Curcio Amended Complaint

MON-L-002755-18 09/20/2018 5:42:21 PM Pg 1 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20181640065
THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. (Attorney Id. No. 035251998)
116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Tel: (609) 799-1266
Fax: (609) 228-5649
Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicholas Curcio
NICHOLAS CURCIO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MONMOUTH COUNTY
Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION
v. DOCKET NO.: MON-L-2755-18
WALL TOWNSHIIP and WALL TOWNSHIP CIVIL ACTION

POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff Nicholas Curcio (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by way of First Amended Complaint
against Defendants Wall Township and Wall Township Police Department, hereby alleges as
follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Nicholas Curcio, residing in Ocean County, New Jersey, was/has been
employed by Defendants at all times relevant to this matter.
2. Defendants, Wall Township and Wall Township Police Department (“WTPD”), are
public entities in the State of New Jersey that were Plaintiff’s employer as defined by the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.
VENUE
3. The Defendants are public entities residing in, and all underlying acts occurred in,
Monmouth County, and therefore venue is properly placed therein pursuant to R. 4:3-2(a)(2).
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
4. Plaintiff, an olive-complexion skinned individual of Italian ancestry, was first
employed by Defendants in 1994 in the position of Dispatcher and most recently held the position
of Communications Supervisor before being placed on unpaid leave in August 2016.
5. Plaintiff suffered from numerous medical issues during his employment with
Defendants, including heart disease that required five (5) cardiac surgeries and which resulted in
Plaintiff having artificial parts placed in his heart.
6. In addition, Plaintiff suffers from Type I Diabetes, which has resulted in severe
discoloration of his legs.
7. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, would subject Plaintiff
to a hostile work environment by mocking the discoloration Plaintiff suffered on his legs as a result
of his diabetes and generally because of his darker-skinned, Italian-American complexion.
8. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, routinely called Plaintiff
names, including “half-black,” “black legs” and “you look like a black guy.”
9. The above racial slurs were part of a larger issue where Defendants’ employees,
including supervisory personnel, routinely used racial slurs against African-Americans including
the N-word.
10. In fact, Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, actively
condoned, participated in and encouraged a racist atmosphere and working environment at the
WTPD.
11. For example, Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, posted
racist drawings, depictions, images and other types of highly offensive documents at the WTPD.
12. One such image, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is a drawing depicting police
officers wearing Ku Klux Klan emblems on their uniforms happily waving at a just-married couple
-2-
(the husband also being a police officer) dragging two dark-skinned men behind their “Just
Married” vehicle in place of traditional wedding cans.
13. The numbers on each of the white officers’ hats correspond to specific officer badge
numbers of white officers at the WTPD while the numbers next to the two dark-skinned men
correspond to specific officer badge numbers of dark-skinned officers at the WTPD.
14. Another example, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is a drawing depicting a Wall Twp.
Police patrol car occupied or “manned” by two individuals wearing the traditional Ku Klux Klan
uniform (i.e. white robes with hoods).
15. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, also specifically targeted
Plaintiff by posting racist drawings, depictions, images and other types of highly offensive
documents at the WTPD. These included, as attached hereto as Exhibit C, the following:
a. A photograph of a young black man with a caption reading: “Nick Curcio’s
High School Senior Picture”;
b. An official looking Wall Township Police Department memorandum issued to
Plaintiff requesting an official appearance to explain his “whereabouts” on a
date in which “30 angry baboons killed a man out of revenge” in Uganda;
c. A “News Flash” indicating that Plaintiff’s employment with the Wall Township
Police had been terminated for “apparently” having a “second life” which
“included breaking & entering area Zoo’s [sic], and performing sexual acts with
chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans”; and
d. A photograph of two baby monkeys with a captioned identifying one of them
as Plaintiff.
-3-
16. Over a period of many years, Defendants’ employees, including police personnel
