CORRUPT DEFEAT OF NEW JERSEY'S CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT

Preliminary Statement

This is an employment case regarding the violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (NJSA 34:19-1 et seq). A trial was held regarding this case 18 January 2006, and a jury ruled in favor of appellant. However appellant, a registered nurse who was representing himself in his first trial, did not introduce evidence of monetary losses at the appropriate time during the course of the trial therefore the jury was not permitted to award compensation for attorney fees, legal fees, lost wages, and benefits. Because of the absence of an award of compensatory damages punitive damages could not be awarded. A nominal $3500 was awarded to appellant, but appellant’s losses are significant. In addition, the evidence in this case overwhelmingly supports the allegation that respondents retaliated against appellant, because of appellant’s whistle blowing, by staging a morphine theft that was attributed to him which resulted in his immediate suspension; punitive damages are therefore clearly justified.

This case also demonstrates that three Ocean County Superior Court judges shielded respondents regarding their criminal culpability of staging the morphine incident. Judge Edward Oles first granted Summary Judgment against appellant, and completely concealed favorable evidence to appellant and completely concealed damaging evidence to respondents (see Oles’ written opinion, Appellant 1a-8a). Assignment Judge Eugene Serpentelli also covered up the evidence of respondents’ criminal activity in this case, and refused to order a stonewalling Ocean County Prosecutor to bring the evidence to the attention of a grand jury. And the trial judge in this case, who is Serpentelli’s subordinate Frank Buczynski, deceptively omitted from the jury verdict form a major and relevant question regarding the staging of the morphine incident. Buczynski’s bias in this case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt herein via his statements and actions on record, and his actions are suggested to be the basis for granting appellant a new trial:

  1. Buczynski ignored the legislative intent of CEPA regarding compensatory and punitive damages to a successful plaintiff;
  2. Buczynski deliberately prevented the jury from addressing respondents’ guilt of staging the morphine incident of 7 January under appellant’s PIN, and therefore committed a reversible error regarding the establishment of a legal element.

Back to the top

Web Hosting Companies