno served as Captain for the Port Authority Police Department. 76. Defendant Nicholas Tagarelli has at all times material until approximately May of 2012 served as Inspector for the Port Authority Police Department, located at 241 Erie Street, Jersey City, NJ 07310. 77. Defendant Richard Brazicki has at all times material until approximately August of 2011 served as Captain for the Port Authority Police Department, located at 241 Erie Street, Jersey City, NJ 07310. From August of 2011 to present, Brazicki has served as Inspector for the Port Authority Police Department 78. Defendants John Does #1-10 are employees and/or officials of the Port Authority and/or PAPD who were involved in the implementation of the promotional examination for the Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 9 of 245 PageID: 3395Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134- il 10/05/ 10 of 246 PageID: 4272 10 rank of Sergeant and/or who manipulated portions of said examination for improper purposes. The identities of these individuals are not currently known to Plaintiffs. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. PORT AUTHORITY POLICE FORCE 79. The Port Authority maintains a Police Force to protect all facilities owned by the Port Authority, to maintain order, and to enforce state and city laws at these facilities. 80. Port Authority police officers are designated by statute as police officers of both New York and New Jersey. 81. Port Authority police officers have law enforcement jurisdiction in New York and New Jersey and are permitted to serve warrants, make arrests, use physical and deadly force, carry and use firearms, carry and use handcuffs, issue summonses, engage in criminal investigations, employ counterterrorism strategies, and participate in aircraft rescue, firefighting, and emergency services. 82. Port Authority police officers begin their careers as uniformed officers. 83. Both uniformed police officers and detectives are supervised directly by police officers who have obtained the rank of “Sergeant” or “Detective Sergeant”. 84. The rank of Sergeant is the first official supervisory level in the leadership hierarchy of the Port Authority police department. There are other supervisory ranks above the rank of Sergeant and the pay scale for each progressively higher rank in the hierarchy is higher than the rank below Sergeants are paid a base salary that is higher than that paid to uniformed officers. 85. A police officer cannot be promoted to higher ranks without first being promoted to Sergeant. 86. The Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) is responsible for law enforcement over approximately thirteen (13) transportation-related facilities under control of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 10 of 245 PageID: 3396Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 11 of 246 PageID: 4273 11 87. PAPD officers may receive permanent assignments to any of the following locations, which are administered by the Port Authority: the Port Authority Bus Terminal, PATH, the George Washington Bridge, the Staten Island bridges, the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, JFK International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Port Newark, and the World Trade Center site. 88. Port Authority Officers also may be assigned to the Port Authority Headquarters, the PAPD Police Academy, or a number of specialized units. 89. Further, PAPD used to maintain an assignment called the Central Police Pool, also referred to as “the Pool”; those officers assigned to the Pool were given various different assignments at various Port Authority facilities on a daily and/or temporary basis. An officer assigned to the pool would often be trained to perform duties in a variety of assignments, locations and commands. 90. At all times material, the PAPD consisted of approximately 1,400-1,700 officers at any given time. B. THE 2010 PORT AUTHORITY SERGEANT PROMOTIONAL PROCESS 91. On or about March 3, 2010, the PAPD announced that it would be conducting a promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 92. At the time of the announcement, officers were informed that all discipline would have to be resolved in order to be promoted. 93. Additionally, officers would not be permitted to partake in the promotional process if said officer had 5 or more sick occasions or 13 or more days lost in the 12 months prior to the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement. 94. Officers also would be required to have three years of in-grade experience at the time of the written examination, and four years of in-grade experience at the time of promotion. 95. The candidates first took a written examination, which occurred on or about April 17, 2010. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 11 of 245 PageID: 3397Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 246 PageID: 42 4 12 96. On December 1, 2010, the Port Authority sent out letters to each applicant containing that particular candidate’s own examination score, indicating only the percentage of questions that the candidate correctly answered. 97. Those officers who received a passing score of 70% on the written examination would be placed in a pool of officers called the “Police Sergeant Horizontal Roster” (Hereinafter, “Horizontal Roster”). 98. Upon information and belief, 465 officers, including all plaintiffs, passed the written examination and were placed on the horizontal roster. 99. Through the procedure described herein, all officers on the Horizontal Roster would be eligible to be chosen to proceed to the selection and appointment process, which consisted of evaluation by the PAPD’s Promotion Review Board and an interview with a rotating three- person panel of members from the Public Safety and Human Resources (HR) Departments. 100. When a vacancy for Sergeant was to be filled, the Office of Inspector General (“IG”) would oversee the random selection of officers on the Horizontal Roster to be evaluated, interviewed, and selected for promotion. 101. When the Horizontal Roster was created via the random selection process, the chosen candidates would be evaluated by the Promotion Review Board to determine that they meet the promotional screening criteria. 102. Upon information and belief, 60 officers were purportedly randomly chosen from the horizontal roster by the IG to be evaluated and interviewed. 103. Upon information and belief, the IG did not actually implement and/or consistently implement a random selection process, and candidates were chosen to proceed in the examination process by other means which were not random or objective. 104. As part of the evaluation and interview process, each candidate would be rated by the Promotion Review Board in seven (7) categories: 1) Breadth of Experience/ Exposure, 2) Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 12 of 245 PageID: 3398Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 13 of 246 PageID: 4275 13 Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal, 3) Qualifications Review Meeting, 4) Attendance, 5) Discipline, 6) CCIU Complaints, and 7) Investigation. 105. These interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 106. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 107. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates were influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. 108. Category number 2, the Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal was a recommendation by each candidate’s respective immediate supervisor. In this section, candidates could receive a rating of “Highly Recommended”, “Recommended”, or “Not recommended.” 109. Category number 3, the Qualification Review Meeting, constituted an interview between the candidate and a rotating three-person panel consisting of members of the Public Safety and Human Resources Departments. 110. Of the seven (7) categories listed above, categories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were rated on the following scale: Needs Development/Unacceptable, Fully Competent/Acceptable, and Outstanding. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 13 of 245 PageID: 3399Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 14 of 246 PageID: 4276 14 111. Of the seven (7) categories listed above, category 2 was rated on the following scale: Not Recommended, Recommended, and Highly Recommended. 112. Ultimately, based on the above seven (7) categories, each candidate would receive an “Overall Recommendation” by the Promotion Review Board of Not Recommended, Recommended, or Highly Recommended. 113. Promotions would then be made by PAPD Superintendent Michael Fedorko from the list of those officers who were interviewed. 114. No appeal procedure was in place, and the candidates – including plaintiffs – were deprived of the opportunity to appeal the results or have a hearing regarding their results if they were dissatisfied with same. No reasons or explanations for the results of each candidates’ ratings were provided, and the results themselves were not disclosed to each candidate. C. PAPD’S PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF UNFAIR PROMOTIONAL PROCESSES 115. The Port Authority Police Department has developed and maintained a pattern and practice whereby the procedure for promotion of police officers to the rank of Sergeant is manipulated to achieve desired promotions, based on the officers’ political affiliations, associations with various organizations and political figures, and political speech. 116. Despite its promulgation of the policy procedure set forth in the various promotional announcements and postings, upon information and belief, the Port Authority has intentionally and knowingly ignored and violated said policies. The defendants knew that the policies and procedures set forth with regard to promotions to the rank of Sergeant were false, intended to mislead and fraudulent. 117. The Port Authority had no rational basis for adopting, publicizing, and putting the individual Plaintiffs through its 2010 procedures for promotion to Sergeant only to Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 14 of 245 PageID: 3400Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 15 of 246 PageID: 277 15 thereafter arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully disregard its procedures, or to implement them unfairly. 118. The promotional interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well- versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 119. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 120. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. 121. The Port Authority had no rational basis for its decision to avoid and unlawfully change its Sergeant promotional policies and procedures. 122. Defendant’s actions in breaching its adopted Sergeant Promotion policies and procedures did not meet or satisfy any legitimate goal or interest of the Port Authority. 123. Specifically, the Port Authority promoted Officers to the rank of Sergeant who variously: a. had pending, major disciplinary charges as defined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement; b. had attendance records that, according to the criteria established by the Port Authority, were facially unacceptable; c. had not been recommended by their commanding officers for promotion; d. had civil lawsuits brought against them regarding their conduct as Port Authority Police Officers; e. had investigations against them which resulted in the officer being administratively suspended; and Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 15 of 245 PageID: 3401Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 16 of 246 PageID: 278 16 f. had failed their oral examinations. 124. The Port Authority Police Officer Collective bargaining Agreement provides that, [a]ny candidate who would otherwise be eligible to be considered for promotion but who has been given a major disciplinary penalty . . . shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion until six months shall have elapsed after the completion of such penalty. 125. Nevertheless, at least one officer was promoted in violation of this provision. 126. Additionally, upon information and belief, the Port Authority promoted one officer who initially was not on the randomly-selected “sub-list: of 60, when promotions were purportedly being made from said list. 127. After the officer learned he was not on the list on information and belief he made a phone call to a connection within the Port Authority and was then placed on the sub-list. 128. Despite the fact that the “General Rules and Regulations For all Port Authority Employees” and the “Guide to Port Authority Ethical Standards” state that “[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited”, the Port Authority honored calls and recommendations made by influential connections of those who were promoted. 129. Upon information and belief, among the types of improper influence that resulted in officers who were not qualified being promoted, or which caused people who only met the basic qualifications to be selected for promotion over other more qualified officers, like the Individual Plaintiffs, were contacts being made by influential people within the following: a. Intra-Port Authority societies based on religion and race, such as the Port Authority Shomrim Society, Inc. and the Port Authority Police Asian Jade Society of New York & New Jersey, Inc.; b. Intra-Port Authority departments including the Port Authority’s Office of Emergency Management and the Port Authority’s Human Resources Department; c. Other Police Departments in New York and New Jersey including the New York City Police Department and the Hudson County, NJ Police Department; and d. Other groups powerful in New York City. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 16 of 245 PageID: 3402Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 17 of 246 PageID: 279 17 130. The Defendants’ actions violate the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). 131. The CBA states in pertinent part that “[a]ny candidate who would otherwise be eligible to be considered for promotion but who has been given a major disciplinary penalty pursuant to the [CBA] shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion until six months shall have elapsed after the completion of such penalty” and states that the sergeant promotional announcement giving to all officers seeking promotion will contain “[t]he criteria to be utilized for and the weight to be given to the elements of evaluation”. 132. Further, the above promotional announcements stated that the candidates “[m]ust meet all promotional screening criteria on the Police Sergeant Roster Promotion/Developmental Appraisal form” and “[m]ust meet attendance standards.” 133. Further, the CBA states that promotions may only be given to eligible officers. 134. However, Defendants violated the policies, procedures, and rights set out in the CBA and promotional announcements. 135. The Port Authority’s failure to promote officers, including the Individual Plaintiffs, is in violation of the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and substantive Due Process rights. 136. As the Port Authority required the consent of Congress in order to be established, and as its establishment was pursuant to Article 1, §10 of the United States Constitution, the Port Authority sufficiently constitutes a federal entity for jurisdictional purposes. 137. As the Port Authority is an instrumentality of both New York and New Jersey, these violations were committed under the color of state law. 138. As a result of the improper action of Defendants, individuals who would not otherwise have been promoted were in fact chosen to be promoted by Superintendent Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 17 of 245 PageID: 3403Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 18 of 246 PageID: 280 18 Fedorko on behalf of the PAPD. As a result of these improper promotions, Plaintiffs were deprived of the ability and opportunity to be promoted. D. PROMOTIONS MADE BASED ON IMPERMISSIBLE POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS, AFFILIATIONS AND POLITICAL SUPPORT. 139. As discussed herein, various individuals were promoted based on political connections and/or affiliations with other organizations. 140. Defendants gave preference in the promotional process to those candidates who supported the preferred political candidates, were associated with preferred political candidates, or belonged to preferred political organizations and/or associations. 141. As a direct result, Plaintiffs were not promoted. 142. Making promotions based on political association was not necessary for the operations of the Port Authority. 143. Promotions based on political affiliations or support constitute an impermissible infringement on the right to free expression of public employees, including the Plaintiffs. 144. For example, Kevin Gormley’s wife works for Congressman Peter King. 145. Luis Mancuso has ties to Lt. Macaluso, the treasurer of the Lieutenant’s Benevolent Association (LBA), and Jeff Baumbeck, who is the head of the LBA 146. Keith Kostonoski’s wife worked for former Governor Pataki. 147. Arelys Matos was associated with NJ Senator Menendez 148. Leticia Perez is friends with NJ State Senator M. Teresa Ruiz. 149. Daniel McCabe’s family owns McCabe Ambulance Service, which does business with various local municipalities and law enforcement agencies. 150. Robert Zafonte’s father was a retired NYPD officer, was president of the East Meadow Civic and Community Service Organization, and chief investigator for the Town of Hempstead, and is otherwise connected with the Nassau County Republican Party. Further, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 18 of 245 PageID: 3404Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 19 of 246 PageID: 281 19 Robert Zafonte, was only promoted after he contacted high ranking officers in PAPD, in an improper effort to be promoted. 151. Richardo Kuncken is the son of Dian Kuncken, mayor of Stanhope, NJ. 152. Michael Kennedy is the son of Thomas Kennedy, retired police office and Hoboken councilman. 153. Scot Pomerantz is the president of the Shomrim Society, an organization for Jewish police officers. Moreover, Scot Pomerantz contacted a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority in order to be promoted. 154. Sergeants Woody and Harrison are associated with the “Bi-state Coalition” fraternal organization. 155. Sean Dale’s father is a retired NYPD chief and former commissioner of the Nassau County Police Dept. 156. James Flanigan’s father in law is retired PAPD Lt. William Corrigan; Flanigan’s wife is a police officer with the NJ Regional Operational Intel. Center, and Flanigan’s brother-in-law is a police officer who is a driver at police headquarters. 157. Brian Boel’s father-in-law was the Chief of North Bergen Police Department. As set forth in response #1, Boel has made comments to various officers that “hooks” got him promoted, “just like everyone else.” 158. A disproportionate number of PBA delegates were promoted. This includes but is not limited to Jordon Esposito, John Garrone, John Rice, Pat Monihan, Mike Scivetti, and Ray Butler. 159. Members of the Asian Jade Society were promoted due to their association with said organization. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 19 of 245 PageID: 3405Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 20 of 246 PageID: 282 20 160. Members of the Bi State Coalition, such as President Aaron Woody and Lance Harris, were promoted due to their association with said organization. 161. Lisa Orlando is the niece of Frank Orlando, the head of the NYS insurance fraud division. 162. Chief security officer Belfoire indicated that the Port Authority received daily calls for promotion favors. 163. Various other officers who were promoted had donated monies to support various political organizations and/or candidates. 164. Various other officers who were promoted had personal and/or family connections to political figures, organizations and/or associations. 165. All of the above-referenced political figures and/or organizations facilitated the promotions of the above-referenced candidates, to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. E. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY ACADEMY CAPTAIN FERRIGNO 166. At all times material herein, Ferrigno was the Lieutenant responsible for the supervision of the Port Authority Police Academy (“the Academy”). 167. The Academy is a small division, with only roughly two to three dozen officers assigned there at any given time. 168. Ferrigno took photographs of the list of questions posed to candidates during the Qualification Review Meeting, as well as ideal and/or acceptable answers to said questions. 169. Ferrigno then disclosed these photographs – containing questions and answers for the Qualification Review Meeting – to certain officers who were presently assigned to the Academy and who had recently been assigned to the academy. 170. Upon information and belief, Ferrigno disclosed said information on multiple occasions from 2010 until he was forced to retire in May of 2012. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 20 of 245 PageID: 3406Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 21 of 246 PageID: 283 21 171. Upon information and belief, certain officers who were promoted received these questions and answers and used said information to gain an unfair advantage over Plaintiffs and the other promotional candidates. 172. As a result, officers from the academy were highly recommended for promotion and were indeed promoted at an exceedingly disproportionate rate compared to officers who had not been assigned to the Academy. 173. Upon information and belief, Defendant Breznicki, then a Captain in PAPD, witnessed Defendant Ferrigno taking the aforementioned photographs of examination materials. 174. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant Tagarelli also was aware of Defendant Ferrigno taking the aforementioned photographs of examination materials. 175. Upon information and belief, Breznicki and Tagarelli took no immediate action to report Ferrigno’s conduct or halt the dissemination of examination materials. 176. Finally, approximately ten (10) months later, Breznicki finally informed Inspector Sullivan of Ferrigno’ actions. Sullivan was also on Plaintiff Otero’s panel for her Qualification Review Meeting. 177. However, upon information and belief, neither Breznicki, Tagarelli nor Sullivan took any further subsequent action to report Ferrigno’s conduct or halt the dissemination of these examination materials to certain promotional candidates. 178. In fact, Sullivan was on at least one panel for Qualification Review Meetings – Plaintiff Otero’s panel. As such, he provided recommendations regarding promotion regarding officers, even though he was fully aware that certain officers had seen the questions and desired answers ahead of time, while others had not. 179. One-hundred (100) total officers have been promoted since July 8, 2011; as a result of Defendants’ aforementioned actions and dissemination of examination information, at least Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 21 of 245 PageID: 3407Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 22 of 246 PageID: 284 22 twenty-two (22) – or more - of these one-hundred (100) officers had been permanently and/or temporarily assigned to the Academy. F. FIRST PROMOTIONAL LIST – JULY 8, 2011 180. On June 15, 2011, the PAPD issued a promotional job posting, indicating that there were Sergeant positions available. This posting described the promotional process to be implemented for those officers already on the horizontal roster. 181. As was set out in the initial March 3, 2010 promotional announcement, the IG was still in charge of ensuring a random selection of officers from the Horizontal Roster to be evaluated and interviewed. 182. However, the June 15, 2011 posting changed the promotional policy that was set out in the 2010 promotional examination announcement. Specifically, this listing changed the promotional criteria with regard to absences. Under the new criteria, officers on the horizontal roster would only be eligible if they had 3 or fewer sick absence occasions and 11 or fewer sick days over two of the last three years. 183. Approximately one week later, on or about June 22, 2011, the PAPD issued a memorandum cancelling the June 15, 2011 job posting. 184. This memorandum stated the promotions would nonetheless be made, not based on the June 15, 2011 process or criteria, but ostensibly based on the process and criteria set forth in the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement. 185. As such, the PAPD continued with its promotional process. Upon information and belief, a list of 60 officers was randomly chosen to be evaluated and interviewed. 186. Thereafter, evaluations and interviews were held on or about June 25-27, 2011. 187. These interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 22 of 245 PageID: 3408Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 246 PageID: 2 5 23 panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 188. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 189. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. 190. On or about July 8, 2011, on behalf of the PAPD, Superintendent Fedorko promoted the following fourteen (14) officers to Sergeant. a. Jason Bailey b. Jisel Cruz c. Vincent DeSimone d. Scott Erickson e. James Graf f. William Hyland g. Edwin Manigbas h. Daniel McCabe i. Sean McNichols j. John Passarotti k. Kenyetta Pichardo l. Scot Pomerantz m. Jaime Sandoz n. Matthew Sheehan. 191. Upon information and belief, a number of the aforementioned individuals were ineligible to be promoted since they did not meet the aforementioned criteria required for promotion. 192. Upon information and belief, one of these promoted officers was ineligible to be promoted due to having pending disciplinary charges at the time of promotion. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 23 of 245 PageID: 3409Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 24 of 246 PageID: 286 24 193. The Port Authority Police Officer Collective bargaining Agreement provides that, "[a]ny candidate who would otherwise be eligible to be considered for promotion but who has been given a major disciplinary penalty . . . shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion until six months shall have elapsed after the completion of such penalty." Nevertheless, upon information and belief, said officer was promoted in violation of this provision. 194. Upon information and belief, another promoted officer was ineligible to be promoted, due to the fact that he was not recommended in his Qualification Review Meeting and was not recommended by his immediate supervisor as part of his promotional/developmental appraisal. 195. Upon information and belief, another promoted officer was ineligible to be promoted, as he was not originally randomly chosen to be evaluated and interviewed by the PRB. However, upon information and belief, said officer contacted an administrator within the Port Authority and was then placed on the list of 60 officers to be evaluated. 196. This violated Port Authority policy. The "General Rules and Regulations For all Port Authority Employees" and the "Guide to Port Authority Ethical Standards" state that "[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited". 197. Additionally, as will be discussed in further depth infra, John Ferrigno, then a Lieutenant assigned to supervising the Police Academy, provided certain candidates who had been assigned to the Police Academy with the questions to be posed during the Qualification Review Meeting and appropriate answers to these questions, thereby giving those officers an unfair advantage over officers as to whom such information was kept secret. 198. Moreover, Ferrigno and other PA officers permitted this information to be disseminated to other officers who had been assigned to the Academy. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 24 of 245 PageID: 3410Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 25 of 246 PageID: 287 25 199. As a result, upon information and belief, of the fourteen officers promoted, seven (7) either worked at the Academy or had recently been instructors at the Academy, at the time of, or just before, their promotion. 200. Upon information and belief, at least three (3) officers who were promoted received the aforementioned questions and answers, and were also directly involved in the dissemination of Defendant Ferrigno’s examination materials. 201. Upon information and belief, the Academy is one of the smallest commands of the Port Authority Police Department, and has only approximately two-to-three dozen full time police officers permanently and/or temporarily assigned to it at any given time. 202. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. G. SEPTEMBER 2011 UNLAWFUL PROMOTIONS 203. In September, 2011, the Port Authority again breached its promotion policy and procedures by promoting two police officers who served as drivers to Michael Fedorko, the Port Authority’s Superintendent of Police and Director of Public Safety, to the rank of Sergeant. 204. The two drivers who were promoted, Officers Coccodrilli and Masouridis, were on the Horizontal Roster, but were not on the list of randomly-chosen 60 officers to be evaluated, and they were not subjected to other selection requirements, such as the Qualification Review Meeting. The decision to promote the two drivers was, on information and belief, made by Michael Fedorko. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 25 of 245 PageID: 3411Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 26 of 246 PageID: 288 26 205. Subsequently, due to the impropriety of Coccodrilli and Masouridis’ promotions, the PAPD then demoted Coccodrilli and Masouridis from the rank of Sergeant and back to the rank of Officer. 206. However, as part of a settlement of litigation subsequently filed by Coccodrilli and Masouridis, PAPD agreed to place Coccodrilli and Masouridis on the next group of promotions. 207. As such, on July 29, 2013, Coccodrilli and Masouridis were promoted, effective August 5, 2013, along with twenty-seven (27) other officers. The July 29, 2013 promotional list will be discussed in further depth infra. H. SECOND PROMOTIONAL LIST – JANUARY 23, 2013 208. On November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 209. The November 21, 2012 changed the aforementioned original absence policy. This new policy, which was the same policy that had been set out in the cancelled June 15, 2011 promotional posting, was different from and significantly stricter than the initial absence policy from the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement, despite the fact that the March 3,2010 qualification criteria were still in effect. 210. Further, the November 21, 2012 contained contradictory language regarding the relevant time periods with regard to the eligibility criteria for attendance. The November 21, 2012 states in one area that attendance will be evaluated since January 1, 2007, but at another point it states that the relevant time period for attendance will be a rolling time period from November 2, 2009 to November 2, 2012. Likewise, this is contradictory to the relevant time period for the developmental/promotional appraisal, which was based on attendance and other performance from March 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 26 of 245 PageID: 3412Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 27 of 246 PageID: 289 27 211. Further, this announcement changed the promotional policy that was set out in the March 3, 2010 promotional examination announcement. Specifically, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the allegedly random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be considered for promotion. This was contrary to the procedure set forth in the original promotional announcement. 212. Despite the fact that the November 21, 2012 promotional announcement indicated that all candidates on the horizontal roster would be evaluated, the PAPD did not in fact evaluate all candidates prior to making promotions. Rather, PAPD evaluated only a portion of the candidates on the horizontal roster. Those candidates who were not interviewed included several plaintiffs. 213. These interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 214. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 215. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 27 of 245 PageID: 3413Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 28 of 246 PageID: 290 28 216. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. 217. As a result of this partial and incomplete evaluation and interview process, on or about January 23, 2013 the PAPD promoted the following thirteen (13) officers to the rank of Sergeant: a. Alvin Bahn b. Frank D’Allessandro c. Amy Desthers d. Daniel Dias e. Juan Diaz f. Anthony Fajardo g. Martin Jaycard h. Louis Mancuso i. Arelys Matos j. Andrea McCabe k. Christopher Napolitano l. Cameron Neilson m. Robert Zafonte. 218. Again, officers who had worked at the Police Academy were promoted in disproportionate numbers, as a result of the aforementioned manipulation by John Ferrigno. 219. Upon information and belief three (3) of the thirteen (13) officers promoted had been assigned to the academy and/or had recently been instructors for the academy. 220. Further, upon information and belief, two officers promoted were both related to high ranking officers in PAPD. 221. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. 222. Additionally, upon information and belief, another officer was only promoted after he contacted high ranking officers in PAPD, in an improper effort to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 28 of 245 PageID: 3414Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 29 of 246 PageID: 291 29 223. As noted above, this violated Port Authority policy. The "General Rules and Regulations For all Port Authority Employees" and the "Guide to Port Authority Ethical Standards" state that "[a]ttempts by employees to obtain preferential treatment through influence political or otherwise, are strictly prohibited". I. THIRD PROMOTIONAL LIST – JULY 29, 2013 224. Upon information and belief, in approximately February of 2013, the PAPD evaluated the remaining candidates on the horizontal roster. 225. These interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. 226. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 227. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 228. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. 229. After the evaluations and interviews were conducted, a list was promulgated on July 26, 2013 of every officer who received an overall recommendation rating of Highly Recommended, as well as those who received a rating of Recommended. 230. Upon information and belief, the PAPD had never previously promulgated such a list for any of the previous rounds of evaluations. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 29 of 245 PageID: 3415Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 30 of 246 PageID: 292 30 231. Of the forty-six (46) officers who received a rating of Highly Recommended, 12 of them – 26 percent – were from the Police Academy. Given the extremely small number of officers assigned to the academy at any given time, this was again a highly disproportionate amount of officers to have received a rating of Highly Recommended. 232. On July 29, 2013, Superintendent Fedorko issued a new promotional list, indicating that twenty-nine (29) officers would be promoted. These officers are the following: a. Robert Codner b. Brandie Jones c. Michael Kennedy d. Gabriel Scudese e. Phillip Ashby f. Robert Coccodrilli g. Matthew Coyne h. Melvin Cruz i. Michael DeMartino j. James Flanigan k. Fernando Garcia l. Lance Harrison m. David Howard n. Shawneequa Jackson o. Keith Kostancoski p. Richard Kuncken q. Victoria Lubeck r. Georgeos Masouridis s. Christopher McNerney t. Dennis Mitchell u. Behar Nezaj v. Lauren Previte w. Kevin Rotolo x. Miriam Rubio y. John Schelhon z. Michael Sherwood aa. Christopher Terranova bb. James Whelan cc. Aaron Woody. 233. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 30 of 245 PageID: 3416Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 31 of 246 PageID: 293 31 234. As explained above, two of these officers included Officers Coccodrilli and Masouridis, who had been placed there, in contravention of PAPD policies and as part of a settlement of a federal lawsuit, and were promoted. 235. Additionally, of the twenty-nine (29) officers promoted, ten (10) of them had been assigned to the academy and/or had recently been instructors at the academy. 236. Moreover, upon information and belief, at least one of these promoted officers did not meet the criteria for promotion. 237. Moreover, one of these promoted officers did not meet the criteria for promotion, but was promoted due to his status in the local Police Benevolent Association (PBA). 