and supervisory officers, continued to subject Plaintiff to a daily barrage of ridicule and insults
about his medical conditions, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Plaintiff was called “Monkey,” or some derivation thereof, on a daily basis to
ridicule the fact that he had artificial parts in his heart; and
b. Plaintiff was sent cards from his coworkers and supervisors making a mockery
of his medical condition with notes on purported get well cards (attached hereto
as Exhibits D1 and D2), which included the following statements:
i. “Guess your gonna need a new monkey heart. They should probably
replace it with a monkey brain while they’re at it.” (sic);
ii. “Maybe while your there they can give you a monkey dong!” (sic);
iii. “Does the monkey want his heart back?” (sic);
iv. “If they use a baboon heart, I guess your body won’t reject it” (sic);
v. “Your a dopey monkey” (sic);
vi. A specific reference to “spooks”; and
vii. The cards would have monkeys on them with stitches drawn on the
chests representing Plaintiff’s heart operations.
17. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, would also subject
Plaintiff to a hostile work environment by drawing sexually explicit drawings on Plaintiff’s
whiteboard. Plaintiff was subjected to multiple drawings of ejaculating penises, which are attached
hereto as Exhibit E.
18. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, also created and
maintained a hostile work environment by posting sexually-explicit drawings, depictions, images
-4-
and other types of highly offensive documents such as those attached hereto as Exhibit F, which
include:
a. An image of a man holding his penis to a child-looking individual and stating:
“Here, little Nicholas, eat it. Eat it damn it. I’ll fuck your toilet if you don’t”.
The child-looking individual responds: “No Dad, I can’t. My little baby mouth
can’t eat it.” The child-looking individual is also depicted as defecating; and
b. A photograph with a caption stating: “Pictured is the all-time Oscar Meyer
Weiner eating king, Nick Curcio … Nick is expected to consume close to 30
pounds of meat.”
19. In approximately 2016, after Plaintiff complained directly to the then-Wall
Township Chief of Police Robert Brice about the penis drawings, Chief Brice proceeded to
consistently call Plaintiff “Rat Boy” and/or “Rat.” Defendants, particularly Chief Brice, continued
to retaliate against Plaintiff for these protected complaints in numerous respects, including by lying
about him and targeting him for unfair and unwarranted criticism and discipline.
20. Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s complaints and their employees continued making
discriminatory comments throughout Plaintiff’s employment. Defendants’ supervisory employees
aided and abetted the hostile work environment to which Plaintiff was subjected by permitting,
creating and encouraging this illegal work environment.
21. Defendant’s illegal conduct culminated in Plaintiff suffering severe emotional
distress. The hostile work environment also impacted Plaintiff’s physical health.
COUNT ONE
NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
22. Plaintiff reasserts Paragraphs 1-21 as if set forth at length herein.
-5-
23. Defendants’ conduct against Plaintiff violates the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (the “LAD”).
24. Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful disparate treatment discrimination,
hostile work environment discrimination and retaliation under the LAD by the Defendants.
25. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has endured significant damages
including, but not limited to, physical and bodily injuries, severe emotional distress, humiliation,
embarrassment, personal hardship, career and social disruption, psychological and emotional
harm, economic losses, and other such damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor,
together with (i) damages to be determined at trial, with interest; (ii) pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law; (iii) attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses with
appropriate enhancement; (iv) punitive damages; and (v) all other legally permissible relief that
the Court deems appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
NJ Bar Id. No. 035251998
Tel: (609) 799-1266
Date: September 20, 2018
-6-
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1(c), Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel for
Plaintiff.
/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

NJ Bar Id. No. 035251998
Tel: (609) 799-1266
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1
I hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 4:5-1 that the matter in controversy herein is the subject
of no other pending legal proceeding or arbitration nor is any other legal proceeding
contemplated to the best of my information and belief. Further, I know of no other party who
should be joined in this lawsuit.
/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