238. Additionally, upon information and belief, one promoted officer was promoted due to the fact that his close relative was a high-ranking supervisor in PAPD and was improperly provided information regarding the Qualification Review Meeting. J. FOURTH PROMOTIONAL LIST – JANUARY 15, 2014 239. On December 23, 2013, the Human Resources Department emailed twenty-seven individuals that they would be promoted. The following individuals were promoted: a. Brian Boel b. Jerome Cala c. Joseph Campagna d. Christian Cascante e. Kenneth Chin f. Michael Church g. Anthony Croce h. Sean Dale i. Suzanne Diaz j. Thomas Eddings k. Albert Faraday l. Kevin Gormley m. Patrick Lenihan n. Danielle Liantonio o. Thomas Lynch p. Christopher Martinez q. Terence McKee. r. Melissa McNair Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 31 of 245 PageID: 3417Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 32 of 246 PageID: 294 32 s. Joseph Opromalla. t. Leticia Perez u. Oscar Ruiz v. George Sinopidis w. Todd Smith x. Ryan Ust y. Frank Vogric z. Dennis Warnick aa. Regina Womack. 240. On January 15, 2014, using the list of Highly Recommended and Recommended officers from July 26, 2013, Superintendent Fedorko made twenty-seven promotions on behalf of PAPD. 241. However, two of the individuals who received the December 23, 2013 email were not on the promotional list. 242. In their place were two new officers who were not initially on the December 23, 2013 list of officers to be promoted. 243. These two officers were listed on the January 15, 2014 promotional list, and were promoted effective January 17, 2014. 244. Further, upon information and belief, another officers to be promoted had disciplinary charges pending at the time, but was promoted. 245. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. K. FIFTH PROMOTIONAL LIST – FEBRUARY 7, 2014 246. On February 7, 2014, Superintendent Fedorko, on behalf of the PAPD, issued another list of thirteen (13) officers to be promoted to Sergeant, effective February 18, 2013. The following officers were promoted: a. Thomas Bongiovanni Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 32 of 245 PageID: 3418Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 33 of 246 PageID: 295 33 b. Lyndon Charles c. Brendan Curley d. Barry Daskal e. John duffy f. Jordan Esposito g. Jerardo Fredella h. John Garrone i. Kevin Geary j. Joseph Greiner k. Kevin Kaczka l. Steven Krapf m. John Rice. 247. The promotional process and this list of officers to be promoted to Sergeant were also tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which favored said officers. 248. The interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 249. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 250. None of the Plaintiffs were included on this list to be promoted. 251. Between the five aforementioned promotional lists, a total ninety-six (96) officers have been promoted. L. SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS TO SERGEANT 252. Since the filing of the instant action on March 14, 2014, the Port Authority has made repeated promotions of officers to the rank of Sergeant. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 33 of 245 PageID: 3419Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 246 PageID: 2 6 34 253. On March 27, 2014, days after the filing of the instant action, Fedorko ordered the arbitrary promotion of eight (8) additional officers to the rank of Sergeant, but none of the plaintiffs were promoted. 254. In further manipulation of the promotional examination process since the inception of the instant action, the Port Authority subsequently sent officers to “Sergeant’s Supervisory Development Training”, in order to promote the Port Authority’s favored candidates. 255. On April 15, 2014, twenty-five (25) officers were arbitrarily chosen to be sent to Supervisory Development Training. No explanation was provided as to why said officers as opposed to others were chosen. 256. Subsequently, nineteen (19) of the twenty-five (25) officers who attended the supervisory development training have been promoted, as follows: 257. On August 5, 2014, the Port Authority arbitrarily promoted three (3) officers who attended said training, Officers Spollen, Burke and Gil, to the rank of Sergeant, but none of the Plaintiffs were promoted. 258. On September 22, 2014, Fedorko arbitrarily promoted one (1) officer who attended said training, Michael Brennan, to Sergeant. 259. On December 3, 2014, Fedorko arbitrarily promoted three (3) officers who attended said training, Christopher Duffy, Jeffrey Galub, and Lance Smith, to Sergeant. 260. On January 30, 2015, Fedorko again arbitrarily promoted one (1) officer who attended said training, Andrew Vannata, to Sergeant. 261. On February 20, 2015, the Port Authority arbitrarily promoted ten (10) officers who had attended said training to Sergeant, effective March 1, 2015. 262. Moreover, on March 11, 2015, Fedorko again arbitrarily promoted just one more officer who had attended said training, Craig Hoo, effective March 22, 2015. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 34 of 245 PageID: 3420Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 35 of 246 PageID: 97 35 263. In fact, every single officer promoted since April 15, 2014 had been chosen by the Port Authority to attend said training. 264. Access to this training was selectively provided, under the guise of bolstering the credentials of those whom the Port Authority wanted to promote, and attendance at this training became mandatory in order to be promoted. 265. However, the Port Authority has denied Plaintiffs the ability to attend said training and has not explained how or why officers are selected to attend said training. 266. Thus, by being denied access to said training, in addition to the other improprieties stated, the Plaintiffs have been denied the ability to be promoted. 267. In sum, since the filing of the instant action, Fedorko has promoted a total of twenty-seven (27) officers over seven different (7) occasions, but none of the plaintiffs have been promoted, even though all of them remain on the horizontal roster of officers eligible to be promoted. 268. The interviews were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of 2 members of the Port Authority Human Resources department and one PAPD superior officer. The H.R. members were not well-versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 269. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. 270. All of the Plaintiffs were and/or should have been eligible to be promoted from the August 5, 2014 promotional list. 271. By promoting additional individuals, the Port Authority has further violated the rights of all of the Plaintiffs, in the same manner as set forth above. As a result, Plaintiffs have not been promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 35 of 245 PageID: 3421Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 36 of 246 PageID: 98 36 272. Port Authority has made promotions on at least six occasions arising out of the 2010 exam, and have promoted over one-hundred (100) officers on these lists. 273. However, because of PAPD’s manipulation and changes to the promotional process and promotional criteria, Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to be promoted. 274. By promoting additional individuals, the Port Authority has further violated the rights of the Plaintiff. M. SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS TO LIEUTENANT – MARCH 4, 2014 AND AUGUST 19, 2014 275. On December 20, 2013, a horizontal roster for promotion to Lieutenant was promulgated. 276. Only Sergeants are eligible to be promoted to Lieutenant. 277. The December 20, 2013 Lieutenant’s Horizontal Roster contained a list of 26 Sergeants eligible for promotion to Lieutenant. 278. Of those 26 names, ten (10) were promoted to Sergeant from the July 8, 2011 promotional order, and six (6) were promoted from the January 23, 2013 promotional order. 279. 2113. On or about March 4, 2014, PAPD promoted eight (8) Sergeants to the rank of Lieutenant. 280. Six (6) of these Sergeants had been among the fourteen (14) officers who were promoted to Sergeant on or about July 8, 2011. These six (6) officers were Jason Bailey, Vincent DeSimone, Scott Erickson, Daniel McCabe, Kenyetta Pichardo, and Jaime Sandoz. 281. All six of these officers had applied for promotion from the rank of Officer to Sergeant through the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement, and said officers had been part of the first group of officers to be promoted on July 8, 2011 as part of this promotional examination process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 36 of 245 PageID: 3422Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 37 of 246 PageID: 99 37 282. Additionally, a number of Sergeants on December 20, 2013 horizontal roster had been improperly promoted to Sergeant and/or ineligible for promotion to Sergeant, let alone Lieutenant. 283. Further, on August 19, 2014, Michael Fedorko – on behalf of the PAPD – issued another promotional list. On this list were four (4) Sergeants: Robert Jones, Scot Pomerantz, Kyu-Sau Rhee, and Michael Chung. 284. Scot Pomerantz was on the July 8, 2011 promotional list for Sergeant and was promoted at that time. 285. Moreover, on August 29, 2014, PAPD issued a new promotional announcement for the rank of Lieutenant. 286. Because Plaintiffs were not promoted to Sergeant, they have been ineligible to be promoted to Lieutenant and are ineligible to be promoted to Lieutenant in the future under the August 29, 2014 promotional announcement. 287. Due to Plaintiffs not being promoted as part of the July 8, 2011 promotional order or subsequent promotional orders, Plaintiffs there therefore denied subsequent promotion to the rank of Lieutenant. N. PLAINTIFF SHARON OTERO 288. Plaintiff Sharon Otero entered the New Your Police Department on or about July 7, 1999 as a police officer. At all times material until September 27, 2002, Plaintiff served as a NYPD police officer. 289. On September 11, 2001 (hereinafter, “9/11”), in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Lower Manhattan, Plaintiff served as a first responder on behalf of NYPD. Specifically, on 9/11, Plaintiff was in charge of pedestrian evacuation from Lower Manhattan to Williamsburg, Brooklyn over the Williamsburg Bridge. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 37 of 245 PageID: 3423Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 38 of 246 PageID: 300 38 290. Further, Plaintiff further worked at the World Trade Center site as part of the recovery, clean-up and security on thirty-seven (37) different dates following 9/11. 291. As a result of being in the vicinity of the World Trade Center on 9/11 and thereafter, Plaintiff developed chronic and/or persistent medical problems, including but not limited to chronic rhinitis (also known as irritant-induced nasal inflammation), chronic sinusitis, nasal and sinus congestion, and postnasal discharge. 292. Additionally, for a temporary period following 9/11 and the subsequent recovery and clean-up effort, Plaintiff suffered eye, throat and skin irritation. 293. As such, Plaintiff has been entered into the WTC Treatment Program and officially registered by the New York Worker’s Compensation Board as a 9/11 First Responder who developed upper respiratory and other medical problems from her exposure to hazardous substances during the rescue, recovery and/or clean-up operations following the World Trade Center attack. 294. On or about September 27, 2002, Plaintiff left the NYPD to become a police officer for the Port Authority. At all times material since September 27, 2002, Plaintiff has served as a Port Authority Police Officer. 295. Plaintiff was initially assigned to the pool. 296. On or about October 3, 2004, Plaintiff was transferred to the Holland Tunnel. 297. On or about September 7, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred to LaGuardia Airport. 298. On or about July 12, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to the World Trade Center. At all times material since July 12, 2009, Plaintiff has been assigned to and has worked at the World Trade Center site. 299. Since becoming employed with PAPD, Plaintiff has completed a number of training course and obtained various certificates related to her duties as PAPD officer. 300. Plaintiff enrolled in the 2010 Sergeant’s Promotional Examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 38 of 245 PageID: 3424Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 39 of 246 PageID: 301 39 301. On December 1, 2010, Plaintiff learned that she received a passing score of 83% on the written examination. 302. As such, Plaintiff was eligible to be chosen to proceed to the next examination section. 303. On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff was randomly chosen for the first round of evaluations and interviews. 304. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement. 305. Interviews, formally known as Qualification Review Meetings, were conducted from June 25, 2011 to June 27, 2011. 306. Plaintiff’s interview panel consisted of Inspector Brian Sullivan, Captain John McClave, and a female from Human Resources. 307. On or about August 10, 2011, the PAPD issued a letter to Plaintiff outlining her results of her interview. Plaintiff received the highest rating, “Outstanding”, in four (4) of the seven (7) categories, as well as “Recommended” in her promotional/developmental appraisal by her immediate supervisor. 308. However, Plaintiff received an “unacceptable” rating for attendance, and a rating of “Needs Development” for her Qualifications Review Meeting. 309. The appraisal attached to the March 3, 2010 promotional announcement was not used for Plaintiff. This March 3, 2010 appraisal form was consistent with the attendance and eligibility standards set out in the March 3, 2010 announcement. 310. Rather, the appraisal form that was used for Plaintiff required Plaintiff to meet the more stringent attendance standards set out in the June 15, 2011 announcement, even though the June 15, 2011 announcement had been cancelled. 311. Because the new attendance standard was used, Plaintiff received an “unacceptable” for attendance in her promotional evaluation. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 39 of 245 PageID: 3425Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 40 of 246 PageID: 302 40 312. As a result, despite being recommended by her immediate supervisor and receiving a rating of “outstanding” in four categories, Plaintiff was nonetheless given an overall recommendation of “Not recommended” by her interview panel. 313. As PAPD was aware, Plaintiff’s sick absences were due to Plaintiff having sustained chronic medical conditions as a result of serving as a first responder on 9/11 and assisting in the clean-up and recovery at WTC in the aftermath of 9/11. 314. As a result of Plaintiff receiving an overall recommendation of “Not Recommended”, when 14 promotions were made on or about July 8, 2011, Plaintiff was not chosen for promotion, and was placed back on the horizontal roster. 315. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 316. On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff was on the Horizontal Roster, and was therefore eligible for promotion. 317. However, as previously set forth, this November 21, 2012 announcement required “initial screening criteria” that was different from the screening criteria in the original promotional announcement. 318. These new initial screening criteria required, inter alia, that the candidate have three or fewer “sick absence occasions” in two of the last three years, and eleven or fewer “sick days” in two of the last three years, which was different from the original promotional requirement. 319. This was a dramatically higher standard than the original criteria – which Plaintiff met – that only disqualified an officer if he or she had 5 or more sick occasions or 13 or more days lost in the 12 months prior to the date of the promotional announcement. 320. As a result of this change, Plaintiff did not meet the new criteria for maximum number of absences. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 40 of 245 PageID: 3426Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 41 of 246 PageID: 303 41 321. On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the HR Department of the Port Authority stating that, due to her absences, Plaintiff would not be eligible to receive a qualification meeting review or further proceed in the promotional process. As such, she was not eligible for further consideration for promotion. 322. Plaintiff was eligible initially for promotion. However, because the PAPD changed the promotional criteria with regard to number of sick absences in the middle of the promotional process, Plaintiff was no longer eligible for promotion under the PAPD’s new policy. 323. On or about July 18, 2013, Plaintiff Otero received a memorandum from Gloria Frank, Port Authority’s Commanding Officer at the World Trade Center, stating that Plaintiff had incurred too many absences, and that, as a result, Plaintiff would receive sick leave counseling. The absences referenced in Commanding Officer Frank’s memorandum were incurred due to the injuries and conditions that Plaintiff sustained at the World Trade Center on and in the aftermath of 9/11. 324. Plaintiff has received one or more sick counseling memos, related to her injuries and conditions that Plaintiff sustained at the World Trade Center on and in the aftermath of 9/11. 325. To date, Plaintiff has not been promoted and has not been permitted to proceed to evaluation and interview since the new disability criteria was implemented. 326. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 327. Due to the improper manipulation of the promotional process by Defendants, as well as a discriminatory actions of defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 41 of 245 PageID: 3427Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 42 of 246 PageID: 304 42 328. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 329. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 330. Additionally, Plaintiff Otero filed a charge of discrimination on the basis of disability with the EEOC, based on the aforementioned conduct by Defendants. On January 16, 2015, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter, which Otero’s counsel received on January 22, 2015. O. PLAINTIFF STEVE L. PISCIOTTA 331. At all times material since December 23, 2002, Plaintiff Steve L. Pisciotta has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 332. On December 26, 2003, Plaintiff Pisciotta entered the PA Academy, which lasted approximately six (6) months. 333. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 334. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Newark International Airport. 335. Thereafter, in Spring of 2009, Plaintiff was assigned to the George Washington Bridge (“GWB”), connecting Fort Lee, New Jersey to the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York. 336. At all times material, Plaintiff has been assigned to the GWB. 337. Shortly after being assigned to GWB, Plaintiff sought to pull over vehicles and arrest the drivers of said vehicles for toll evasion. This practice would be targeted specifically towards drivers who did not have an “EZ-Pass” transponder yet drove through the designated EZ-Pass lanes, so as to avoid having to pay the toll to enter Manhattan via the GWB. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 42 of 245 PageID: 3428Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 43 of 246 PageID: 305 43 338. However, after informing his supervisors of his plan, Plaintiff was ordered by his supervisor not to make any such arrests. 339. Plaintiff continued to request the ability to make said arrests, given the fact that he reasonably believed that the drivers in question were committing theft and/or fraud. 340. Due to the fact that Plaintiff was attempting to halt criminal conduct, a local Fort Lee prosecutor instructed that officers should in fact make said traffic stops and arrests of toll evaders.. 341. As a result, Plaintiff made several arrests of toll evaders and received media and news attention for same. 342. Additionally, Plaintiff made the arrest of a toll evader who was wanted for murder in Tennessee. For this arrest, Plaintiff received a commendation. 343. Further, during his tenure as police officer with PA, Plaintiff made numerous arrests, issued numerous summonses, and made several court appearances to testify against individuals who allegedly had violated the law. 344. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 345. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 346. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 347. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 348. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he passed the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 349. Plaintiff was not initially randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 43 of 245 PageID: 3429Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 44 of 246 PageID: 306 44 350. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 351. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 352. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in February of 2013. 353. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 354. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Guarnieri. 355. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 356. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 357. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 358. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 359. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 360. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at the George Washington Bridge. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 44 of 245 PageID: 3430Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 246 PageID: 7 45 361. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 362. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014.. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 363. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 364. As will be explained below, upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 365. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 366. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 367. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 45 of 245 PageID: 3431Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 46 of 246 PageID: 08 46 P. PLAINTIFF VERONICA ESCOBAR 368. Plaintiff Veronica Escobar entered the New York Police Department as a police officer on or about July 1, 1998. 369. On or about September 27, 2002, Plaintiff joined the PAPD as a police officer. 370. Plaintiff was first assigned to the “pool”, and was then transferred to the Port Authority Bus Terminal and to the PATH station below the World Trade Center. 371. In approximately 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to the George Washington Bridge. 372. At all times material since approximately 2009, Plaintiff has been assigned to the GWB, on both the New Jersey and New York sides of the bridge. 373. On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff received notice of pending disciplinary charges for an incident that occurred four months earlier. This notice stated that on October 22, 2009, at the corner of East 18th Street and Park Avenue in New York, Plaintiff allegedly violated PA Rules of Conduct Section II, Paragraph I, “A member will be held responsible for any act or omission which is any way is prejudicial to good order or discipline, or reflects upon the good name or reputation or adversely affects its interests or those of the federal public, whether or not such act or omission is specifically mentioned in these or other rules or regulations of the Port Authority.” 374. However, this notice did not actually state what acts or omissions that Plaintiff had engaged in. 375. This notice also indicated that Plaintiff would receive an official reprimand as a penalty. 376. A reprimand is the lowest form of discipline that a PAPD officer can receive. Likewise, a reprimand does not constitute Major Disciplinary Action sufficient to disqualify a candidate for promotion pursuant to the PPD collective bargaining agreement. 377. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff was permitted to take the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 46 of 245 PageID: 3432Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 47 of 246 PageID: 09 47 378. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 379. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff was notified via letter that she scored a passing grade of 81% on the written examination, and thus would be placed on the “horizontal roster” list for promotion. 380. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen from the horizontal roster in interview rounds 1 or 2. 381. As previously set forth, on or about November 21, 2012, the Human Resources department of the PA issued a Promotion Opportunity Announcement for all officers remaining on the Horizontal Roster. This announcement indicated that these candidates would be initially screened as to several criteria, including but not limited to pending discipline, the number of sick absences, and whether the officer was the subject of civilians and/or internal affairs complaints in the last 12 months. 382. Plaintiff was provided with her promotional/developmental appraisal by her immediate supervisor. Plaintiff received a rating of “Highly Recommended” for this appraisal. 383. Upon information and belief, on or about February 4, 2013, the Port Authority sent letters to all officers remaining on the horizontal roster, indicating whether or not said officer was eligible for an interview, based on the initial screening criteria. 384. In a letter from the Port Authority Human Resources Department to Plaintiff dated February 4, 2013, Plaintiff was informed that she was not eligible for an interview, for the sole reason that she had pending discipline at the time, despite the fact that the discipline in question should not have disqualified her for promotion. 385. As such, because of the pending disciplinary action against her – wherein she was provided inadequate notice of the reason for said discipline – plaintiff was not permitted to proceed to the interview stage of the examination process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 47 of 245 PageID: 3433Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 48 of 246 PageID: 10 48 386. Plaintiff was a highly decorated officer who consistently received high performance reviews and received several commendations and awards. These included the following: a. Receiving a “Police Division Group Citation” by the Superintendent of Police, Michael A. Fedorko, for actions taken by Plaintiff on July 16, 2012 in halting a suicide attempt at the George Washington Bridge; b. Awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for her actions in halting another suicide attempt on or about April 24, 2011 by grabbing the individual from the outside rail of the GWB and wrestling him back to the walkway. Her actions were called “heroic” and “keeping with the highest traditions of the Port Authority Police” by her superior, Lieutenant Thomas Michaels; c. Receiving a commendation for her halting of a suicide attempt on the GWB on December 11, 2004; d. Receiving a commendation for taking action to arrest eight perpetrators of a robbery and assault of four individuals on July 17, 2005; and e. Receiving a memorandum of appreciation from Virginia Trubek, Superintendent of the Port Authority Way & Structures Division on July 12, 2005 for Plaintiff’s assistance with a power outage at Journal Square. 387. Upon information and belief, based on the above, had Plaintiff been permitted to continue to the interview stage, Plaintiff would have been recommended and/or highly recommended by the interview panel for promotion. 388. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 389. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Q. PLAINTIFF JOHN BERARDI 390. At all times material since December of 2002, Plaintiff Berardi has been a police officer with the Port Authority. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 48 of 245 PageID: 3434Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 49 of 246 PageID: 11 49 391. In December of 2002, Plaintiff entered the PA Academy, which lasted approximately six (6) months. 392. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 393. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Newark International Airport. 394. Thereafter, in the summer of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the “Pool”. 395. From October of 2004 to March of 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 396. From March of 2008 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 397. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 398. Plaintiff has received commendations during his employment with the Port Authority, including a commendation in 2011 based on a 2009 apprehension of a suspect with a loaded handgun which had been used in a home invasion, shooting and carjacking. 399. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 400. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 401. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 402. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing score of 86% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 403. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 404. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 405. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 49 of 245 PageID: 3435Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 50 of 246 PageID: 12 50 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 406. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in approximately February of 2013. 407. For his performance appraisal by his supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “recommended”. 408. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. 409. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 410. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 411. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 412. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 413. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 414. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his supervisor at PATH. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 415. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 416. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014.. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 50 of 245 PageID: 3436Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 51 of 246 PageID: 13 51 capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 417. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 418. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 419. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 420. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 421. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. R. PLAINTIFF CHRIS DEPRISCO 422. Plaintiff DePrisco served as a police officer for the NYPD from approximately August 30, 1993 until February 5, 2001. 423. At all times material since February 5, 2001, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 51 of 245 PageID: 3437Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 52 of 246 PageID: 14 52 424. On February 5, 2001, Plaintiff entered an academy in Sea Girt, NJ, which lasted until approximately June of 2001. 425. Plaintiff’s initial assignment in June of 2001 was at PATH, which lasted until October of 2002. 426. From October of 2002 until October of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 427. From October of 2004 until April of 2008, Plaintiff was again assigned to PATH. 428. From April of 2008 to the present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the K-9 Unit. 429. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 430. Plaintiff has received multiple “blue and white” awards for excellent police duty. These included being awarded for his role in catching and arresting the suspect in an assault which had been classified as a possible hate crime, and for his role in catching and arresting a suspect who was alleged to have committed several burglaries and terroristic threats and was wanted by the FBI for making bomb threats shortly after 9/11. 431. Plaintiff was also given a World Trade Center Service medal for his service on and after 9/11. 432. Plaintiff did not receive notice of the 2010 written examination for promotion to the rank of Sergeant. 433. Rather, 3 days before the deadline to sign up for the exam, while Plaintiff was out with a Line-Of-Duty injury, Plaintiff’s PBA delegate informed him of the exam. 434. Plaintiff then signed up for and took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. He was given the materials to the exam three days before he took the written exam. 435. However, due to the lack of notice, he took the written exam one week after everyone else took the written exam. 436. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 52 of 245 PageID: 3438Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 53 of 246 PageID: 15 53 437. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 74% and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 438. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 439. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 440. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 441. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in April of 2013. 442. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 443. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Hardy. 444. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 445. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 446. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 447. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 448. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 53 of 245 PageID: 3439Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 54 of 246 PageID: 16 54 449. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at the K-9 Unit. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 450. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 451. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 452. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 453. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 454. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 455. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 54 of 245 PageID: 3440Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 55 of 246 PageID: 317 55 456. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. S. PLAINTIFF MICHAEL MOLLAHAN 457. From July 1, 1998 until July 15, 2002, Plaintiff Mollahan served as a police officer in the NYPD. 458. At all times material since July 15, 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 459. On July 15, 2002, Plaintiff entered the PA Academy, which he completed in September of 2002. 460. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 461. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was in the Pool, which lasted from September of 2002 until August of 2003. 462. From August of 2003 until October of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport. 463. From October of 2003 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 464. Plaintiff has not received any official discipline during his employment with the Port Authority. 465. Plaintiff received a Unit Citation arising out of an arrest in 2011. 466. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 467. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 468. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 55 of 245 PageID: 3441Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 6 of 246 PageID: 3 8 56 469. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he passed the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 470. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 471. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 472. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 473. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in approximately February of 2013. 474. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 475. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Rotolo. 476. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 477. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 478. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 479. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 480. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 56 of 245 PageID: 3442Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 57 of 246 PageID: 319 57 481. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at PATH. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 482. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 483. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 484. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 485. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 486. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 487. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 57 of 245 PageID: 3443Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 58 of 246 PageID: 320 58 488. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. T. PLAINTIFF JASON MALICE 489. From September 10, 1998 until September 27, 2002, Plaintiff Malice served as a police officer in NYPD. 490. At all times material since September 27, 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 491. On September 27, 2002, Plaintiff entered the PA Academy, which lasted until approximately December of 2002. 492. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 493. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Pool, from December of 2002 until August of 2003. 494. Thereafter, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport from August of 2003 to January of 2004. 495. Thereafter, from January of 2004 to February of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 496. Thereafter, from February of 2004 to February of 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 497. Thereafter, in February of 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to the George Washington Bridge (“GWB”), connecting Fort Lee, New Jersey to the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York. 498. At all times material since February of 2008, Plaintiff has been assigned to the GWB. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 58 of 245 PageID: 3444Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 59 of 246 PageID: 321 59 499. Additionally, due to the aforementioned improper conduct by Defendants, which caused a disproportionate number of officers assigned to the academy to be promoted, the academy developed a shortage of officers. 500. Therefore, the academy is in need of temporary instructors, and Plaintiff was chosen to be a temporary instructor at the academy. 501. As such, Plaintiff’s daily responsibilities fluctuate between his official assignment at GWB and his role as temporary instructor for the academy. 502. As part of his assignment at GWB, Plaintiff has made a number of arrests of drivers who evade tolls at the bridge. This practice is targeted specifically towards drivers who did not have an “EZ-Pass” transponder yet drove through the designated EZ-Pass lanes, so as to avoid having to pay the toll to enter Manhattan via the GWB. 503. Plaintiff makes these arrests due to the fact that he reasonably believes that the drivers in question are committing theft and/or fraud. 504. As a result, Plaintiff has made several arrests of toll evaders and received media and news attention for same. Plaintiff has also been recognized in Port Authority press releases regarding the arrests of toll evaders, has been recognized by the Chief of Police for his efforts, and has conducted interviews for national and local media outlets. 505. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 506. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 507. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 508. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 509. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 83% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 59 of 245 PageID: 3445Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 60 of 246 PageID: 322 60 510. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 511. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 512. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 513. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in February of 2013. 514. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. In fact, in a previous appraisal by his supervisor, he also received a rating of Highly Recommended. 515. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Guarnieri. 516. Plaintiff was informed the night before the panel interview that the interview would be taking place the next day. 517. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 518. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 519. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 520. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 60 of 245 PageID: 3446Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 61 of 246 PageID: 323 61 521. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 522. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at the George Washington Bridge. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 523. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 524. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 525. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 526. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 527. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 61 of 245 PageID: 3447Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 62 of 246 PageID: 324 62 528. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 529. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. U. PLAINTIFF BRYAN SEELEY 530. At all times material since December 23, 2002, Plaintiff Seeley has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 531. On December 23, 2002, Plaintiff entered the PA Academy, which lasted approximately six (6) months. 532. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 533. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Newark International Airport, from approximately May of 2003 to June of 2003. 534. Thereafter, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool, from June of 2003 to February or March of 2007. 535. Thereafter, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH, from February or March of 2007 to present. 536. At all times material since February or March of 2007, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 537. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 538. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. This was the first time that Plaintiff was eligible for promotion to the rank of Sergeant. 539. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 62 of 245 PageID: 3448Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 63 of 246 PageID: 325 63 540. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 541. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he passed the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 542. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 543. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 544. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 545. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in February of 2013. 546. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 547. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Harper. 548. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 549. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 550. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 551. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 63 of 245 PageID: 3449Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 64 of 246 PageID: 326 64 552. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 553. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at PATH. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 554. Plaintiff was not provided with any notice of any rights to appeal the decision of the panel. 555. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 556. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 557. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 558. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 559. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 64 of 245 PageID: 3450Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 65 of 246 PageID: 327 65 560. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 561. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. V. PLAINTIFF RALPH SALLEMI 562. Plaintiff Sallemi served as a police officer for the NYPD from July of 1996 to September of 2002. 563. At all times material since September of 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 564. In September of 2002, Plaintiff entered the PA Academy, which lasted until November of 2002. 565. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 566. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Bus Terminal, from December of 2002 to March of 2007. 567. Plaintiff received a commendation for his service at the Bus Terminal. 568. Thereafter, from March of 2007 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 569. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 570. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 571. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 572. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 65 of 245 PageID: 3451Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 66 of 246 PageID: 328 66 573. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he passed the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 574. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 575. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 576. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 577. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in approximately the spring of 2013. 578. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 579. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from 580. Human Resources and a one high-ranking officer in the PAPD. 581. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 582. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 583. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 584. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 585. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 66 of 245 PageID: 3452Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 7 of 246 PageID: 3 9 67 586. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at PATH. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 587. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 588. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 589. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 590. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 591. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 592. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 67 of 245 PageID: 3453Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 68 of 246 PageID: 3 0 68 593. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. W. PLAINTIFF DAVID CORTES 594. From October 28, 1994 to July 15, 2002, Plaintiff Cortes served as a police officer for the NYPD. 595. Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor’s degree from Adelphi University in May 1994 in History and Secondary Education. 596. At all times material since July 15, 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 597. On July 15, 2002, Plaintiff entered the PA Academy. 598. Plaintiff’s training in the academy pre-dated Ferrigno’ aforementioned conduct. 599. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at LaGuardia Airport. 600. Plaintiff’s next assignment was at the Pool. Plaintiff spent approximately one (1) year assigned to the Pool. 601. Thereafter, beginning in approximately June of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport. 602. At all times material since approximately June of 2004, Plaintiff has been assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport. 603. Plaintiff has served on a special detail at the airport whereby he and another officer serve as Fire Response. 604. In the summer of 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to the patrol car operator (PCO) detail, as well as in the Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighter (ARFF) Detail at Newark Airport. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 68 of 245 PageID: 3454Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 69 of 246 PageID: 331 69 605. Plaintiff obtained a Master of Arts degree from Seton Hall University, in May 2009, in Human Resource Management. 606. As of As of January 1, 2014, Plaintiff has been assigned exclusively to Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighter (ARFF) Detail at Newark Airport. 607. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 608. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 609. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 610. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing score of 79% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 611. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 612. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 613. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 614. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in 2013. 615. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “recommended”. 616. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Harper. 617. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 69 of 245 PageID: 3455Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 70 of 246 PageID: 332 70 618. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 619. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 620. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 621. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 622. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at Newark Liberty International Airport. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 623. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 624. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 625. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 70 of 245 PageID: 3456Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 71 of 246 PageID: 333 71 626. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 627. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 628. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 629. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. X. PLAINTIFF LUIS HERRERA 630. From 1997 to 2002, Plaintiff Herrera served as a police officer for NYPD. 631. At all times material since September 27, 2002, Plaintiff Herrera has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 632. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Pool. 633. From 2004 to 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 634. From 2007 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 635. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 636. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 637. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 638. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 71 of 245 PageID: 3457Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 72 of 246 PageID: 334 72 639. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he passed the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 640. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 641. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 642. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 643. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in July of 2013. 644. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “Highly Recommended” in 2011 and “Recommended” in 2012. 645. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Harper. 646. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 647. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 648. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 649. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 650. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 72 of 245 PageID: 3458Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 73 of 246 PageID: 335 73 651. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended and recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at PATH. 652. These recommendations by his immediate supervisors were submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, were in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 653. After seeing that he was not on the Highly Recommended / Recommended list, Plaintiff requested his Qualification Review Meeting results from Stella Cicchetti in Human Resources for the Port Authority. 654. In response, Plaintiff received a letter dated April 29, 2014 from Michael Ford indicating Plaintiff’s results. According to said letter, Plaintiff’s evaluation results were the following: Breadth of Experience: Acceptable; Supervisor’s Appraisal: Recommended; Qualifications Review Meeting: Fully Competent; Attendance: Needs Development; Discipline: Outstanding; CCIU Complaints: Outstanding; Investigations: Outstanding. 655. Plaintiff received a negative rating in Attendance, even though his attendance record was considered “standard” by the PAPD. 656. Other than in the attendance category, Plaintiff received positive ratings in all categories. 657. However, as a result of Plaintiff’s rating for attendance, Plaintiff received an overall rating of “Not Recommended”. 658. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 659. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 660. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 73 of 245 PageID: 3459Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 74 of 246 PageID: 336 74 manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 661. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 662. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 663. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Y. PLAINTIFF ANGEL CORREA 664. From 1998 to 2002, Plaintiff Correa served as a police officer for NYPD. 665. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 666. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Pool, until 2004. 667. In 2004, Plaintiff was transferred to the Newark Liberty International Airport. 668. Later in 2004, Plaintiff was transferred to PATH. At all times material since that time, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 669. Plaintiff has received two commendations for halting robberies in progress. 670. Plaintiff also has a criminal justice degree from John Jay College, Class of 1997. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 74 of 245 PageID: 3460Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 75 of 246 PageID: 337 75 671. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 672. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 673. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 674. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 675. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 94% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 676. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 677. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 678. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 679. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in 2013. 680. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 681. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Gloria Frank. 682. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 683. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 684. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 75 of 245 PageID: 3461Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 76 of 246 PageID: 338 76 685. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 686. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 687. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at PATH. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 688. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 689. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 690. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 691. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 692. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 76 of 245 PageID: 3462Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 77 of 246 PageID: 339 77 693. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 694. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 695. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Z. PLAINTIFF JOSEPH ARIAS 696. From June 30, 1995 to 2002, Plaintiff Joseph Arias served as a police officer for NYPD, including in the rank of Sergeant. 697. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 698. Plaintiff’s initial assignment was at the Pool, until 2004. 699. In 2004, Plaintiff was transferred to PATH. At all times material since 2004, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 700. Plaintiff has received a commendation for halting an attempted murder in progress in approximately 2006 or 2007. 701. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his entire history with the Port Authority. 702. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 703. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 704. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 705. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 77 of 245 PageID: 3463Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 8 of 246 PageID: 340 78 706. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 707. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 708. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 709. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in July of 2013. 710. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. Plaintiff was subsequently given another appraisal by his immediate supervisor, and was again given the rating of Highly Recommended. 711. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Ray Bryant. 712. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 713. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 714. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 715. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 716. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 78 of 245 PageID: 3464Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 79 of 246 PageID: 3 1 79 717. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors at PATH. These recommendations by his immediate supervisors were submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, were in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 718. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 719. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 720. After seeing that he was not on the Highly Recommended / Recommended list, Plaintiff requested his Qualification Review Meeting results from Stella Cicchetti in Human Resources for the Port Authority. However, Plaintiff never received a response to said request. 721. Plaintiff then contacted Michael Ford of the PA Human Resources Department for his results. 722. Plaintiff subsequently received a letter dated April 29, 2014 from Michael Ford of the PA Human Resources Department. This letter provided a summary of Plaintiff’s scores on each category of the evaluation. 723. According to this letter, Plaintiff received Highly Recommended on his Police Sergeant Promotional/Developmental Appraisal, Acceptable on Breadth of Experience/Exposure, and Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 79 of 245 PageID: 3465Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 80 of 246 PageID: 342 80 Outstanding on Attendance, Discipline, CCIU Complaints, and Investigations. However, for the Qualifications Review Meeting, Plaintiff received a rating of “Needs Development”. 724. As a result of the Qualifications Review Meting rating, which was Plaintiff’s only negative rating in the entire evaluation process, Plaintiff was given an Overall Recommendation rating of “Not Recommended.” 725. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 726. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 727. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 728. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. AA. PLAINTIFF MICHAEL ORTIZ 729. From 1994 to 1997, Plaintiff Michael Ortiz served as a Corrections Officer at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility. 730. From 1997 to 2002, Plaintiff served as a police officer for NYPD. 731. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 732. From 2002 to 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 733. Thereafter, Plaintiff was assigned to the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Unit at Newark Airport. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 80 of 245 PageID: 3466Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 81 of 246 PageID: 343 81 734. In 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia, still while on the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Unit. 735. Thereafter, from 2007 to 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 736. From 2008 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the George Washington Bridge. 737. In 2009, while Plaintiff was assigned to the George Washington Bridge, Lt. Raymond Manfredi addressed roll call and informed the officers that they would have a new commanding officer, Inspector White, who upon information and belief is African-American. Manfredi then stated that “we’re gonna have ‘Boys In The Hood’ up in here”, referring to the fact Inspector White was African-American. 738. Plaintiff believed that this was a racially disparaging remark, and did not laugh when Manfredi made this comment. Manfredi then fixed his gaze on Plaintiff because Plaintiff was not laughing at this comment. 739. Immediately this incident, Lt. Manfredi repeatedly provided Plaintiff with the least desirable posts, in contravention to the typical method of assigning officers based on seniority. 740. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 741. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 742. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 743. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 83% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 744. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 745. On or about November 5, 2011, while Plaintiff was assigned to the George Washington Bridge, Plaintiff came in for his assigned shift, but was five minutes late for roll call. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 81 of 245 PageID: 3467Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 82 of 246 PageID: 344 82 746. When he arrived, Lt. Manfredi, who was Plaintiff’s supervisor at the time, angrily told Plaintiff that he (Plaintiff) would be written up for tardiness. Lt. Manfredi, during this conversation, spoke loudly at Plaintiff and in a condescending tone, while in earshot of other officers. 747. Two days later, on Plaintiff’s day off, Plaintiff received several phone calls from a Staff Lieutenant. This Lieutenant informed Plaintiff that he was to report the next day to the Port Authority Medical Division, earlier than his normal shift. The Lieutenant indicated that Plaintiff would receive further instructions at the Medical Division. The Lieutenant also indicated that she could not elaborate as to why he was being ordered to report to Medical. 748. Plaintiff reported to Medical the next day, as ordered. 749. At medical, Plaintiff was informed that he had been ordered by Captain Ferrigno to undergo a medical and psychological evaluation. This evaluation was contrary to policy, in that it was ordered for purposes of retaliation and for no legitimate medical purpose. 750. Doctor Fisher, a physician at the Medical Division, cleared Plaintiff medically and then told Plaintiff to report to the Port Authority’s Psychological Services in Jersey City, NJ. 751. Plaintiff reported to Psychological Services and was psychologically evaluated by Dr. Frances at that time. Plaintiff was then cleared by Psychological Services. 752. At that time, Plaintiff was then ordered to report to headquarters to meet with Captain Ferrigno. Plaintiff did as he was ordered. 753. During this meeting with Captain Ferrigno, Ferrigno stated that he did not know the specifics of the incident with Lt. Manfredi, but that Plaintiff had handled himself incorrectly during this incident. Ferrigno also stated that Superintendent Fedorko did not “take to insubordination very well”, and this was a very serious offense for which Plaintiff could be terminated. Captain Ferrigno at that time permitted Plaintiff to report to duty. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 82 of 245 PageID: 3468Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 83 of 246 PageID: 345 83 754. The next day, Plaintiff began to write an EEO Complaint. Plaintiff filed said complaint on November 11, 2011. This complaint referenced Lt. Manfredi’s racially disparaging remarks and other conduct by Manfredi. This complaint also indicated that Plaintiff was discriminated against based on ethnicity/national origin. 755. Immediately after Plaintiff filed his EEO complaint, Manfredi retaliated against Plaintiff. 756. Manfredi’s conducted towards Plaintiff escalated, and the frequency at which Plaintiff was denied desirable posts by Manfredi increased substantially. 757. On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Captain Darcy Licorish. This Complaint, which contained the subject “Retaliation for EEO Complaint”, alleged that Lt. Manfredi had retaliated against Plaintiff for making said EEO Complaint. 758. This retaliation included being routinely assigned to undesirable posts, despite the fact that he had more seniority than other officers who were not assigned to these posts. Plaintiff also alleged that there was a pattern of being assigned to undesirable posts or squads whenever roll calls were prepared by Lt. Manfredi. 759. Upon information and belief, and as set out in the February 22, 2012 letter to Captain Licorish, Lt. Manfredi admitted to another officer than he was assigning Plaintiff to undesirable posts due to Plaintiff’s EEO complaint. 760. Manfredi also attempted to have Plaintiff written up and disciplined unjustifiably. 761. Manfredi instructed a Sergeant, who was Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor at the time, to write Plaintiff up for purportedly being off of his post. However, Plaintiff was not actually “off post”, and Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor refused to write up Plaintiff. 762. Upon information and belief, Lt. Manfredi informed several other officers that Plaintiff filed an EEO complaint against him. 763. On June 9, 2012, Plaintiff again sent a memorandum to Captain Licorish regarding the retaliation he was facing by Lt. Manfredi. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 83 of 245 PageID: 3469Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 84 of 246 PageID: 346 84 764. As set out in this letter, Plaintiff had still been subjected to retaliatory assignments by Lt. Manfredi. 765. Further, as set out in said letter, Plaintiff was unfairly disciplined at the instruction of Lt. Manfredi, and Lt. Manfredi refused to provide Plaintiff with monies for “prep time allowance”. Additionally, Plaintiff attempted to shift assignments and/or posts, and Lt. Manfredi refused this request. 766. In June of 2012, plaintiff was assigned to “walkway patrol.” This shift required Plaintiff to repeatedly walk across the George Washington Bridge, from New York to New Jersey, and back. Upon information and belief, this assignment was for retaliatory purposes. 767. Due to the extreme heat, Plaintiff requested that he be issued a vehicle while assigned to walkway patrol, so that he could cool off periodically after walking the span of the George Washington Bridge. 768. Upon information and belief, it had been a regular practice for officers on that particular post to be provided with a patrol vehicle for this purpose. 769. However, Lt. Manfredi refused this request, thus requiring Plaintiff to repeatedly walk back and forth across the George Washington Bridge in extreme heat with no vehicle or other method to cool off. 770. As a result, Plaintiff became nauseated and dizzy, and was taken to Englewood Hospital for heat exhaustion. 771. On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff received a counseling memorandum by Captain Licorish. 772. Upon information and belief, this memorandum was not warranted and was given to Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff’s EEO complaint and subsequent complaints of retaliation to Captain Licorish. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 84 of 245 PageID: 3470Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 85 of 246 PageID: 347 85 773. On December 29, 2012, Plaintiff wrote a memorandum to Captain Licorish, in which he contested the counseling memorandum and stated that he was being selectively disciplined in retaliation for his prior complaints. Plaintiff stated that this incident was part of a pattern of harassment and targeting by Lt. Manfredi. 774. On December 31, 2012, Plaintiff sent another memorandum to Captain Licorish, again complaining of retaliation by Lt. Manfredi. 775. However, no actions to remedy or halt Lt. Manfredi’s retaliation were taken by Captain Licorish or any other PAPD supervisor. 776. Plaintiff was again forced to undergo a baseless medical evaluation in February of 2013. 777. Further, within approximately a year of filing his EEO complaint, Plaintiff was forced to undergo a drug test at least three (3) times, which, upon information and belief, was done to further retaliate against Plaintiff for making said EEO Complaint. 778. Upon information and belief, in approximately March of 2014, Lt. Manfredi made racially disparaging remarks at roll call about Hispanic officers. Lt. Manfredi then stated to Hispanic officers present at roll call that if they did not like his joke, then they should see “Ortiz” and that Plaintiff would help them file an EEO complaint. 779. Manfredi’s retaliatory conduct towards Plaintiff has been ongoing and continues to the present. 780. Plaintiff also sent his aforementioned complaints of retaliation to Stephanie Lewis-Desire, who is the Human Resources EEO Compliance and Inclusion Manager for the Port Authority. 781. However, even after these complaints of retaliation were received, no one in Human 782. Resources took appropriate or sufficient action to halt the retaliation by Lt. Manfredi. 783. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 85 of 245 PageID: 3471Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 86 of 246 PageID: 348 86 784. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 785. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in May of 2013. 786. Plaintiff was not given a performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor. Upon information and belief, Lt. Manfredi refused to provide Plaintiff with a performance appraisal, so as to further retaliate against Plaintiff for making the aforesaid EEO complaint. 787. As a result, Plaintiff was given an appraisal by a Lieutenant who occasionally supervised him when Plaintiff performed overtime. 788. Upon information and belief, Licorish made the decision who would be assigned to provide Plaintiff’s supervisor’s appraisal. 789. Upon information and belief, Licorish intentionally assigned said Lieutenant to provide Plaintiff’s appraisal, knowing that this Lieutenant would have only limited knowledge of Plaintiff’s work and abilities. 790. For his performance appraisal by said Lieutenant, Plaintiff received the rating of “recommended”, instead of “highly recommended.” 791. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and then-Inspector Koumoutsos. 792. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 793. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 794. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 86 of 245 PageID: 3472Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 87 of 246 PageID: 349 87 795. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 796. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not recommended”. 797. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by a supervisor. This recommendation was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 798. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 799. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 800. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 801. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 802. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 87 of 245 PageID: 3473Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 88 of 246 PageID: 350 88 803. On May 3, 2014, Plaintiff wrote to Michael Ford of the HR Department to request his promotional ratings and results. 804. However, Plaintiff has not received any response from Ford. 805. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 806. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 807. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. BB. PLAINTIFF ANTHONY BAICICH 808. At all times material since 1993, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 809. From April of 1993 to October of 1993, Plaintiff was enrolled in the Port Authority Police Academy. 810. From October of 1993 until April of 1994, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia Airport. 811. From April of 1994 until 1996, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool 812. From 1996 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to LaGuardia. Since 2003, he has been assigned to Fire Marshal detail at LaGuardia. 813. Plaintiff has received training in various areas and/or courses, including but not limited to the following: Airport Rescue Firefighting, Standardized Field Sobriety, Supervisor- Trainer Fire Safety Course, Desk Training, Basic Crime Prevention, Squad Leader Training, Basic Emergency Service Training, HazMat Technician, MP5 Submachine Gun Select Fire, AR-15 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 88 of 245 PageID: 3474Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 9 of 246 PageID: 351 89 814. Patrol Rifle, Weapons of Mass Destruction, UCGC Small Boat Course for Law Enforcement, Fire Marshal, Fire Safety Director, Certified Code Enforcement Official, Certified Code Compliance Technician, Confined Space Rescue, Threat Hazard Recognition and Emergency, and Accident Victim Extrication. 815. Plaintiff has received commendations and/or other recognition for service occurring on at least 6 different dates throughout his employment and service with PAPD. 816. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 817. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 818. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 819. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 820. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 821. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 822. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 823. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in April of 2013. 824. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Inspector Harper, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 89 of 245 PageID: 3475Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 0 of 246 PageID: 3 2 90 825. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Silva. 826. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 827. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 828. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 829. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 830. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 831. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 832. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 833. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 834. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 835. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 90 of 245 PageID: 3476Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 91 of 246 PageID: 353 91 promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 836. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 837. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 838. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 839. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. CC. PLAINTIFF FRANK MISA 840. From 1998 to 2002, Plaintiff Frank Misa served as a police officer for NYPD. 841. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 842. From July to September of 2002, Plaintiff was in the Port Authority Police Academy. 843. From September of 2002 to July of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 844. From July of 2003 to 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 845. From 2005 to present, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 846. During Plaintiff’s employment with PAPD, Plaintiff has received several commendations, including Meritorious medals, one Unit Citation, one New York Senate Resolution in February of 2013, and was named “Cop of the Month” for his local PBA. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 91 of 245 PageID: 3477Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 92 of 246 PageID: 354 92 847. Additionally, Plaintiff has a B.A. from Fairleigh Dickinson University and a Master’s in Administrative Science from Fairleigh Dickinson as well. 848. Plaintiff has also received certifications in approximately fifteen (15) different training courses. 849. Plaintiff has never been disciplined during his employment with PAPD. 850. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 851. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 852. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 853. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 854. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 855. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 856. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 857. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in May of 2013. 858. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 859. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Bryant. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 92 of 245 PageID: 3478Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 93 of 246 PageID: 355 93 860. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 861. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 862. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 863. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 864. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 865. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 866. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 867. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 868. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 869. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 93 of 245 PageID: 3479Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 94 of 246 PageID: 356 94 870. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 871. In a letter from Michael Ford of the PAPD Human Resources department, dated January 22, 2014, Plaintiff received his results in each of the promotional categories. Plaintiff received the highest ranking – outstanding and “highly recommended” – in four of the categories. He also received “acceptable” with regard to the category “Breadth of Experience/Exposure.” 872. However, Plaintiff received the rating “Needs Development” for the Qualifications Review Meeting and Attendance. As a result, Plaintiff received an overall rating over “Not Recommended” for promotion. 873. Despite the fact that Plaintiff received a “Needs Development” rating for attendance, Plaintiff was fully compliant with the department’s requirement for absences. 874. Therefore, Plaintiff emailed Michael Ford of the PAPD Human Resources about his absences. 875. However, Plaintiff never received a response to same. 876. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 877. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. DD. PLAINTIFF JOHN MCCABE 878. From 1997 to 2002, Plaintiff John McCabe served as a police officer for NYPD. 879. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 880. Plaintiff was enrolled in the PA Police Academy from March of 2002 to May of 2002. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 94 of 245 PageID: 3480Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 95 of 246 PageID: 357 95 881. From May of 2002 to January of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pol. 882. From January of 2003 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 883. From January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Emergency Services unit. 884. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 885. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 886. Plaintiff has never been disciplined in his history with the PAPD. 887. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 888. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 889. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 890. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 891. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 892. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in April of 2013. 893. For his performance appraisal by his supervisor, Lt. Butler, Plaintiff received the rating of “recommended”. 894. Plaintiff had previously received an annual rating of “highly recommended” in 2011 by Inspector Guarnieri. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 95 of 245 PageID: 3481Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 96 of 246 PageID: 358 96 895. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Ramon Martinez, who was the commanding officer of the PA Police Academy. 896. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 897. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 898. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 899. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 900. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 901. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 902. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 903. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 904. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 96 of 245 PageID: 3482Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 97 of 246 PageID: 359 97 905. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 906. Plaintiff received a letter dated April 8, 2014 from Michael Ford of the PAPD HR department, indicating Plaintiff’s ratings on his qualification review meeting and other promotional categories. 907. Plaintiff received “recommended” in his supervisor’s developmental appraisal, as indicated above. 908. Plaintiff also received the highest rating – outstanding – in five out of the remaining six categories. However, in the last category – the qualifications review meeting – Plaintiff received a rating of “needs development”. As a result of this one rating in one category, Plaintiff received an overall recommendation of “Not Recommended”. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was “outstanding” in five out of the seven promotional categories and recommended in one other. 909. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 910. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. EE. PLAINTIFF JOSEPH ABARNO 911. From 1998 to 2002, Plaintiff Joseph Abarno served as a police officer for NYPD. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 97 of 245 PageID: 3483Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 98 of 246 PageID: 360 98 912. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 913. From March of 2002 to May of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PA Police Academy. 914. From May of 2002 to May of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport. 915. From May of 2003 to June of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 916. From June of 2003 to October of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 917. From October of 2004 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 918. As part of his duties at PATH, Plaintiff was assigned to a desk detail for approximately 7 years, which has enabled him to develop a working knowledge of policies and procedures related to the administration of a police command. 919. Plaintiff received a Blue and White in April of 2006 for apprehending an escaped Newark prisoner. 920. Plaintiff has obtained a Bachelor of Arts and Individual Studies degree in Public Administration from Fairleigh Dickinson University. 921. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 922. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 923. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 924. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 925. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 926. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 98 of 245 PageID: 3484Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 99 of 246 PageID: 361 99 927. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 928. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in April of 2013. 929. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 930. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Harper. 931. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 932. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 933. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 934. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 935. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 936. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 937. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 938. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 99 of 245 PageID: 3485Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134- il 10/05/ 100 of 246 PageID: 362 100 939. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 940. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 941. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 942. Plaintiff sent an email to Human Resources on April 30, 2014 asking to see his examination results, but has not received a response. 943. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 944. From March of 2012 to April of 2013, in addition to his employment with PAPD, Plaintiff was also employed with AFLAC. Plaintiff had pre-approval from his supervisors and by the director of human resources, Mary Lee Hannel, for the PAPD to engage in said outside employment. 945. However, upon information and belief, and based off of several statements made to Plaintiff by fellow officers and by his supervisor at AFLAC, the Port Authority wrongfully investigated Plaintiff regarding this outside employment. This occurred even though Plaintiff’s employment with AFLAC was pre-approved by PAPD. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 100 of 245 PageID: 3486Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 1 of 246 PageID: 3 3 101 946. Upon information and belief, this investigation had an adverse impact on Plaintiff’s ability to receive a rating of Recommended or Highly Recommended. 947. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 948. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. FF. PLAINTIFF JOHN MADIGAN 949. From 1999 to 2002, Plaintiff John Madigan served as a police officer for NYPD. 950. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 951. From July of 2002 to September of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD academy. 952. From September of 2002 to June of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 953. From June of 2004 to October of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 954. From October of 2004 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 955. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 956. Plaintiff has received various commendations and awards during his career at PAPD, including a Police Division Group Citation in 2003 for rescuing seven people from a broken elevator, and once in 2007 arising from an arrest of a suspect in a criminal tampering case. 957. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 958. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 101 of 245 PageID: 3487Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 102 of 246 PageID: 364 102 959. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 84% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 960. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 961. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 962. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 963. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in April of 2013. 964. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended” twice: once in 2011 and once in 2012. 965. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Guarnieri. 966. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 967. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 968. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 969. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 102 of 245 PageID: 3488Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 103 of 246 PageID: 365 103 970. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 971. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. These recommendations by his immediate supervisors were submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, were in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 972. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 973. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 974. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 975. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 976. On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff received a letter from Michael Ford indicating that he was not recommended for promotion. This letter also indicated how Plaintiff performed in each of the seven promotional categories. Plaintiff received “Acceptable” in “Breadth of Experience/Exposure”, Highly Recommended in the Sergeant’s developmental appraisal, and Outstanding in the Qualifications Review Meeting, Discipline, and CCIU Complaints. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 103 of 245 PageID: 3489Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 104 of 246 PageID: 366 104 977. However, Plaintiff received an “Unacceptable” rating in both attendance and investigations. 978. Plaintiff has never been counseled or disciplined for his absences or sick time. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff qualified for promotion based on the attendance criteria set forth in the 2010 promotional announcement. However, Plaintiff nonetheless was given a rating of Unacceptable for attendance. 979. Further, although an investigation may still be pending regarding Plaintiff, said investigation was opened in 2005 and has never resulted in any discipline or finding of wrongdoing against Plaintiff. Rather, this investigation pertained to a 2005 incident where Plaintiff was originally suspected to have been involved in making harassing phone calls to the PAPD. However, PAPD’s own voice recognition expert indicated that Plaintiff was not involved in said phone calls. Despite the fact that Plaintiff has been exonerated as part of this investigation, said investigation has never been formally closed. 980. Therefore, upon information and belief, as a result of the outstanding nature of said investigation, Plaintiff was wrongfully disqualified for promotion. 981. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 982. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. GG. PLAINTIFF MATTHEW NEWKIRK 983. From 1997 to 2002, Plaintiff Matthew Newkirk served as a police officer for NYPD. 984. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 104 of 245 PageID: 3490Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 105 of 246 PageID: 367 105 985. Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD academy from July of 2002 to approximately September or October of 2002. 986. From his graduation from the PAPD academy in 2002 until 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 987. From 2004 until May of 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 988. Plaintiff passed the FBI firearms instructor school. Because of this, Plaintiff was then transferred to the PAPD police academy. 989. From May of 2013 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Police Academy. 990. By the time that Plaintiff was first assigned to the academy, Defendant Ferrigno had already been removed from duty and was no longer employed with PAPD. 991. Plaintiff has received various commendations during his career with PAPD. 992. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 993. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the 2010 promotional announcement. 994. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 995. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 86% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 996. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 997. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 998. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 105 of 245 PageID: 3491Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 106 of 246 PageID: 368 106 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 999. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 1000. However, Plaintiff was never given a panel review or otherwise permitted to proceed in the promotional process. 1001. Plaintiff was not informed why he was not given a promotional interview. 1002. Subsequently, in 2013, Plaintiff called the HR department and asked why he was not given a panel. 1003. In response, Mary Lee Hannel, who held the position of Chief of Human Capital for the HR department, stated that Plaintiff had incurred too many sick days. However, Plaintiff had not actually exceeded the number of sick days permitted under the 2010 promotional announcement. 1004. Moreover, Hannel stated that Plaintiff was not permitted to proceed because there was a “7 year look back” with regard to absences. However, in doing so, Hannel misstated the promotional requirements; in reality, the 7 year look back was not a requirement to proceed in promotion, but rather was simply one of the criteria to be considered as part of the panel review. 1005. Therefore, Plaintiff was wrongfully disqualified for promotion based on purportedly not meeting a criteria which was not actually a disqualifier for the promotional process. 1006. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1007. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 106 of 245 PageID: 3492Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 107 of 246 PageID: 369 107 manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1008. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1009. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1010. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. HH. PLAINTIFF JOSE SANCHEZ 1011. At all times material since November of 1998, Plaintiff Jose Sanchez has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1012. From November of 1998 until April of 1999, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1013. From April of 1999 to 2000, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1014. From 2000 to 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1015. From 2002 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1016. From 2003 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 1017. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 107 of 245 PageID: 3493Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 108 of 246 PageID: 370 108 1018. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1019. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1020. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1021. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1022. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1023. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1024. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in 2013. 1025. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Harper. 1026. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1027. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1028. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1029. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 108 of 245 PageID: 3494Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 109 of 246 PageID: 371 109 1030. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1031. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1032. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1033. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1034. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1035. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1036. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1037. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 109 of 245 PageID: 3495Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 110 of 246 PageID: 372 110 1038. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1039. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. II. PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE GREGG, JR. 1040. At all times material since February of 1995, Plaintiff Lawrence Gregg has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1041. Plaintiff attended the PAPD academy from February of 1995 to July of 1995. 1042. From July of 1995 until winter of 1996, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1043. From the winter of 1996 to April of 2000, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1044. From April of 2000 to June of 2000, Plaintiff was “borrowed” by the Detective Unit, meaning he was temporarily assigned to that Unit. 1045. From June of 2000 to September of 2000, Plaintiff was assigned to the Detective nit. 1046. From September of 2000 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to LaGuardia. 1047. Plaintiff has received various commendations throughout his career at PAPD, including a commendation in 1996 for his apprehension of a suspect in a police shooting, and various “Blue and Whites” for other excellent service. 1048. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1049. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1050. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 110 of 245 PageID: 3496Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 11 of 246 PageID: 373 111 1051. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1052. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1053. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1054. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1055. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1056. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”. 1057. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Gloria Frank. 1058. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1059. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1060. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1061. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1062. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 111 of 245 PageID: 3497Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 246 PageID: 3 4 112 1063. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1064. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1065. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1066. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1067. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1068. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1069. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1070. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 112 of 245 PageID: 3498Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 13 of 246 PageID: 375 113 1071. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. JJ. PLAINTIFF DAVID GURIEL 1072. At all times material since August 23, 1999, Plaintiff David Guriel has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1073. Plaintiff then completed the PAPD academy in Sea Girt, NJ. 1074. From February of 2000 until August of 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 1075. From August of 2001 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1076. From 2003 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to LaGuardia. 1077. Plaintiff received various commendations and medals, including the World Trade Service Medal, for Plaintiff’s service on and after 9/11. Plaintiff also received the Meritorious Police Duty Medal in 2008, and the Sergeant Kevin E. Murphy Award in 2000. 1078. Plaintiff also received certifications in at least ten (10) specialized training courses, including being qualified by the U.S. Coast Guard in Marine Rescue and Police Boat Operations. 1079. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1080. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1081. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1082. . On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1083. Plaintiff was randomly chosen to be evaluated in June of 2011. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 113 of 245 PageID: 3499Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 14 of 246 PageID: 376 114 1084. Plaintiff received a rating of ‘Highly Recommended’ by his supervisor. 1085. Plaintiff’s panel consisted of two individuals from HR and Defendant Ferrigno. 1086. As indicated above, Ferrigno had previously provided the interview questions to various officers prior to their panel interviews. 1087. However, Plaintiff was not provided with said questions ahead of time. 1088. Plaintiff received a rating of “Needs Development” for the Qualification Review Meeting, but received ratings of Outstanding and Highly Recommended in all other categories. However, due to his rating in the Qualification Review Meeting, Plaintiff was Not Recommended for promotion. 1089. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1090. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1091. However, when the remaining officers were interviewed in 2013, Plaintiff was not contacted. Given that Plaintiff was still on the horizontal roster, he should have been interviewed. 1092. In January of 2013, because he had not been contacted for an interview, plaintiff emailed Michael Ford regarding this issue. 1093. However, Plaintiff never received a response from Ford or any written explanation as to why he was not provided with an interview in 2013. 1094. Plaintiff again emailed Ford on May 15, 2014 regarding this issue, and also asked for a copy of his evaluation. However, Plaintiff has not received a response to said email either. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 114 of 245 PageID: 3500Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 15 of 246 PageID: 4377 115 1095. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1096. The Port Authority has made promotions on three (3) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, and February 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1097. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1098. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1099. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. KK. PLAINTIFF ANTHONY HEINLEIN 1100. At all times material since August 7, 2000, Plaintiff Anthony Heinlein has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1101. From August of 2000 until January 19, 2001, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD academy. 1102. From 1/19/01 to September of 2002. Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1103. From September of 2002 to March of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1104. From March of 2003 to April of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool, but was limited to the Airport Rescue Fire Fighting Pool. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 115 of 245 PageID: 3501Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 16 of 246 PageID: 4378 116 1105. From April of 2003 to May of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1106. From May of 2004 to August of 2010, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1107. From August 2010 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Fire Rescue Training Center located at JFK Airport. 1108. Plaintiff obtained a B.A. in political science from Hofstra University in 1998. 1109. Plaintiff obtained a Master’s Degree in Human Resources and Training Development from Seton Hall University in 2010. 1110. Plaintiff has completed over twenty (20) specialized training courses during his career at PAPD. 1111. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1112. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1113. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1114. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 85% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1115. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1116. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1117. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1118. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in 2013. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 116 of 245 PageID: 3502Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 17 of 246 PageID: 4379 117 1119. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”, in both 2011 and 2012. 1120. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Bryant. 1121. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1122. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1123. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1124. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1125. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1126. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. These recommendations by his immediate supervisors were submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1127. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1128. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1129. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 117 of 245 PageID: 3503Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 18 of 246 PageID: 4380 118 1130. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1131. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1132. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1133. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1134. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. LL. PLAINTIFF THOMAS PEPE 1135. From 1996 to 1999, Plaintiff Thomas Pepe served as a police officer for NYPD. 1136. At all times material since 1999, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1137. From August of 1999 to January of 2000, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1138. From January of 2000 to June of 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 1139. From June of 2001 to May of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1140. Due to 9/11, as part of his assignment in the Pool, was assigned on a daily basis to the World Trade Center for the remainder of his assignment in the Pool. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 118 of 245 PageID: 3504Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 19 of 246 PageID: 4381 119 1141. From May of 2002 to June of 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1142. From June of 2006 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Fire Rescue Training Center located at JFK Airport. 1143. Plaintiff has received over forty (40) certificates in various training courses, and has received various commendations during his employment with PAPD. 1144. Plaintiff graduated from Saint Joseph's college with a bachelor's degree in business administration in 1993. 1145. Plaintiff has also served as a volunteer fireman since 1992 and a Certified EMT since 1994. 1146. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1147. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1148. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1149. In September of 2012, Plaintiff was injured while on duty when he was present on a boat that capsized. As a result, Plaintiff suffered a neck and shoulder injury and missed approximately 10 days of work while he recovered. 1150. Based on the terms of the 2010 promotional announcement, days missed based on IOD (Injured on Duty) did not count towards the maximum number of absences to be considered for promotion. Based on the policy, IOD days could not disqualify an officer from promotion. 1151. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1152. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 119 of 245 PageID: 3505Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 20 of 246 PageID: 4382 120 1153. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1154. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1155. However, Plaintiff was initially denied an interview, purportedly due to the claim that Plaintiff had been disqualified for too many absences. However, as indicated above, Plaintiff’s excess absences were due to his injury on duty, and therefore could not be counted against him as part of the promotional process. 1156. Finally, in April of 2013, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed with a panel interview. 1157. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Harper. 1158. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1159. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1160. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1161. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1162. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1163. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 120 of 245 PageID: 3506Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 121 of 246 PageID: 4383 121 received the rating of “highly recommended”. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1164. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1165. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1166. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1167. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1168. On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff received a letter from Michael Ford which indicated 1169. Plaintiff’s ratings in each of the promotional categories. 1170. Plaintiff received a rating of Highly Recommended in his Supervisor’s Appraisal, as indicated above. Further, Plaintiff received a rating of Outstanding in four categories. However, Plaintiff received a rating of "Needs Development” in his Qualifications Review Meeting, and also receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” for attendance. 1171. Plaintiff received this rating of Unacceptable in attendance, despite the fact that the only prolonged period of absence in Plaintiff’s career was due to the IOD incident from June of 1172. Plaintiff has never been disciplined for attendance issues ever in his career at PAPD. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 121 of 245 PageID: 3507Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 122 of 246 PageID: 4384 122 1173. As a result, Plaintiff received an overall rating of “Not Recommended”. 1174. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1175. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. MM. PLAINTIFF RICHARD EGAN 1176. From 1999 to 2002, Plaintiff Richard Egan served as a police officer for NYPD. 1177. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1178. From May of 2002 until approximately November of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1179. From November of 2002 to July of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1180. From July of 2004 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1181. From January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Emergency Service Unit (ESU). 1182. During Plaintiff’s training to be part of the ESU Unit, Plaintiff became qualified in various high level and highly skilled training. This training included but was not limited to the following: Confined Space Rescue; Emergency Medical Technician training; animal rescue; Prisoner Cell Extraction; Emotionally Disturbed Person (EDP) awareness and restraint; high angle rope rescue; vehicle extrication; heavy weapons tactical training; Tactical Entry Training; HazMat technical training and weapons of mass destruction, and; training for a multitude of technical equipment. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 122 of 245 PageID: 3508Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 3 of 246 PageID: 43 5 123 1183. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and/or unit citations during his service as an officer with PAPD. 1184. Plaintiff possesses a Bachelor’s degree in business management. 1185. Plaintiff has served as a volunteer fireman for his town for the last 25 years and has held supervisory positions throughout his service with said fire department. 1186. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1187. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1188. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1189. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1190. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1191. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1192. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1193. Plaintiff was recommended by Lt. Cunningham. Lt. Cunningham conducted the evaluation, even though he did not supervise Plaintiff on a daily basis. 1194. Prior to this evaluation by Lt. Cunningham, Plaintiff had received several evaluation ratings of “highly recommended” by his immediate supervisors. 1195. Plaintiff was interviewed for promotion in 2013. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 123 of 245 PageID: 3509Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 124 of 246 PageID: 4386 124 1196. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Silva. 1197. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1198. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1199. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1200. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1201. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1202. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisors. This recommendation by his immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1203. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1204. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1205. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1206. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 124 of 245 PageID: 3510Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 125 of 246 PageID: 4387 125 Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1207. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1208. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1209. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1210. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. NN. PLAINTIFF LAVERN WATSON 1211. From 1998 to 2002, Plaintiff LaVern Watson served as a police officer for NYPD. 1212. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1213. From July of 2002 until approximately September of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1214. From September of 2002 to 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1215. From 2005 to 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to the Newark Airport. 1216. From 2008 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the George Washington Bridge. 1217. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and/or unit citations during her service as an officer with PAPD, including a commendation in 2013 for saving a citizen from jumping off Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 125 of 245 PageID: 3511Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 126 of 246 PageID: 4388 126 of the George Washington Bridge. Plaintiff was also mentioned in local news articles regarding this incident. 1218. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1219. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1220. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1221. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that she received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1222. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1223. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1224. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1225. Plaintiff was highly recommended by supervisors Inspector White and Inspector Hardy. 1226. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1227. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Martinez. 1228. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1229. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1230. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 126 of 245 PageID: 3512Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 127 of 246 PageID: 4389 127 1231. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1232. . Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that her interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing her with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1233. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by her immediate supervisors. This recommendation by her immediate supervisors was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1234. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1235. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1236. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1237. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1238. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating her ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of her ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 127 of 245 PageID: 3513Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 128 of 246 PageID: 4390 128 1239. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of her interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1240. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1241. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. OO. PLAINTIFF DANIEL MCCARTHY 1242. At all times material since February of 1995, Plaintiff Daniel McCarthy has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1243. From February to July of 1995, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1244. From July of 1995 to January of 2000, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1245. From January of 2000 to September 10, 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1246. On 9/11, Plaintiff was assigned to Rescue Team “Delta”, and was ordered to the 44th Floor of WTC 1 to assist in the evacuation of and search for victims. 1247. From 9/11 to August of 2002, while still assigned to the Pool, Plaintiff was detailed to the rescue efforts at Ground Zero, for the purpose of searching for and recovering the remains of victims of 9/11. 1248. From August of 2002 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to PATH. 1249. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff has received several PAPD medals, including Meritorious, Commendatory, Excellent Police Duty, the Port Authority Police Pipe Band medal, and the 9/11 Gold Medal. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 128 of 245 PageID: 3514Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 129 of 246 PageID: 4391 129 1250. Plaintiff has also received a Medal of Valor from the New Jersey State Emerald Society and a Letter of Appreciation from New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau for his performance as a police officer. 1251. Plaintiff was also selected by then-Senator Hillary Clinton to represent police officers of PAPD and NYPD assigned to Ground Zero to accompany Senator Clinton to Ireland to meet Bertie Ahern, the President of Ireland. 1252. Plaintiff has also received a Middlesex County Freeholder’s Resolution pertaining to his actions on September 11, 2001. 1253. Plaintiff also obtained a Master’s Degree from Seton Hall, in 2000. Previously, Plaintiff graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from Kean University in 1993. 1254. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1255. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1256. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1257. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1258. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1259. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1260. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 129 of 245 PageID: 3515Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 130 of 246 PageID: 4392 130 1261. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, then-Inspector Koumoutsos. 1262. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1263. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources, including Kathy Raymond, and Captain Rotolo. 1264. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1265. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1266. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1267. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1268. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1269. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1270. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1271. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1272. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 130 of 245 PageID: 3516Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 131 of 246 PageID: 4393 131 1273. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1274. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1275. Plaintiff emailed Michael Ford for his evaluation and/or promotional results. However, he has not received a response. 1276. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1277. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1278. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. PP. PLAINTIFF CRAIG FARRELL 1279. From August of 1998 to August of 2000, Plaintiff Craig Farrell was a police officer with NYPD. 1280. At all times material since August of 2000, Plaintiff has been a police officer for PAPD. 1281. From August of 2000 to January of 2001, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 131 of 245 PageID: 3517Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 132 of 246 PageID: 4394 132 1282. From January of 2001 to September of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the World Trade Center. 1283. From September of 2002 to January of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1284. From January of 2003 to March of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool, and was specifically assigned to Aircraft Rescue Firefighter and Patrol. 1285. From March of 2003 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK. 1286. From January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Emergency Services Unit (ESU). 1287. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD, including a commendation for his service in the rescue and recovery for 9/11, as part of the rescue and recover after hurricane Sandy, and for the rescue of a citizen in a car accident. 1288. Plaintiff has received a variety of training, including ESU training. 1289. Plaintiff has a Bachelor of Science degree from St. John’s University. 1290. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1291. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1292. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1293. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 84% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1294. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1295. Plaintiff was told by an individual from the IG’s office that HR actually handled the random selection of officers, despite the fact that the promotional announcement dictates that the IG’s office is to handle this random selection. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 132 of 245 PageID: 3518Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 133 of 246 PageID: 4395 133 1296. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1297. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1298. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Sgt. McCann, and subsequently highly recommended by supervisor Lt. Butler. 1299. Plaintiff was interviewed in April of 2013. 1300. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. 1301. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1302. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1303. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1304. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1305. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1306. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1307. Plaintiff has not been promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 133 of 245 PageID: 3519Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 4 of 246 PageID: 43 6 134 1308. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1309. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1310. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1311. Plaintiff contacted HR for his evaluation and/or promotional results. However, he has not received his results 1312. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1313. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1314. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 134 of 245 PageID: 3520Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 135 of 246 PageID: 4397 135 QQ. PLAINTIFF THOMAS ROJECKI 1315. From July of 1999 to July of 2002, Plaintiff Thomas Rojecki was a police officer for NYPD. 1316. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff Thomas Rojecki has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1317. From July to September of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1318. From September 2002 to November 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1319. From November of 2002 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1320. From 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1321. From 2004 to 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK. 1322. From 2006 to 2009, Plaintiff taught defensive tactics, hazmat, and conventional protection measures at the academy. 1323. Plaintiff did not receive any information or answers from Ferrigno or anyone else from the academy regarding the promotional examination. 1324. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff has received several PAPD commendations, including receiving the Pope Benedict XVI Memorial Citation, a Meritorious Police Duty Medal in 2004, and two Commendatory Incident reports from 2006 and 2007, respectively. 1325. Plaintiff also obtained an A.S. in Criminal Justice from Farmingdale State College. 1326. Plaintiff also has attended over thirty (30) specialized training courses and seminars related to the performance of his duties as a PAPD police officer. 1327. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1328. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1329. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 135 of 245 PageID: 3521Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 136 of 246 PageID: 4398 136 1330. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1331. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1332. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1333. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1334. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Captain Joe Scarano, who was the Commanding Officer of JFK Airport. 1335. Plaintiff was interviewed in April of 2013. 1336. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Martinez. 1337. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1338. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1339. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1340. Shortly after the panel interview, Martinez, whom Plaintiff had previously worked under, informed Plaintiff that he had performed very well on the panel interview. 1341. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 136 of 245 PageID: 3522Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 137 of 246 PageID: 4399 137 1342. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1343. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1344. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1345. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1346. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1347. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1348. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1349. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 137 of 245 PageID: 3523Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 138 of 246 PageID: 4400 138 1350. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. .RR. PLAINTIFF DEWAN MAHARAJ 1351. At all times material since November of 1998, Plaintiff Dewan Maharaj has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1352. From November of 1998 to April of 1999, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1353. From April of 1999 to September of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1354. From September of 2002 to March of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1355. In March of 2003, Plaintiff was given the rank of Detective. 1356. From March of 2003 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB). 1357. Plaintiff obtained commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD, including receiving the Harry Meyers Award for PAPD Detective of the Year. 1358. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1359. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1360. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1361. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1362. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 138 of 245 PageID: 3524Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 139 of 246 PageID: 4401 139 1363. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1364. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1365. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor. 1366. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1367. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. 1368. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1369. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1370. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1371. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1372. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1373. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1374. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 139 of 245 PageID: 3525Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 140 of 246 PageID: 4402 140 1375. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1376. Other detectives, who were junior to Plaintiff, were promoted over Plaintiff. 1377. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1378. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1379. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1380. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1381. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. SS.PLAINTIFF DANIEL TARPEY 1382. From 1997 to 2002, Plaintiff served as an NYPD police officer. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 140 of 245 PageID: 3526Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 141 of 246 PageID: 4403 141 1383. At all times material since 2002, Plaintiff Daniel Tarpey has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1384. From March of 2002 to May of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1385. From May of 2002 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK. 1386. From 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1387. From 2004 to 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK. 1388. From 2006 to 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to ESU. 1389. From August of 2013 to present, Plaintiff has served as a Detective. 1390. Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor of Science from Marist College, in Business Administration. 1391. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff was officially honored by the Port Authority Board of Commissioners for rescuing PATH security guards during Hurricane Sandy, received a Pistol Expert Citation, and received a Citation for Commendable Service for service performed in September of 2007. 1392. Plaintiff has completed a number of training courses, including completing 80 hours of training with the New Jersey Division of Homeland Security branch, known as New Jersey Task Force One. 1393. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1394. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1395. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1396. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 85% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1397. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 141 of 245 PageID: 3527Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 142 of 246 PageID: 4404 142 1398. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1399. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1400. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisors, in 2011 by Sgt. McCain and Inspector Guarnieri, and in 2013 by Lt. Butler. 1401. Plaintiff was given a panel interview once, in 2013. 1402. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Koumoutsos. 1403. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1404. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1405. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1406. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1407. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1408. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 142 of 245 PageID: 3528Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 143 of 246 PageID: 4405 143 1409. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1410. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1411. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1412. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1413. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1414. Plaintiff called Michael Ford to obtain his evaluation and/or promotional results. However, Ford stated that they were not giving out each candidate’s scores, but that Plaintiff did not score well enough on the panel interview. However, Plaintiff has not been provided with his actual results or scores from the panel interview. 1415. Moreover, Plaintiff formally requested an appeal of his results. In response, he was told than he was not permitted to appeal. 1416. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 143 of 245 PageID: 3529Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 144 of 246 PageID: 4406 144 1417. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1418. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. TT. PLAINTIFF ROBBIE VAUGHN 1419. Plaintiff Robbie Vaughn served as an NYPD police officer from 1997 to 2001. 1420. At all times material since February of 2001, Plaintiff Robbie Vaughn has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1421. From February to August of 2001, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. Plaintiff was first in his class at the academy. 1422. From August of 2001 to September of 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1423. From September of 2001 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1424. From 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK. 1425. From 2004 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to LaGuardia. 1426. Plaintiff has also been “borrowed” by the academy to teach courses there, from 2013 to present. Plaintiff has taught legal issues to police recruits, officers, and superior officers, and helped revise, update and create portions of the law curriculum being taught to recruits. 1427. By the time that Plaintiff began teaching courses at the academy, Ferrigno was no longer employed by PAPD. 1428. Plaintiff has received unit citations. 1429. Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in the state of New York, and has been since approximately 2009; Plaintiff graduated from Touro School of Law. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 144 of 245 PageID: 3530Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 5 of 246 PageID: 44 7 145 1430. Plaintiff also graduated from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice with a B.A. in Criminology. 1431. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1432. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1433. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1434. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1435. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1436. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1437. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1438. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor. 1439. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1440. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. 1441. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1442. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1443. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 145 of 245 PageID: 3531Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 146 of 246 PageID: 4408 146 1444. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1445. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1446. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1447. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1448. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1449. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1450. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1451. On January 22, 2014, Plaintiff received a letter from Michael Ford, purportedly setting out the results of Plaintiff’s promotion. Plaintiff receiving the rating of “Outstanding” in four categories, including for his Qualifications Review Meeting. He also received “Highly Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 146 of 245 PageID: 3532Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 147 of 246 PageID: 4409 147 recommended” for his Developmental Appraisal, and “Acceptable” for Breadth of Experience/Exposure. 1452. However, he received a rating of “needs development” in one category – attendance. 1453. Because of his grade in attendance, Plaintiff was given an overall recommendation of “Not Recommended.” 1454. However, Plaintiff’s attendance was in fact acceptable. After receiving the January 22nd letter, Plaintiff reviewed his attendance record and found a number of errors and discrepancies. These discrepancies and errors were then fixed. 1455. As such, on January 29, 2014, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Michael Ford indicating that his attendance report was in error, and that the errors had been fixed. As such, he requested that his attendance record be re-evaluated in light of the errors on which his promotional results were based. 1456. However, Plaintiff never received a response to this letter, nor was he ever re-evaluated or re-considered for promotion. 1457. Plaintiff was denied any right or ability to appeal material and inaccurate information on which his promotional decision was based. 1458. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1459. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 147 of 245 PageID: 3533Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 148 of 246 PageID: 4410 148 UU. PLAINTIFF MICHAEL BURKE 1460. At all times material since December of 2002, Plaintiff Michael Burke has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1461. From December of 2002 to May of 2003, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1462. From May of 2003 to 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1463. From 2006 to 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 1464. From 2007 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Newark Liberty International Airport. 1465. Plaintiff obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from William Paterson University in 1998. 1466. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1467. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1468. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1469. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1470. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor. 1471. Plaintiff was randomly selected for a panel interview, and received said interview in June of 2011. Plaintiff’s panel consisted of one member of HR, Joe Scarano and Defendant Ferrigno. 1472. Plaintiff received his purported promotional results via a letter dated August 10, 2011 from Michael Ford. Said letter indicated that Plaintiff’s attendance was unacceptable and that his Qualifications Review Meeting needs development. 1473. As a result, Plaintiff was not recommended for promotion, and was not promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 148 of 245 PageID: 3534Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 149 of 246 PageID: 4411 149 1474. However, Plaintiff did in fact meet the standard for attendance, and therefore should not have received a negative rating on Attendance. 1475. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1476. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1477. Plaintiff was again highly recommended by his supervisor. 1478. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1479. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. 1480. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1481. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1482. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1483. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1484. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1485. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 149 of 245 PageID: 3535Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 150 of 246 PageID: 4412 150 1486. Via letter dated July 16, 2014 from Michael Ford, Plaintiff received his purported promotional results. This letter indicated that Plaintiff received an “Outstanding” on his Qualifications Review Meeting, as well as on Discipline, CCIU Complaints, and Investigations. Plaintiff also received a rating of Acceptable in Breadth of Experience/Exposure, and Highly Recommended on the Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal. 1487. However, Plaintiff received one rating of Unacceptable, for attendance. 1488. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff met the qualifications and criteria for promotion based on his attendance record. 1489. Because of this one rating of Unacceptable, on Attendance, Plaintiff received an overall recommendation of Not Recommended. 1490. Because of this overall recommendation, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1491. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1492. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1493. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 150 of 245 PageID: 3536Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 151 of 246 PageID: 4413 151 1494. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1495. Plaintiff emailed Michael Ford for his evaluation and/or promotional results. However, he has not received a response. 1496. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1497. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1498. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. VV. PLAINTIFF ANTHONY STABILE 1499. From December of 1997 to July of 2002, Plaintiff was a police officer with NYPD. 1500. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff Anthony Stabile has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1501. From July to September of 2002, Plaintiff was trained in the PAPD academy. 1502. From September of 2002 to 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1503. From 2006 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport. 1504. Plaintiff has a B.S. in Business Administration from the College of Staten Island. 1505. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1506. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 151 of 245 PageID: 3537Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 152 of 246 PageID: 4414 152 1507. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1508. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1509. Plaintiff was recommended by his supervisor for promotion. 1510. Plaintiff was randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1511. Plaintiff received his panel in 2011. His panel consisted of one individual from HR, Joe Scarano and Captain Hardy. 1512. Plaintiff was not promoted, and never received the results of his panel interview of the other criteria for promotion. 1513. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1514. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1515. Plaintiff was then highly recommended by his supervisor. 1516. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1517. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources, and Inspector Silva. 1518. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1519. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1520. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 152 of 245 PageID: 3538Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 153 of 246 PageID: 4415 153 1521. Again, Plaintiff never received his results. 1522. Later in 2013, Plaintiff was again given another panel interview, this time with 2 individual from HR and Silva. 1523. The format and content of the panel interview was essentially the same as the last panel interview. 1524. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1525. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1526. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1527. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1528. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1529. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1530. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 153 of 245 PageID: 3539Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 154 of 246 PageID: 4416 154 improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1531. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1532. Plaintiff emailed Michael Ford for his evaluation and/or promotional results. 1533. Plaintiff received a letter from Michael Ford dated July 16, 2014, purportedly providing Plaintiff with the results of his promotion. Plaintiff received ratings of Acceptable, Highly Recommended, and Outstanding on all but one category. That one category was the Qualifications Review Meeting, where Plaintiff received a rating of Needs Development. 1534. As a result of this one negative rating, Plaintiff received an overall recommendation of Not Recommended. 1535. Therefore, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1536. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1537. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. WW. PLAINTIFF GIOVANNI PERROTTA 1538. From March of 2000 to July of 2002, Plaintiff Giovanni Perrotta was a police officer with NYPD. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 154 of 245 PageID: 3540Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 155 of 246 PageID: 4 17 155 1539. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff Perrotta has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1540. Plaintiff trained in the PAPD academy from July of 2002 to September of 2002. 1541. Plaintiff has been assigned to the Holland Tunnel from September of 2002 to present. 1542. Plaintiff obtained a B.A. from Fairleigh Dickinson in 2008. 1543. Plaintiff received at least one commendation, which was earned for Plaintiff’s arrest of a suspect involved in a New Jersey robbery spree and theft of an automobile. 1544. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1545. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1546. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1547. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1548. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1549. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1550. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1551. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Lt. Gutch. 1552. Plaintiff was interviewed in April of 2013. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 155 of 245 PageID: 3541Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 6 of 246 PageID: 4 8 156 1553. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Bryant. 1554. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1555. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1556. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1557. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1558. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1559. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1560. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1561. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1562. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1563. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 156 of 245 PageID: 3542Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 157 of 246 PageID: 4 19 157 improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1564. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1565. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1566. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1567. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. XX. PLAINTIFF PETER FRIEDRICH 1568. Plaintiff Peter Friedrich served as an NYPD police officer from 1999 to 2002. 1569. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff Peter Friedrich has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1570. From July to September of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1571. From September of 2002 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 1572. From 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1573. Since 2004, Plaintiff has been assigned to LaGuardia. 1574. Plaintiff graduated from Queens College in 1992. 1575. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 157 of 245 PageID: 3543Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 158 of 246 PageID: 4 20 158 1576. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1577. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1578. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1579. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1580. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1581. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1582. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Lt. Stallone. 1583. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1584. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Gloria Frank. 1585. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1586. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1587. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1588. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 158 of 245 PageID: 3544Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 159 of 246 PageID: 4 21 159 1589. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1590. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1591. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1592. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1593. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1594. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1595. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1596. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1597. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was on the list of officers to be promoted, but his name was removed from said list for no legitimate reason or purpose. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 159 of 245 PageID: 3545Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 160 of 246 PageID: 4 22 160 1598. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1599. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. YY. PLAINTIFF KAMEEL JUMAN 1600. Plaintiff Kameel Juman served as a police officer in NYPD from April of 1997 to July of 2002. 1601. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff Kameel Juman has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1602. From July to September of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1603. From September of 2002 to September of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1604. From September of 200 to September of 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK. 1605. Since September of 2008, Plaintiff has been assigned to the George Washington Bridge. 1606. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. 1607. Plaintiff has received a B.A. in paralegal studies from St. John’s University and a Masters in Arts and Literature from Hofstra University. 1608. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1609. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1610. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 160 of 245 PageID: 3546Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 161 of 246 PageID: 4 23 161 1611. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1612. Plaintiff was randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. However, he was informed that he could not have a panel interview because of a civilian complaint that had been filed against him in 2010, for “discourtesy”. However, for this civilian complaint, Plaintiff only received an oral reprimand, which is the lowest form of discipline that an officer can receive. Likewise, a reprimand does not constitute Major Disciplinary Action sufficient to disqualify a candidate for promotion pursuant to the PPD collective bargaining agreement. 1613. Moreover, another officer, then-officer Manigbas- also received an oral reprimand from this same incident, and he was given a panel interview and ultimately promoted. 1614. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1615. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1616. Plaintiff was recommended by his supervisor. 1617. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1618. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Harper. 1619. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1620. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 161 of 245 PageID: 3547Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 162 of 246 PageID: 4 24 162 1621. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1622. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1623. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1624. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1625. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1626. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1627. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1628. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1629. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 162 of 245 PageID: 3548Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 163 of 246 PageID: 4 25 163 1630. Plaintiff called Michael Ford for his evaluation and/or promotional results. Ford orally told Plaintiff that he failed the qualification review meeting, but did not know why. 1631. Moreover, Ford stated that Plaintiff had an oral reprimand from substantiated complaint in 2011, yet acknowledged that the oral reprimand should have been expunged in 2012. 1632. Ford also indicated that Plaintiff met the other criteria for promotion. 1633. As such, Plaintiff’s prior discipline, which should have been expunged, was improperly considered and resulted in Plaintiff being denied a promotion. 1634. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1635. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1636. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. ZZ. PLAINTIFF PETER SIPPEL 1637. From July of 1993 to March of 2002, Plaintiff Peter Sipper was a New York State Court Officer. 1638. At all times material since March of 2002, Plaintiff Peter Sippel has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1639. March to May of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1640. From May of 2002 to July of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1641. From July of 2003 to April of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1642. From April of 2004 to August of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 163 of 245 PageID: 3549Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 164 of 246 PageID: 4 26 164 1643. From August of 2004 to the present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the World Trade Center. 1644. Plaintiff obtained an Associates Degree from Nassau Community College. 1645. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1646. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1647. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1648. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1649. Plaintiff was randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1650. As such, in 2011, Plaintiff was given a panel interview with one individual from HR, Captain Harper, and Defendant Ferrigno. 1651. Plaintiff was not recommended for promotion, and was not promoted. 1652. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1653. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1654. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor. 1655. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1656. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 164 of 245 PageID: 3550Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 165 of 246 PageID: 4427 165 1657. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1658. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1659. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1660. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1661. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1662. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1663. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1664. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1665. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1666. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 165 of 245 PageID: 3551Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 166 of 246 PageID: 4428 166 1667. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1668. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1669. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1670. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. AAA. PLAINTIFF TERENCE MOTI 1671. From 1997 to February of 2001, Plaintiff served as a police officer for NYPD. 1672. At all times material since February of 2001, Plaintiff Terence Moti has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1673. From February to July of 2001, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1674. From July of 2001 to September of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1675. From September of 2002 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1676. Since 2004, Plaintiff has been assigned to LaGuardia Airport. 1677. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff has received a commendation for his involvement in the 9/11 WTC rescue and recovery, as well as a Unit Commendation in 2009 for his service in response to the landing of Flight 1549 in the Hudson River, in the “Miracle on the Hudson.” 1678. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 166 of 245 PageID: 3552Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 7 of 246 PageID: 44 9 167 1679. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1680. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1681. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1682. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1683. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1684. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1685. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Captain Harper. 1686. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1687. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Guernieri. 1688. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1689. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1690. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1691. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 167 of 245 PageID: 3553Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 168 of 246 PageID: 44 0 168 1692. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1693. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1694. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1695. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1696. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1697. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1698. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1699. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 168 of 245 PageID: 3554Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 169 of 246 PageID: 4431 169 1700. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1701. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. BBB. PLAINTIFF THOMAS MANCINI 1702. At all times material since April of 1993, Plaintiff Thomas Mancini has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1703. From April until October of 1993, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1704. Plaintiff graduated third in his academy out of 101 recruits. 1705. From October of 1993 to May of 1994, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 1706. From May of 1994 to January of 1995, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1707. From January of 1995 to December of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 1708. From December of 2002 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unity, which is part of the Special Operations Division. 1709. In such a capacity, Plaintiff has inspected over 2000 commercial motor vehicles and issued over 1800 summonses. 1710. Plaintiff also focused on Commercial Motor Vehicle toll evasion, resulting in 60 summons for toll evaders, 235 summonses for obscured/concealed license plates, and over $100,000 recovered by PAPD in unpaid tolls. 1711. Plaintiff has various training certificates, including several training certificates related to commercial motor vehicle inspection. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 169 of 245 PageID: 3555Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 170 of 246 PageID: 4432 170 1712. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff has received a “Blue and White” for excellent policy duty, two group citations, and an award for responding to the World Trade Center on 9/11. 1713. Plaintiff obtained a B.A. in public administration in 2006 from John Jay College. Plaintiff also obtained a Master’s in Public Administration in 2010 from Farleigh Dickinson University. 1714. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1715. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1716. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1717. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1718. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisors on at least two different occasions by multiple supervisors. 1719. Plaintiff was randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. As such, Plaintiff was given a panel interview on March 6, 2012, by two individuals from HR and Captain Silva. 1720. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1721. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1722. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1723. Plaintiff never received his results from this interview. 1724. On or about October 15, 2012, Plaintiff received several congratulatory text messages and other communications from fellow officers. These messages stated that they had learned that Plaintiff was being promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 170 of 245 PageID: 3556Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 171 of 246 PageID: 4433 171 1725. Additionally, another individual also stated to Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s personnel file had been “pulled”, for promotion. 1726. However, Plaintiff was never informed of his promotion. 1727. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff had been ordered to be promoted, but this order was improperly rescinded prior to publication. Upon said order of Promotion, Plaintiff was entitled to the rank of Sergeant and could not be removed except as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 1728. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s name was not on any subsequent promotional list. 1729. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1730. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1731. Plaintiff was interviewed on or about February of 2013. 1732. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Gloria Frank. 1733. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1734. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1735. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1736. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 171 of 245 PageID: 3557Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 172 of 246 PageID: 4434 172 1737. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1738. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1739. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1740. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1741. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1742. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1743. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1744. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 172 of 245 PageID: 3558Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 173 of 246 PageID: 4435 173 1745. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1746. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. CCC. PLAINTIFF RICHARD CARLSON 1747. At all times material since December of 2002, Plaintiff Richard Carlson has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1748. From December of 2002 to May of 2003, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1749. From May of 2003 to July of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Airport. 1750. From July of 2003 to December of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1751. From November of 2004 to March of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. From March of 2005 to March of 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to the Holland Tunnel. 1752. From March of 2007 to March of 2010, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 1753. From March of 2010 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to Port Newark – New Jersey Marine Terminal. 1754. Plaintiff obtained a “Blue and White” for Excellent Police Duty. 1755. Plaintiff possesses a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College of Staten Island. 1756. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1757. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1758. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 173 of 245 PageID: 3559Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 174 of 246 PageID: 4436 174 1759. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1760. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1761. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1762. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1763. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisors, Lt. Figaro and Captain Rotolo. 1764. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1765. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Licorish. 1766. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1767. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1768. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1769. Shortly after Plaintiff’s interview Panel, one of Plaintiff’s supervisors told Plaintiff that he should “make your phone calls” regarding promotion. Upon information and belief, this supervisor was suggesting that Plaintiff had to make calls to influential individuals within and outside of the Port Authority and call in political and/or other favors in order to be promoted, and that this was a common and accepted practice within the Port Authority. 1770. Plaintiff did not make any such phone calls, as such efforts violated the CBA. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 174 of 245 PageID: 3560Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 175 of 246 PageID: 4437 175 1771. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1772. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1773. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1774. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1775. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1776. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1777. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1778. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 175 of 245 PageID: 3561Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 176 of 246 PageID: 4438 176 1779. Plaintiff also called Michael Ford in approximately March of 2014 and left a voicemail regarding his scores, but never received a response. 1780. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1781. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1782. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. DDD. PLAINTIFF PETER COSTELLO 1783. From December of 1997 to August of 2000, Plaintiff Peter Costello served as a police officer for NYPD. 1784. At all times material since August of 2000, Plaintiff Peter Costello has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1785. From August of 2000 to January of 2001, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1786. Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel from January of 2001 to September of 2002. 1787. From September of 2002 to January of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia Airport. 1788. From January of 2003 to March of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1789. From March of 2003 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1790. From January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Emergency Service Unit (ESU). 1791. Plaintiff was required to undergo seven months of training to be assigned to ESU. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 176 of 245 PageID: 3562Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 177 of 246 PageID: 4439 177 1792. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1793. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1794. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1795. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1796. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1797. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1798. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1799. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Sgt. McCloskey. 1800. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1801. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Guernieri. 1802. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1803. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1804. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 177 of 245 PageID: 3563Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 8 of 246 PageID: 4440 178 1805. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1806. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1807. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1808. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1809. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1810. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1811. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1812. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 178 of 245 PageID: 3564Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 179 of 246 PageID: 44 1 179 1813. Plaintiff emailed Michael Ford for his promotional results. However, Plaintiff has never received a response or received his results. 1814. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1815. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1816. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. EEE. PLAINTIFF PHILIP MONGIOVI 1817. From June of 1995 to March of 2002, Plaintiff Philip Mongiovi served as a police officer for NYPD. 1818. At all times material since March of 2002, Plaintiff Philip Mongiovi has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1819. From March of 2002 to May of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1820. From May of 2002 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1821. From 2003 to May of 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. Plaintiff also attended the fire academy during this time. 1822. Since May of 2006, Plaintiff has been assigned to ESU. 1823. Plaintiff’s ESU training occurred from approximately May of 2006 to September of 2006. 1824. Plaintiff also has obtained training as an EMT, and attended numerous other training courses and seminars. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 179 of 245 PageID: 3565Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 180 of 246 PageID: 4442 180 1825. Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor’s degree in accounting from Pace University, in 1994. 1826. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1827. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1828. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1829. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1830. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1831. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1832. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1833. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Sgt. Boonecomb. 1834. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1835. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Martinez. 1836. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1837. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1838. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 180 of 245 PageID: 3566Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 181 of 246 PageID: 4443 181 1839. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1840. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1841. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1842. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1843. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1844. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1845. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1846. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 181 of 245 PageID: 3567Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 182 of 246 PageID: 4444 182 1847. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1848. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1849. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. FFF. PLAINTIFF ANTHONY PICOZZI 1850. At all times material since November of 1993, Plaintiff Anthony Picozzi has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1851. From November of 1993 to April of 1994, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1852. From 1994 to 1997, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1853. From 1997 to 1998, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1854. From 1998 to 1999, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport, 1855. From 1999 to 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia Airport. 1856. From 2001 to 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 1857. From December of 2002 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unit and Accident Investigation Unit. 1858. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD, including at least three unit citations. Plaintiff has received a commendation for his involvement in the 9/11 WTC rescue and recovery. 1859. Plaintiff has received training in several areas, including in the area of Commercial Vehicle Inspection. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 182 of 245 PageID: 3568Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 183 of 246 PageID: 4445 183 1860. Plaintiff also received training as an Aircraft Rescue Firefighter. 1861. Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Wagner College in 1991. 1862. Plaintiff served during a number of high-profile operations, including but not limited to the 2014 Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium, Hurricane Sandy Response, 9/11 response and recovery from September of 2001 to June of 2003, the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, Republican National Convention in 2004, and the 2000 Millennium New Year’s Eve. 1863. Plaintiff also has assisted in the investigations of several incidents involving serious bodily injuries and/or death, and has assisted in numerous arrests of high-profile or dangerous criminal suspects. 1864. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1865. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1866. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1867. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1868. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1869. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1870. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 183 of 245 PageID: 3569Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 184 of 246 PageID: 4446 184 1871. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisors, Inspector Guarnieri and Mario Petruzziello. 1872. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1873. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Licorish. 1874. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1875. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1876. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1877. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1878. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1879. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1880. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1881. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1882. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 184 of 245 PageID: 3570Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 185 of 246 PageID: 4447 185 1883. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1884. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1885. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1886. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1887. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. GGG. PLAINTIFF SHAWN MURPHY 1888. At all times material since November of 1998, Plaintiff Shawn Murphy has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1889. From November of 1998 to April of 1999, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1890. From April of 1999 to January of 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 1891. From January of 2001 to December of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1892. From December of 2002 to December of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Airport. 1893. From January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has served in the Commercial Vehicle Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 185 of 245 PageID: 3571Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 186 of 246 PageID: 4448 186 1894. Inspection Unit, which is part of the Special Operations Division. 1895. Plaintiff has obtained an Associate’s Degree from Ocean County College, in Liberal Arts. 1896. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD, including multiple Unit Citations, two “Recognition[s] of Exceptional Service” for his “life-saving emergency response” during the rescue and recovery for Hurricane Sandy and for his apprehension of three carjacking suspects in 2002, a citation for his service during the rescue and recovery at the World Trade Center in the aftermath of 9/11, and a citation for his service during Pope Benedict’s visit to the New York Metropolitan Area in 2008 1897. Plaintiff has obtained various certificates for attending training courses and seminars. 1898. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1899. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1900. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1901. Upon information and belief, the written examination was distributed to certain individuals ahead of time. 1902. Further, certain officers were permitted to take the written exam after the specified test date. Upon information and belief, these individuals who were permitted to take the written exam on a later date were aware of the examination questions prior to taking the written exam. 1903. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1904. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1905. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 186 of 245 PageID: 3572Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 187 of 246 PageID: 4449 187 1906. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1907. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Lt. Munnelly. 1908. Plaintiff was interviewed in February of 2013. 1909. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Martinez. 1910. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1911. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1912. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1913. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1914. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1915. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1916. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1917. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1918. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 187 of 245 PageID: 3573Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 188 of 246 PageID: 4450 188 because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1919. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1920. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1921. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1922. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1923. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. HHH. PLAINTIFF JAMES DEADY 1924. From May of 1987 to February of 1995, Plaintiff James Deady was a civilian employee with the Port Authority. 1925. At all times material since February of 1995, Plaintiff James Deady been a police officer with the Port Authority. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 188 of 245 PageID: 3574Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 9 of 246 PageID: 4451 189 1926. From February of 1995 to July of 1995, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1927. Plaintiff graduated first in his class at the academy. 1928. From July of 1995 to February of 1997, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Airport. 1929. From February of 1997 to February of 2000, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 1930. From February of 2000 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Airport, and was part of the Airport Rescue Fire Fighters. 1931. From January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unit (CVI), which is part of the Special Operations Division. 1932. To join the CVI Unit, officers must be chosen for said unit, after meeting certain criteria, taking a test, sitting for an interview, and obtaining a recommendation from a supervisor. 1933. Plaintiff has taken several training courses, including training to be part of the Airport Rescue Fire Fighter unit. 1934. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff has received various Unit Citations, as well as a citation for his service during Pope Benedict’s visit to the New York Metropolitan area in April of 2008. 1935. Plaintiff also obtained a “Cop of the Month” award in July of 2013, “in recognition of outstanding police performance.” 1936. Plaintiff has also received several letters of gratitude from members of the public, thanking Plaintiff for his service on specific instances during his employment with PAPD. 1937. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1938. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1939. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 1940. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 189 of 245 PageID: 3575Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 0 of 246 PageID: 44 2 190 1941. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1942. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1943. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1944. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Lt. Munnelly. 1945. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 1946. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and a superior officer within PAPD. 1947. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1948. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1949. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1950. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1951. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 1952. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 190 of 245 PageID: 3576Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 191 of 246 PageID: 4453 191 1953. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1954. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1955. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1956. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1957. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1958. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1959. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 1960. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 191 of 245 PageID: 3577Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 192 of 246 PageID: 4454 192 III. PLAINTIFF DEREK YUENGLING 1961. At all times material since August of 1999, Plaintiff Derek Yuengling been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1962. From approximately August of 1999 to January of 2000, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1963. From approximately January of 2000 to January of 2001, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1964. From approximately January of 2001 to December of 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool, and was specifically assigned to the rescue and recovery at the World Trade Center after 9/11. 1965. From approximately December of 2002 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bus Terminal. 1966. From approximately January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to ESU. 1967. From approximately January of 2005 to June of 2005, Plaintiff was in ESU training. 1968. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. Plaintiff has received Unit Citations, as well as a citation for his service during the rescue and recovery after 9/11, and a unit citation for rescuing jumpers from the George Washington Bridge. 1969. Plaintiff has various training certifications, including ESU training, New York state EMT Training, and bicycle training. 1970. In 1998, Plaintiff obtained a B.A. from Long Island – CW Post, in criminal justice. 