NJ Bar Id. No. 035251998
Tel: (609) 799-1266
-7-
COMPLIANCE WITH R. 4:9-1
This First Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand pleading is being timely filed
pursuant to R. 4:9-1 “as a matter of course” because it is being filed within ninety (90) days after
Defendants filed their initial Answer pleading on August 28, 2018.
/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

NJ Bar Id. No. 035251998
Tel: (609) 799-1266
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Pursuant to R. 1:5, I hereby certify that I served the above First Amended Complaint and
Jury Trial Demand pleading on this, the 20th day of September 2018, upon the following counsel
of record, via filing of same on the New Jersey Courts’ Judiciary eCourts System and via facsimile
to the following address:
Richard A. Amdur, Esq.

AMDUR, MAGGS & SHOR, P.C.
P.O. Box 190
Oakhurst, New Jersey 07755
Fax: (732) 542-6569
/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

NJ Bar Id. No. 035251998
Tel: (609) 799-1266
-8-
EXHIBIT D{
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E

Curcio Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curcio Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MON-L-002755-18 09/20/2018 5:42:21 PM Pg 1 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20181640065

THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.

NICHOLAS CURCIO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

v. DOCKET NO.: MON-L-2755-18

WALL TOWNSHIIP and WALL TOWNSHIP CIVIL ACTION

Defendant. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

Plaintiff Nicholas Curcio (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by way of First Amended Complaint

employed by Defendants at all times relevant to this matter.

Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.

4. Plaintiff, an olive-complexion skinned individual of Italian ancestry, was first

of Communications Supervisor before being placed on unpaid leave in August 2016.

Plaintiff having artificial parts placed in his heart.

discoloration of his legs.

7. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, would subject Plaintiff

of his diabetes and generally because of his darker-skinned, Italian-American complexion.

8. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, routinely called Plaintiff

10. In fact, Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, actively

11. For example, Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, posted

Married” vehicle in place of traditional wedding cans.

correspond to specific officer badge numbers of dark-skinned officers at the WTPD.

uniform (i.e. white robes with hoods).

15. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, also specifically targeted

a. A photograph of a young black man with a caption reading: “Nick Curcio’s

High School Senior Picture”;

b. An official looking Wall Township Police Department memorandum issued to

Plaintiff requesting an official appearance to explain his “whereabouts” on a

chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans”; and

d. A photograph of two baby monkeys with a captioned identifying one of them

a. Plaintiff was called “Monkey,” or some derivation thereof, on a daily basis to

as Exhibits D1 and D2), which included the following statements:

replace it with a monkey brain while they’re at it.” (sic);

iii. “Does the monkey want his heart back?” (sic);

v. “Your a dopey monkey” (sic);

vi. A specific reference to “spooks”; and

chests representing Plaintiff’s heart operations.

17. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, would also subject

Plaintiff to a hostile work environment by drawing sexually explicit drawings on Plaintiff’s

18. Defendants’ employees, including supervisory personnel, also created and

maintained a hostile work environment by posting sexually-explicit drawings, depictions, images

a. An image of a man holding his penis to a child-looking individual and stating:

b. A photograph with a caption stating: “Pictured is the all-time Oscar Meyer

Weiner eating king, Nick Curcio … Nick is expected to consume close to 30

19. In approximately 2016, after Plaintiff complained directly to the then-Wall

discriminatory comments throughout Plaintiff’s employment. Defendants’ supervisory employees

creating and encouraging this illegal work environment.

21. Defendant’s illegal conduct culminated in Plaintiff suffering severe emotional

NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

22. Plaintiff reasserts Paragraphs 1-21 as if set forth at length herein.

Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (the “LAD”).

24. Specifically, Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful disparate treatment discrimination,

25. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has endured significant damages

harm, economic losses, and other such damages.

the Court deems appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1

should be joined in this lawsuit.

/s/ Ravi Sattiraju

COMPLIANCE WITH R. 4:9-1

Defendants filed their initial Answer pleading on August 28, 2018.

/s/ Ravi Sattiraju