1971. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 1972. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 1973. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 192 of 245 PageID: 3578Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 193 of 246 PageID: 4455 193 1974. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 1975. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 1976. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 1977. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 1978. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Sgt. McCloskey 1979. Plaintiff was interviewed in April or May of 2013. 1980. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Bryant. 1981. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 1982. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 1983. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 1984. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 1985. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 193 of 245 PageID: 3579Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 194 of 246 PageID: 4456 194 1986. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 1987. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 1988. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 1989. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1990. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 1991. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 1992. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 1993. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 194 of 245 PageID: 3580Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 195 of 246 PageID: 4457 195 1994. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. JJJ. PLAINTIFF BRIAN ROSS 1995. From August of 1998 to July of 2002, Plaintiff Brian Ross served as a police officer for the NYPD. 1996. At all times material since July of 2002, Plaintiff Brian Ross has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 1997. From July of 2002 to September of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 1998. From approximately September of 2002 to April of 2003, Plaintiff was temporarily assigned to JFK Airport. 1999. From approximately April of 2003 to April of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 2000. From approximately April of 2004 to January of 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to JFK Airport. 2001. From approximately January of 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to ESU. 2002. Plaintiff completed ESU training from approximately January of 2005 to May of 2005. 2003. Plaintiff obtained various commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. 2004. Plaintiff obtained an Associate’s Degree from Farmingdale State University in liberal arts. 2005. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2006. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2007. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 195 of 245 PageID: 3581Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 196 of 246 PageID: 4458 196 2008. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2009. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 2010. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2011. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2012. Plaintiff was recommended and/or highly recommended by his supervisor(s). 2013. Plaintiff was interviewed in 2013. 2014. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Captain Bryant. 2015. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2016. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2017. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2018. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2019. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 196 of 245 PageID: 3582Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 197 of 246 PageID: 4459 197 2020. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was recommended and/or highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 2021. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2022. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2023. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2024. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2025. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 2026. Plaintiff has emailed Michael Ford for his promotional results but has not received a response. 2027. Given the above, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 197 of 245 PageID: 3583Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 198 of 246 PageID: 4460 198 2028. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2029. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. KKK. PLAINTIFF DANIEL DEVIRGILIO 2030. At all times material since December of 2002, Plaintiff Daniel DeVirgilio has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 2031. From December of 2002 until approximately May of 2003, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 2032. From approximately May of 2003 until December of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Airport. 2033. From approximately December of 2003 to July of 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 2034. From approximately July of 2004 to April of 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 2035. From April of 2007 to September of 2012, Plaintiff was assigned to PATH. 2036. From approximately September of 2012 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 2037. Plaintiff obtained at least seven (7) commendations and awards during his service as an officer with PAPD. This includes six (6) “Blue and White Medals” and one Memorial Citation for his work during the visit of Pope Benedict. Further, Plaintiff has recently been recommended for a medical medal for his assistance in saving an elderly woman; this recommendation is currently pending. Plaintiff has also made several drug-related arrests. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 198 of 245 PageID: 3584Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 199 of 246 PageID: 4461 199 2038. Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor’s Degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University in 1996 in English Communications. 2039. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2040. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2041. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 2042. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2043. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 2044. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2045. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2046. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Quentin D. Demarco, a Lieutenant at PATH, and this evaluation was reviewed by Defendant Brazicki. 2047. Plaintiff was given a panel interview in 2013. 2048. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Darcy Licorish. 2049. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2050. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 199 of 245 PageID: 3585Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 200 of 246 PageID: 4462 200 2051. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2052. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2053. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 2054. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 2055. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2056. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2057. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2058. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2059. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 200 of 245 PageID: 3586Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 1 of 246 PageID: 44 3 201 2060. Plaintiff has emailed Michael Ford for his promotional results. 2061. Plaintiff subsequently received a letter dated September 25, 2014, from Ford. This letter indicated that Plaintiff was not recommended for promotion. 2062. This letter also provided Plaintiff with his ratings on each of the qualification categories. 2063. Plaintiff received “Acceptable” on Breadth of Experience/Exposure, “Highly Recommended” for his Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal, and “Outstanding” on his attendance, discipline, CCIU Complaints, and investigations. 2064. However, he received “Needs Development” for the Qualifications Review Meeting. 2065. As a result of this one negative score of “Needs Development”, Plaintiff received an overall recommendation of “Not Recommended”, and has thus been denied a promotion. 2066. Plaintiff has been denied full access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 2067. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2068. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. LLL. PLAINTIFF RAJIV SAMA 2069. At all times material since November of 1993, Plaintiff Rajiv Sama has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 2070. From November of 1993 to May of 1994, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD Academy. 2071. From approximately May of 1994 to January of 1995, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia Airport. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 201 of 245 PageID: 3587Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 202 of 246 PageID: 4464 202 2072. From approximately January of 1995 to 1998, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 2073. From approximately 1998 to April of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 2074. From approximately April of 2003 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the George Washington Bridge. 2075. Plaintiff was assigned to E.S.U. from approximately 1998 to 2003, and received ESU training. 2076. Plaintiff was trained for Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting, and was trained to drive the F29 fire truck. 2077. Plaintiff has received various commendations, including but not limited to: two Green and Whites for a cardiac rescue and a gun arrest, respectively; a commendation for his handling of a bomb threat; a Blue and White for an arrest at the George Washington Bridge of an individual impersonating a law enforcement officer; a Unit Citation for assisting in a rescue of a jumper at the George Washington Bridge. 2078. Plaintiff obtained a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics from CUNY Lehman in 1991. 2079. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2080. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2081. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 2082. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2083. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 2084. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 202 of 245 PageID: 3588Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 203 of 246 PageID: 4465 203 2085. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2086. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor. 2087. Plaintiff was given a panel interview in 2013. 2088. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Ramon Martinez. 2089. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2090. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2091. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2092. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2093. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 2094. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 2095. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2096. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2097. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 203 of 245 PageID: 3589Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 204 of 246 PageID: 4466 204 because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2098. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2099. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 2100. Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 2101. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2102. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. MMM. PLAINTIFF DUANE HATCHETTE 2103. At all times material from approximately April of 1997 to August of 2000, Plaintiff Duane Hatchette was a police officer in the NYPD. 2104. At all times material since August of 2000, Plaintiff Duane Hatchette has been a police officer with the Port Authority. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 204 of 245 PageID: 3590Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 205 of 246 PageID: 4467 205 2105. From approximately August of 2000 to 2001, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD academy. 2106. From approximately 2001 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Lincoln Tunnel. 2107. From approximately 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. 2108. From approximately 2004 to 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark Liberty International Airport. 2109. From approximately 2007 to 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to the New Jersey Marine Terminal. 2110. From approximately 2008 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Special Operations Commercial Vehicle Inspections Unit. 2111. Plaintiff received his Associates Degree in computer technology from CUNY Queensboro, in 1993. 2112. Plaintiff has been trained in numerous specialized areas, including screening for radiation detection; crash investigations; criminal interdiction of commercial vehicles; Commercial vehicle training; Hazmat inspection. 2113. Plaintiff has received various commendations, including but not limited to Cop of the Month in 2013; a group citation in 2013; two unit citations in 2008 and 2009; a commendatory incident report in 2009, a certification of acknowledgment in 2004, and a citation for his work during Pope Benedict’s visit to the New York metropolitan area. 2114. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2115. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2116. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 2117. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 205 of 245 PageID: 3591Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 206 of 246 PageID: 4468 206 2118. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 2119. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2120. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2121. Plaintiff was highly recommended by his supervisor, Lt. Rick Munnelly. 2122. Plaintiff was given a panel interview in 2013. 2123. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Lt. Harper. 2124. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2125. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2126. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2127. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2128. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 2129. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 206 of 245 PageID: 3592Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 207 of 246 PageID: 4469 207 2130. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2131. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2132. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2133. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2134. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories. 2135. Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 2136. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2137. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 207 of 245 PageID: 3593Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 208 of 246 PageID: 4470 208 NNN. PLAINTIFF WILLIAM KRUESI 2138. At all times material since May of 2002, Plaintiff William Kruesi has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 2139. From approximately May of 2002 to October of 2002, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD academy. 2140. In the academy, Plaintiff was the recipient of the Inspector Edward M. Joseph Award as Valedictorian of the 103rd Academy Class. 2141. From approximately October 2002 to June 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Staten Island Bridges Command. 2142. From approximately June 2004 to October 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to Newark International Airport Command. 2143. From approximately October 2004 to February 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to Path Command. 2144. From approximately February 2005 to October 2008, Plaintiff was assigned to Special Operations Division- Emergency Service Unit. 2145. From approximately October 2008 to July 2010, Plaintiff was assigned to the Port Authority Police Academy. 2146. From approximately July 2010 to February 2014, Plaintiff was assigned to Special Operations Division- Emergency Service Unit. 2147. In approximately February of 2014, Plaintiff was promoted to Detective, and was assigned to the Newark International Airport. 2148. In August of 2014, Plaintiff was assigned as detective to the Applicant Investigations Unit. 2149. Plaintiff has received several specialized training courses, including ESU training. 2150. Plaintiff has instructed classes for in-service training in Law Enforcement Protective Measures and Actions for Weapons of Mass Destruction Events, Domestic Violence, Police Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 208 of 245 PageID: 3594Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 209 of 246 PageID: 4471 209 Suicide, Biased Based Profiling, Police Ethics, Autism Awareness, Cell Block Detention, Car stops and Vehicle Pursuits, Scott Airpack Refresher, and Incident Response to Suicide Bombing Incidents. 2151. Plaintiff has developed and instructed classes for Patrol In-service Training in Tactical Building Searches, Police Response to an Active Shooter, Officer Survival, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Training (Terrorist Interdiction through behavior profiling), Threat Hazard Recognition and Emergency Actions of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Incidents, Monadnock Baton, and Defensive Tactics. 2152. Plaintiff has developed and instructed Emergency Service Officers in Mobile Counter Assault Team, Perpetrator Search, Tactical Warrants, Response to an Active Shooter, Downed Officer Rescue, High Angle/Low Angle Rope Rescue, Confined Space Rescue, Suicide Jumper Response/Rescue, Hazardous Material Detection Mitigation and Rescue, NYS/Federal Biological Watch Detection, NJS/NYC Response to Biological Incident, DRAGER Rebreathing Packs, and Vehicle Extrication. 2153. Plaintiff has developed and/or instructed curriculum for 107th-113th Recruit Classes in Weapons of Mass Destruction, Monadnock Baton, Defensive Tactics, Physical Fitness Training, Confined Space, Water Safety, O.C. Spray, Traffic Science, Vehicle Pursuit, Car Stops, Tactical Building Searched, Boxing, and Police Response to an Active Shooter. 2154. Plaintiff is the port authorities only radiation specialist and lead instructor for the 'save the cities program' involving all radiation/nuclear detection for the port authority. 2155. Plaintiff assisted in the drafting various SOPs (standard operating procedures) including: PDI - 900-01 Rapid response to an active shooter; General order number 500-04 Bio-watch program and procedures; and General order number 500-02 Rad-eye detection pager alarm. 2156. Plaintiff possesses a Bachelor of Science in Education and Bachelor of Arts in History, from SUNY College at Oneonta, New York, class of 1994. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 209 of 245 PageID: 3595Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 210 of 246 PageID: 4472 210 2157. Plaintiff is currently a Masters Candidate in Education, from the CUNY College of Staten Island, New York. Plaintiff has completed his courses and is awaiting a degree. 2158. Plaintiff has received several commendations and awards, including Group Citations and Meritorious Duty medals. 2159. From approximately 2006 to 2009, Plaintiff was a union delegate for the PBA local. 2160. During his time as union delegate, Plaintiff engaged in union activities, including activities pertaining to the rights of his fellow officers and misconduct of superior officers. 2161. During this time period, and within Plaintiff’s capacity and duties as union delegate, Plaintiff disagreed with and opposed the conduct of Lt. Rick Munnelly. 2162. As a result, Lt. Munnelly opposed Plaintiff’s union activities and sought to retaliate against Plaintiff. 2163. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2164. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2165. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 2166. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 89% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2167. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated under the supposedly random evaluation procedure. 2168. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2169. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 210 of 245 PageID: 3596Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 211 of 246 PageID: 4473 211 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2170. Plaintiff was “highly recommended” by his supervisors, Lt. Grilio and Lt. Cunningham. 2171. In 2011, Plaintiff was improperly written up for allegedly being late to a post by fifteen (15) minutes. As a result, Plaintiff was written up by Lt. Munnelly. 2172. Upon information and belief, Munnelly’s charges against Plaintiff were to retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in the aforementioned union activities as union delegate, and were intended to disqualify Plaintiff from promotion and/or consideration for promotion. 2173. Despite the fact that one brief lateness should not be the subject of discipline, but rather should simply be grounds to provide the officer with a counseling memo or similar counseling, Lt. Munnelly instead instituted disciplinary action against Plaintiff. 2174. Thereafter, when the PAPD was conducting panel interviews in 2013, Plaintiff was denied a panel interview. 2175. Plaintiff was not provided with any written justification for the denial of an interview. 2176. However, he was verbally told that this was because he had pending minor discipline, which arose out of the aforementioned alleged lateness. 2177. However, the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s provisions on the promotional process only disqualifies officers for having pending major discipline. 2178. Therefore, the PAPD violated the terms of the CBA by disqualifying Plaintiff for promotion. 2179. The Port Authority improperly denied plaintiff an interview and thus an opportunity to be promoted. 2180. Further, but for Lt. Munnelly’s disciplining of Plaintiff, Plaintiff would have received a panel interview. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 211 of 245 PageID: 3597Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 2 of 246 PageID: 44 4 212 2181. Moreover, in or around April 2, 2013, the pending discipline against Plaintiff was dropped, and Plaintiff was given a counseling memo, which was not a form of official discipline. 2182. As of April 2, 2013, interviews were still being conducted for promotion. 2183. As such, Plaintiff again requested an interview. 2184. However, despite the fact that his pending discipline had resolved, Plaintiff was again denied a panel interview and thus denied an opportunity to be promoted. 2185. No legitimate or formal justification was ever provided to Plaintiff as to why he was denied an interviewed. 2186. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was denied an interview and promotion, due to Lt. Munnelly’s retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in union activities. 2187. Further, upon information and belief, the Port Authority created, fostered and maintained a policy whereby retaliation was permitted, and whereby Lt. Munnelly was permitted to retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in protected union activities. 2188. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2189. Plaintiff was not on this list, because he was denied an interview. 2190. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisors. 2191. Because of not being interviewed, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2192. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2193. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of the denial of an interview to Plaintiff, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 212 of 245 PageID: 3598Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 213 of 246 PageID: 4475 213 wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2194. Numerous PAPD officers have been promoted, and Plaintiff – who was not given an interview - has been denied promotion and/or consideration for promotion. 2195. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2196. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2197. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. OOO. PLAINTIFF JAMES CAMUS 2198. At all times material since approximately November 1, 1993, Plaintiff James Camus has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 2199. From approximately November 1993 to April 29, 1994, Plaintiff was enrolled in the PAPD academy. 2200. From approximately April of 1994 to November of 1994, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia Airport. 2201. From approximately November of 1994 to September of 1995, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 213 of 245 PageID: 3599Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 214 of 246 PageID: 4476 214 2202. From approximately September of 1995 to April of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to LaGuardia. 2203. From approximately April of 2003 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the George Washington Bridge. 2204. Plaintiff has completed specialized training, including ARFF training in 1995, ESU training in 2001, and Heavy Weapons training. 2205. Plaintiff has received various awards and commendations, including 2 Excellent Police Duty Breast Bars, including one for a water rescue that helped save 2 lives, 1 Meritorious Police Duty medal, 1 Unit Citation and a WTC Medal for service during and after 9/11. 2206. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2207. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2208. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 2209. On or about December 1, 2010, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade of 76% on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2210. Plaintiff was chosen during the second purportedly random selection of officers to be considered for promotion. 2211. Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor, Lt. Thomas Michaels. 2212. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two uniformed supervisory PAPD officers and one civilian from the Port Authority. 2213. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2214. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2215. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2216. Plaintiff never received his scores from this qualifications review meeting. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 214 of 245 PageID: 3600Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 215 of 246 PageID: 4477 215 2217. Thereafter, Plaintiff was given a new qualifications review meeting, with a new panel. 2218. This panel consisted of two civilians from HR and one uniformed supervisory PAPD officer. 2219. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2220. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2221. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2222. Plaintiff never received his scores from this qualifications review meeting. 2223. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2224. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2225. Plaintiff was evaluated and interviewed in 2013. 2226. For his performance appraisal by his immediate supervisor, Plaintiff received the rating of “highly recommended”, in both 2011 and 2012. 2227. Plaintiff’s panel for his Qualification Review Meeting consisted of two individuals from Human Resources and Inspector Rotolo. 2228. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2229. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2230. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 215 of 245 PageID: 3601Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 216 of 246 PageID: 4478 216 2231. Plaintiff never received his scores for this qualifications review meeting or any of the results of his evaluation by the Promotional Review Board. 2232. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2233. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 2234. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his immediate supervisor. This recommendation by his immediate supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 2235. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2236. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2237. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2238. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 216 of 245 PageID: 3602Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 217 of 246 PageID: 4479 217 2239. Upon information and belief, after each candidate’s interview, said candidate received a letter indicating his ratings for each interview category. However, Plaintiff was never issued such a letter, and has not been informed of his ratings on each of the interview categories, for any of his qualification review meetings or evaluations by the Promotion Review Board. 2240. As such, Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 2241. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2242. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. PPP. PLAINTIFF JOSEPH ROTONDO 2243. From approximately 1994 to 2002, Plaintiff served as a New York State Court Officer. During this time, from approximately 1998 to 2002, Plaintiff served as Sergeant. 2244. At all times material since May of 2002, Plaintiff Rotondo has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 2245. Plaintiff then completed the PAPD academy from approximately May of 2002 to November of 2002. 2246. From approximately November of 2002 to November of 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Newark Liberty International Airport. 2247. From approximately November of 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 217 of 245 PageID: 3603Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 218 of 246 PageID: 4480 218 2248. From approximately 2004 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to the Newark Liberty International Airport. 2249. Plaintiff received at least one medal for his service as a PAPD officer. 2250. Plaintiff also received specialized training, including motor vehicle inspection training, desk training, Airport Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) training, and squad leader training. 2251. Plaintiff obtained his Associates Degree from Kingsborough Community College, in liberal arts, in approximately 1993. 2252. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2253. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2254. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. 2255. Subsequently, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2256. Plaintiff was randomly chosen to be evaluated in June of 2011. 2257. Plaintiff received a rating of ‘Highly Recommended’ by his supervisors, Zika and Defendant Tagarelli. 2258. Plaintiff’s Qualifications Review Meeting panel consisted of Captain McClave, Captain Michael Jones, and one person from Port Authority Human Resources department. 2259. As indicated above, Ferrigno had previously provided the interview questions to various officers prior to their panel interviews. 2260. However, Plaintiff was not provided with said questions ahead of time. 2261. Plaintiff was not recommended for promotion; upon information and belief, the reason that he was not recommended for promotion was due to receiving a rating of “unacceptable” in the area of attendance by the promotional review board. However, Plaintiff met all applicable attendance standards for promotion. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 218 of 245 PageID: 3604Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 219 of 246 PageID: 4481 219 2262. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2263. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2264. Plaintiff was given another Qualifications Review Meeting in 2013, during the time in which all officers on the horizontal roster were purportedly given said meetings. 2265. Plaintiff’s qualifications review meeting panel consisted of Inspector Norma Hardy and two other individuals from the Port Authority. 2266. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2267. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. 2268. The hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2269. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. 2270. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 2271. Plaintiff thereafter received a letter dated July 26, 2014 from Michael Ford of the Port Authority Human Resources department. 2272. This letter indicated that Plaintiff was not recommended for promotion. 2273. Specifically, this letter indicated that his Breadth of Experience as Acceptable, that his Police Sergeant Roster Promotional/Developmental Appraisal was “Highly Recommended”, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 219 of 245 PageID: 3605Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 220 of 246 PageID: 4482 220 and that his discipline, CCIU complaints and Investigations were all “Outstanding”. However, Plaintiff again was improperly given a rating of “Unacceptable” in the category of attendance, even though Plaintiff met all applicable attendance standards for promotion. Further, Plaintiff was given a ranking of “Needs Development” by the Qualifications Review Meeting panel. 2274. As a result, Plaintiff was given an overall ranking of “Not Recommended” for promotion by the Promotion Review Board. 2275. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 2276. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2277. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2278. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2279. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2280. Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 220 of 245 PageID: 3606Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 21 of 246 PageID: 4483 221 2281. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2282. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. QQQ. PLAINTIFF JOSEPH O’LEARY 2283. From approximately June of 2001 to March of 2002, Plaintiff Joseph O’Leary served as a police officer for the NYPD. 2284. At all times material since March of 2002, Plaintiff Joseph O’Leary has been a police officer with the Port Authority. 2285. Plaintiff then completed the PAPD academy from approximately March of 2002 to May of 2002. 2286. From approximately 2002 to 2003, Plaintiff was assigned to the Newark Liberty International Airport. 2287. From approximately November of 2003 to 2004, Plaintiff was assigned to the Pool 2288. From approximately 2004 to 2005 Plaintiff was assigned to the Newark Liberty International Airport. 2289. From 2005 to present, Plaintiff has been assigned to SID. 2290. Plaintiff took the 2010 promotional examination for the rank of Sergeant. 2291. Plaintiff met all of the qualifications and criteria for promotion, pursuant to the promotional announcement. 2292. On or about April 17, 2010, Plaintiff took the written examination. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 221 of 245 PageID: 3607Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 22 of 246 PageID: 4484 222 2293. Subsequently, Plaintiff received notice that he received a passing grade on the written examination and would be placed on the horizontal roster. 2294. Plaintiff was not randomly chosen to be evaluated in June of 2011. 2295. As previously set forth, on November 21, 2012, the PAPD issued another promotional opportunity announcement for those officers remaining on the horizontal roster as of March 1, 2011. 2296. As previously set forth, unlike the previous promotional process, where the IG supervised the random selection of officers to be evaluated and interviewed, this November 21, 2012 announcement eliminated the randomness element and mandated that all officers on the horizontal roster be evaluated and interviewed. 2297. Plaintiff was given a Qualifications Review Meeting in 2013, during the time in which all officers on the horizontal roster were purportedly given said meetings. 2298. Plaintiff received a rating of ‘Highly Recommended’ by his supervisor. 2299. Plaintiff’s Qualifications Review Meeting panel consisted of Darcy Licorish and two individuals from Port Authority Human Resources department. 2300. During this interview, Plaintiff was asked five (5) hypothetical patrol questions. 2301. As previously set forth, these hypotheticals were disclosed by Ferrigno to various officers ahead of time. However, the hypotheticals were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 2302. As indicated above, Ferrigno had previously provided the interview questions to various officers prior to their panel interviews. 2303. However, Plaintiff was not provided with said questions ahead of time. 2304. On July 26, 2013, a list of officers was promulgated; this list indicated which officers received a rating of “highly recommended” and/or “Recommended” by each officer’s respective interview panel. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 222 of 245 PageID: 3608Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 246 PageID: 44 5 223 2305. Plaintiff was not on this list, meaning that his interview panel manipulated the selection process by providing him with an overall recommendation rating of “Not Recommended”. 2306. Plaintiff never received any of his scores from his qualifications review meeting or promotion review board. 2307. Plaintiff called Michael Ford to obtain his scores. Ford indicated that he could not tell Plaintiff his scores. 2308. However, Ford did indicate that Plaintiff was given an overall ranking of “Not Recommended” for promotion by the Promotion Review Board. 2309. This occurred despite the fact that Plaintiff was highly recommended for promotion by his supervisor. This recommendation by his supervisor was submitted to Headquarters and, upon information and belief, was in the possession of Plaintiff’s interview panel. 2310. Because of this low interview rating score, Plaintiff was not placed on an eligibility list for promotion. 2311. As a result, Plaintiff has not been promoted. 2312. Since Plaintiff has been interviewed, the Port Authority has made promotions on at least four (4) occasions: July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and August of 2014. However, because of Plaintiff’s arbitrary and capricious scoring and selection, as well as the PAPD’s manipulation and wrongful change to the promotional process, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. 2313. As a result of individuals being improperly permitted to proceed in the examination process and improperly chosen to be promoted, these individuals filled openings for promotion to Sergeant, which could and should have been offered to Plaintiff. As such, as a result of the improprieties and manipulation described above, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 223 of 245 PageID: 3609Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 24 of 246 PageID: 4486 224 2314. Plaintiff has been denied access and/or review of his interview results, scores, or comparative results. 2315. Due to the arbitrary, capricious, and wrongful practices, actions and policies of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. 2316. The promotional process was tainted by nepotism, cronyism and unlawful practices, including but not limited to the improper disclosure of examination information to officers assigned to the academy, which deprived Plaintiff of a fair, unbiased, and transparent promotional process. RRR. 2015 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROMOTIONAL EXAM FOR RANK OF SERGEANT. 2317. On March 4, 2015, a new promotion evaluation announcement was issued, to be held on April 18, 2015. 2318. The Port Authority continues to promote based on candidates’ political associations and/or connections with political figures. The pattern of making politically-influenced promotions continued in the 2015 exam. 2319. Whereas the last two promotional examinations were nine (9) years apart (2001 to 2010), this promotional exam is being held only five years after the March 2010 announcement. 2320. This announcement established a completely new test, to establish a new “horizontal roster of those eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Sergeant.” 2321. This was done even though over three-hundred (300) officers eligible for promotion – including all plaintiffs - remain on the existing horizontal roster. 2322. As a result, the new horizontal roster has superseded the old horizontal roster, which served as the eligibility list for the 2010 exam. All of the Plaintiffs were placed on the 2010 horizontal Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 224 of 245 PageID: 3610Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 25 of 246 PageID: 4487 225 roster and thus were eligible for promotion to Sergeant. However, as a result of the new exam, the existing eligibility list will be dissolved. 2323. Further, this was done even though the Port Authority continues to promote from the existing horizontal roster. In fact, as indicated above, ten (10) officers were promoted effective March 1, 2015, and one (1) officer, Craig Hoo, was promoted on March 11, 2015, which was one week after the issuance of the March 4, 2015 promotional announcement. 2324. The March 4, 2015 promotional announcement has established completely new criteria and requirements, which will enable the Port Authority to have absolute discretion to promote officers to Sergeant. 2325. A number of the criteria requirements are new to the exam and designed to contain arbitrary and manipulated scoring and results of the promotional exam. 2326. For example, unlike the previous exam, there are no other eligibility requirements other than a seniority/experience requirement, which will be explained below; there is no longer a discipline requirement or an attendance requirement, even though Appendix J of the CBA itself indicates that officers with major disciplinary may not be promoted. App. J (III)(B)(1). 2327. In the 2010 exam, several officers did not qualify under the examination criteria but were nonetheless promoted by the Department; thus, the elimination of these criteria appears to be the Port Authority’s attempt to skirt the criteria under the prior exam and CBA, and simply promote whomever they want. 2328. Further, the new promotional announcement indicates that “at the discretion of the Port Authority, a random selection process, monitored by the Office of the Inspector General, may be conducted…” Page 4. 2329. However, the prior exam mandated this random selection, stating that “a random selection process, monitored by the Officer of the Inspector General, is conducted from those who Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 225 of 245 PageID: 3611Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 26 of 246 PageID: 4488 226 applied to the bulletin to identify a pool of applications for further consideration.” Page 3. The new examination announcement eliminates this requirement. 2330. What was once a mandated random selection process – with oversight by the inspector general – is now completely at the discretion of the Port Authority, and presumably Defendant Fedorko, to promote whomever he wants without regard to the seniority and/or qualifications and/or written exam ratings of the candidates. The written exam is the only objective portion of the examination process. 2331. This was changed to further enable the Port Authority to promote officers who are affiliated with political figures and/or political organizations, as previously discussed. 2332. Again, this demonstrates the Port Authority’s attempts to eliminate any obstacle or process that could hinder its desire for unfettered control in promoting its Sergeants and promoting officers with less experience and qualifications. 2333. This new promotional announcement also eliminates other promotional criteria. Whereas the 2010 promotion review board was to consider ten (10) different criteria for promotion, the new announcement only lists four such criteria: the Promotion/Development Appraisal, attendance history, discipline history, and any pending or prior complaints against the officer. Page 4. 2334. Similarly, whereas, in the 2010 announcement, all candidates to be considered by the PRB would also receive a qualifications review meeting (QRM), the new announcement indicates that “only the most competitive candidates will be invited to participate in the QRM” (Id.), without defining who or what constitutes the “most competitive” candidates. 2335. Thus, regardless of how well a particular officer performs on the written exam or even in the aforementioned four (4) criteria for promotion, said officer can still be denied an opportunity to be promoted because the Port Authority unilaterally said so, without giving an explanation. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 226 of 245 PageID: 3612Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 27 of 246 PageID: 4489 227 2336. Further, the 2015 examination announcement also contains an inconsistency with regard to the requisite amount of in-grade experience to be promoted. Said announcement established a requirement that each candidate possess 5 years of in-grade experience. However, on page 8 of the very same announcement, the minimum experience necessary is only two years. 2337. Upon information and belief, this was done to promote the PAPD’s favored candidates with more than two but less than five years of experience, while holding other officers to a five-year standard. 2338. Additionally, in prior exams, candidates for the promotional exam have been given booklets with reading materials for the exam, which included only department orders, memos, and other official policies and procedures. 2339. Unsurprisingly, unfair advantages are already being provided to favored candidates. 2340. For this new exam, the candidates not only received similar materials, but also received “training materials” from the training academy that were written by members of the academy, some of whom will be taking the 2015 examination and were not eligible to be promoted on the 2010 promotional process.. 2341. These training materials, which are to be used as part of the exam, were written by members of the academy, including candidates for the exam. 2342. The following officers assigned to the academy wrote testing materials, and are now eligible to take the same exam for which they helped write the testing materials: Lisa Orlando, Lawanda Irving, Scott Benoit, Milka Moran, and L. Averhoff. 2343. These members of the academy wrote testing preparation materials and are being permitted to take the said exam in which they helped write testing preparation materials. 2344. These candidates are studying the very same materials that they themselves wrote and clearly will have an advantage regarding those materials. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 227 of 245 PageID: 3613Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 28 of 246 PageID: 4490 228 2345. Further, none of these individuals were eligible to be promoted in the 2010 exam, was the most recent exam held, because they did not at that time possess sufficient in-grade experience. 2346. Thus, the first time that these four individuals from the academy are eligible for promotion, they are being given a significant advantage in the promotional exam. This is further evidence that the Port Authority intends to manipulate the examination process to provide advantages to its favored candidates, including but not limited to Lisa Orlando, Lawanda Irving, Scott Benoit, Milka Moran, and L. Averhoff. 2347. Since the exposure of the cheating scandal in the academy arising from John Ferrigno’s misconduct, other steps have been stake to ensure that officers assigned to the academy receive preferential treatment and advantages in the promotional process. 2348. Like in the 2010 examination, candidates who worked in the academy have been provided with testing materials ahead of time. 2349. Additionally, the new announcement adds that there is no time period in which the Port Authority may use the horizontal roster, and may stop promoting from said roster “regardless of whether the roster has been exhausted.” 2350. Finally, the only right to appeal pertains to the written portion of the exam; no right to appeal exists for the qualification review meeting or any decisions or scoring by the promotion review board or the promotion of officers by Defendant Fedorko. 2351. Further, it was discovered that the Port Authority did not even have a passing score for the written exam until after the written exam was conducted. 2352. As is clear from above, there was no need for a new exam, given that hundreds of officers remain on the horizontal roster, including all plaintiffs. Moreover, the PAPD continues to promote officers, even in March of 2015. Thus, clearly, the Port Authority is fully able to make promotions on the existing horizontal roster, instead of instituting a new test. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 228 of 245 PageID: 3614Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 29 of 246 PageID: 4491 229 2353. The written exam was conducted in 2015. 2354. Of approximately 700 candidates who took the exam, 171 passed the written exam and were placed on the horizontal roster, which is a list of those candidates eligible to be promotion to Sergeant. 2355. Of those 171 candidates, approximately 70 were not given qualifications review meetings due to – according to the Port Authority – having unacceptable records with regard to discipline, absences or civilian complaints. 2356. Thus, approximately 101 candidates were permitted to proceed to the final section of the exam: the qualification review meetings and review by the Promotional Review Board. 2357. All Plaintiffs were among these 101 candidates permitted to receive a qualifications review meeting. 2358. The qualification review meetings were conducted by various panels, consisting of three individuals. These three individuals were not the same or consistent over all of the interviews. Rather, the individuals assigned to the panel for each interview completely varied. For the most part, each panel consisted of a member of the Port Authority Human Resources department and two PAPD superior officers. The H.R. members were not well- versed in police policies, procedures, or duties. 2359. Each candidate was asked five questions or hypotheticals by the QRM panel, to which the candidates had to respond. Although the Port Authority has claimed that the questions were proprietary, many of these questions repeated for each candidate that was interviewed for the QRM. 2360. Further, no benchmarks, guidelines, or uniform scoring systems were used to grade each candidate on each category, nor did each panel apply a uniform scoring system. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 229 of 245 PageID: 3615Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 30 of 246 PageID: 4492 230 2361. The panels did not utilize the same and/or similar criteria, and promoted purely in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner. The ratings given to the candidates was influenced by nepotism, cronyism, and unfair and/or unlawful practices. Further, the Defendants knew or should have known that certain candidates had been previously provided with the questions and suggested answers for the Qualification Review Meeting. 2362. Moreover, even though 7 of the 9 plaintiffs supposedly failed the qualifications review meeting, no explanation was provided for their failing rating. Further, for the other two plaintiffs who did pass the qualifications review meeting, they nonetheless still were not recommended for promotion, with no explanation as to why they were not recommended. 2363. Essentially, those who failed the QRM automatically were not recommended for promotion, and those who passed the QRM still were not promoted. Final recommendation ratings for candidates was subjective, arbitrary, not based on merit, and formulated to promote whomever the Port Authority wanted, specifically those who supported preferred political candidates and/or belonged to preferred political organizations and/or associations. 2364. On or about November 6, 2015, the Port Authority established a list of officers “highly recommended” for promotion. This consisted of 50 candidates. 2365. Then, on or about November 18, 2015, the Port Authority came out with a new “highly recommended list”, with 25 candidates on said list. This list deleted certain individuals from the original “highly recommended” list and added others. 2366. Then, on December 10, 2015, the Port Authority, the Port Authority issued a list of candidates who were “recommended” 2367. This will likely be the last chance for many of the Plaintiffs to be promoted to Sergeant, since the last exams were in 2000 and 2010, respectively, and thus the next exam would not be expected until at least 2020 or even 2025. At that point, the plaintiffs – who all already have several years of experience - would be at the point where they would be eligible to retire, which Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 230 of 245 PageID: 3616Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 231 of 246 PageID: 4493 231 would deny them not only promotion and experience, but also a reduction in pension over the course of their lifetime. 2368. Further, the actions of defendants will deprive Plaintiffs of a chance of being further promoted to Lieutenant, as it not only will delay their experience and training in the rank of Sergeant, but will also deprive them of the years of service necessary to be promoted to Lieutenant. 2369. Accordingly, this exam will in all likelihood eliminate any chance of becoming Sergeant, will eliminate or reduce any chance of subsequently being further promoted to Lieutenant, and will thus affect the plaintiffs’ salaries and retirement pensions. 2370. As a result of the improper action of Defendants, individuals who would not otherwise have been promoted were in fact chosen to be promoted by Superintendent Fedorko on behalf of the PAPD. 2371. Subsequently, on December 15, 2015, the Port Authority has promoted at least 22 individuals from the “highly recommended” list. None of the Plaintiffs were promoted. 2372. Upon information and belief, certain individuals who were promoted did so even though they did not adhere to the promotional guidelines and/or they used improper political connections to obtain promotion. 2373. The Port Authority Police Department developed and maintained a pattern and practice whereby the procedure for promotion of police officers to the rank of Sergeant is manipulated to achieve desired promotions. 2374. The qualifications review meetings and recommendations by the Promotional Review Board were arbitrary, not based on merit, done in a manner to benefit favored candidates, and based on nepotism, cronyism and political affiliation. 2375. Despite its promulgation of the policy procedure set forth in the various promotional announcements and postings, upon information and belief, the Port Authority has Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 231 of 245 PageID: 3617Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 232 of 246 PageID: 4494 232 intentionally and knowingly ignored and violated said policies. Upon information and belief, the defendants knew that the policies and procedures set forth with regard to promotions to the rank of Sergeant were false, intended to mislead and fraudulent. 2376. The Port Authority had no rational basis for adopting, publicizing, and putting the individual Plaintiffs through its 2015 procedures for promotion to Sergeant only to thereafter arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully disregard its procedures, or to implement them unfairly. 2377. The Port Authority had no rational basis for its decision to avoid and unlawfully change its Sergeant promotional policies and procedures. 2378. Defendant’s actions in breaching its adopted Sergeant Promotion policies and procedures did not meet or satisfy any legitimate goal or interest of the Port Authority. 2379. Plaintiffs previously brought claims under the procedural and substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a breach of contract claim, as well as a First Amendment claim by Plaintiff Ortiz. However, spall of these claims were dismissed by the Court on March 31, 2016. Thus, those claims – while intended to be preserved – are not pled here. COUNT I PLAINTIFFS V. ALL DEFENDANTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS 2380. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2381. Defendants violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of the privileges and immunities secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, in particular, their Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 232 of 245 PageID: 3618Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 233 of 246 PageID: 4495 233 right to hold employment without infringement of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association. 2382. As set forth in paragraphs 139-165, 2319, and 2332, Defendants gave preference in the promotional process to those candidates who supported the preferred political candidates, were associated with preferred political candidates, or belonged to preferred organizations and/or associations. 2383. Making promotions based on political association was not necessary for the operations of the Port Authority. 2384. Party affiliation, association and/or support are not appropriate requirements for the position or Sergeant. 2385. Membership in various organizations, such as unions or officer organizations, is not an appropriate requirement for the position of Sergeant. 2386. Promotions based on political affiliations or support constitute an impermissible infringement on the right to free expression and association of public employees, including the Plaintiffs. 2387. Defendants willfully and recklessly took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs, in order to deny Plaintiffs their First Amendment right to free speech and association. 2388. Defendant Port Authority established a policy and/or custom of making promotions based on political association and/or speech and/or patronage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the United States Constitution; ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices; iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 233 of 245 PageID: 3619Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 4 of 246 PageID: 44 6 234 suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; v. Award punitive damages against the individual defendants; vi. Reverse any and all promotions made by the Port Authority to the rank of Sergeant made on a basis impermissible under the First Amendment. vii. Promote Plaintiffs to the rank of Sergeant. viii. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT II PLAINTIFFS V. ALL DEFENDANTS New Jersey Rule 4:69 ACTION IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS 2389. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2390. Plaintiffs bring this claim under New Jersey Rule 4:69 and the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1367 related to supplemental jurisdiction for state claims closely related to existing federal claims. 2391. Defendant, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (cited variously herein as “Defendant” or the “Port Authority”) is a bi-state transportation agency created with the consent of the United States Congress pursuant to Article 1, §10 of the United States Constitution. At all relevant times, the Port Authority was and is a state actor, has employed over 1,000 police officers, and has been continuously, and is now, doing business in the States of New York and New Jersey. 2392. Defendants violated the provisions of the promotional announcements, as set forth above. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 234 of 245 PageID: 3620Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 235 of 246 PageID: 4497 235 2393. Defendants willfully and recklessly took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs, in violation of the promotional announcements set forth by the Port Authority, constituting state action. 2394. Defendant Port Authority established a policy and/or custom of making promotions based on criteria other than that which was set forth in the promotional announcements and policies. 2395. The promotional announcements were not followed and were deficient, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs; ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said practices; iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; v. Award punitive damages against the individual defendants; vi. Reverse any and all promotions made by the Port Authority to the rank of Sergeant made on a basis impermissible under the First Amendment. vii. Promote Plaintiffs to the rank of Sergeant. viii. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 235 of 245 PageID: 3621Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 236 of 246 PageID: 4498 236 COUNT III PLAINTIFFS V. ALL DEFENDANTS New Jersey Civil Rights Act Violations of the New Jersey Constitution 2396. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2397. Defendants violated the provisions of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act in that Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of the privileges and immunities secured to them by the New Jersey Constitution. 2398. Defendants gave preference in the promotional process to those candidates who supported the preferred political candidates, were associated with preferred political candidates, or belonged to preferred organizations and/or associations. 2399. Making promotions based on political association was not necessary for the operations of the Port Authority. 2400. Party affiliation, association and/or support are not appropriate requirements for the position or Sergeant. 2401. Membership in various organizations, such as unions or officer organizations, is not an appropriate requirement for the position of Sergeant. 2402. Promotions based on political affiliations or support constitute an impermissible infringement on the right to free expression and association of public employees, including the Plaintiffs. 2403. Defendants willfully and recklessly took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs, in order to deny Plaintiffs their rights under the state constitution. 2404. Defendant Port Authority established a policy and/or custom of making promotions based on political association and/or speech and/or patronage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 236 of 245 PageID: 3622Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 237 of 246 PageID: 4499 237 i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the New Jersey Constitution; ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices; iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; v. Award punitive damages against the individual defendants; vi. Reverse any and all promotions made by the Port Authority to the rank of Sergeant made on a basis impermissible under the New Jersey constitution. vii. Promote Plaintiffs to the rank of Sergeant. viii. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT IV PLAINTIFFS V. ALL DEFENDANTS Violations of the New York Constitution 2405. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2406. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of the privileges and immunities secured to them by the New York Constitution. 2407. Defendants gave preference in the promotional process to those candidates who supported the preferred political candidates, were associated with preferred political candidates, or belonged to preferred organizations and/or associations. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 237 of 245 PageID: 3623Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 238 of 246 PageID: 4500 238 2408. Making promotions based on political association was not necessary for the operations of the Port Authority. 2409. Party affiliation, association and/or support are not appropriate requirements for the position or Sergeant. 2410. Membership in various organizations, such as unions or officer organizations, is not an appropriate requirement for the position of Sergeant. 2411. Promotions based on political affiliations or support constitute an impermissible infringement on the right to free expression and association of public employees, including the Plaintiffs. 2412. Defendants willfully and recklessly took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs, in order to deny Plaintiffs their rights under the state constitution. 2413. Defendant Port Authority established a policy and/or custom of making promotions based on political association and/or speech and/or patronage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the United States Constitution; ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices; iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; v. Award punitive damages against the individual defendants; Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 238 of 245 PageID: 3624Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 239 of 246 PageID: 4501 239 vi. Reverse any and all promotions made by the Port Authority to the rank of Sergeant made on a basis impermissible under the New York Constitution. vii. Promote Plaintiffs to the rank of Sergeant. viii. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT V PLAINTIFFS V. ALL DEFENDANTS FRAUD 2414. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2415. The Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that the Sergeant’s promotional process would be consistent with the provisions set forth in the promotional announcements. 2416. Defendants knew that this representation was false, and specifically that the promotional process would not be conducted in a manner consistent with the promotional announcements. 2417. These representations were material to the promotional process, and the Plaintiffs rightfully relied on said representations, believing them to be true. 2418. As a result, the Plaintiffs spend time and money in preparing for the promotional exam, which was directly caused by their reliance on the representations of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs; ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said fraudulent practices; iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 239 of 245 PageID: 3625Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 240 of 246 PageID: 4502 240 wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; v. Award punitive damages against the individual defendants; vi. Reverse any and all promotions made by the Port Authority to the rank of Sergeant from 2011 to present. vii. Promote Plaintiffs to the rank of Sergeant. viii. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT VI PLAINTIFFS V. ALL DEFENDANTS ESTOPPEL 2419. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2420. The Defendants misrepresented and/or concealed to Plaintiffs they would not be following the provisions set forth in the promotional announcements. 2421. Defendants expected and/or intended that Plaintiffs would act upon these misrepresentations. 2422. As a result, the Plaintiffs spend time and money in preparing for the promotional exam, which was directly caused by their reliance on the misrepresentations and/or concealment of the Defendants. 2423. Despite its policies and guidelines, the Port Authority gave preferential treatment to those police officers who were able to bring influence, political or otherwise, in support of their candidacy for promotion. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 240 of 245 PageID: 3626Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 241 of 246 PageID: 4503 241 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs; ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said fraudulent practices; iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; v. Award punitive damages against the individual defendants; vi. Reverse any and all promotions made by the Port Authority to the rank of Sergeant from 2011 to present. vii. Promote Plaintiffs to the rank of Sergeant. viii. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT VII PLAINTIFF KRUESI V. DEFENDANTS PORT AUTHORITY 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION 2424. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as though each were individually stated herein at length. 2425. Plaintiff Kruesi engaged in speech and/or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 241 of 245 PageID: 3627Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 242 of 246 PageID: 4504 242 2426. Defendant Port Authority violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that Defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of the privileges and immunities secured to him by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 2427. Defendants’ actions – and the actions of Lt. Munnelly, a superior officer in the PAPD - were to penalize and retaliate against Plaintiff for his exercise of fundamental First Amendment rights. 2428. Defendant Port Authority, through its policymakers, developed a policy, custom and/or practice of retaliating against those officers who engage in protected activities under the First Amendment, and/or knowingly acquiescing to the retaliation against those officers who engage in protected activities under the First Amendment. 2429. Defendant Port Authority’s policies and customs caused and/or enabled superior officers to believe that they could violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiff with impunity and with the explicit or tacit approval of Defendant Port Authority. 2430. Lt. Munnelly and/or other Port Authority supervisors and/or policymakers were aware of the retaliation being taken against Plaintiff, yet knowingly acquiesced to and were deliberately indifferent to said retaliation. 2431. As a result of the above, Plaintiff Kruesi has suffered damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kruesi respectfully requests this Honorable Court: a. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s retaliatory acts as complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiff Kruesi as secured by the United States Constitution; b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices; c. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of business relationships, other economic loss, loss of life’s Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 242 of 245 PageID: 3628Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 243 of 246 PageID: 4505 243 pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, mental anguish, emotional distress and other damages; d. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; e. Award punitive damages; f. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT VIII PLAINTIFF OTERO V. DEFENDANTS PORT AUTHORITY AND FEDORKO VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2432. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations of this Complaint as though each were individually set forth herein at length. 2433. Plaintiff Otero is and has at all times material since September 11, 2001 been disabled and/or handicapped for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2434. Plaintiff Otero is and has all times material been able to perform the essential functions of the positions of Port Authority Police Officer and Sergeant, with or without an accommodation. 2435. Defendant Port Authority, with Fedorko as policymaker, developed and implemented policies that intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and/or negligently discriminated against Plaintiff based on her disability and/or handicap. 2436. As a result of Plaintiff’s disability and/or handicap, which was developed as a result of Plaintiff’s work-related duties on and after 9/11, Plaintiff has been denied a promotion to Sergeant. 2437. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will in the future suffer pain, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of pleasure and enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, lost wages, lost wage earning capacity, loss of benefits, and past and future medical expenses. Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 243 of 245 PageID: 3629Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 244 of 246 PageID: 4506 244 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court: a. Declare the 2010-present Sergeants Examination process to be null and void and a new Sergeants Exam to be announced and taken. b. Declare that all Officers who were promoted to Sergeant pursuant to the tainted exam be reduced to their former ranks, and/or in the alternative, promoting Plaintiff Otero to Sergeant. c. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiff as secured by the NJLAD; d. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; e. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; f. Award punitive damages; and g. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES /s/ Ryan M. Lockman Ryan Lockman DATED: April 28, 2016 Counsel for Plaintiffs Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 244 of 245 PageID: 3630Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 5 of 246 PageID: 45 7 245 SHARON OTERO, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civ. A. 2:14-01655-ES-JAD Plaintiffs, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, et al. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan Lockman, Esquire, hereby certify that on the below date, Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint was served upon all parties via ECF. MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES DATE: April 28, 2016 BY:_ /s/ Ryan Lockman Ryan Lockman, Esquire 7 North Columbus Boulevard, 2nd Floor Pier 5 at Penn’s Landing Philadelphia, PA 19106 T: (215) 351-3333 F: (215) 351-3332 rlockman@mfrostlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 2:14-cv-01655-ES-JAD Document 111 Filed 04/28/16 Page 245 of 245 PageID: 3631Case 2:14-cv-0165 -ES-JAD Document 134-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 246 of 246 PageID: 4508
