District responds to discrimination suit

District responds to discrimination suit
Three female employees claim age, gender, race basis for unequal treatment
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer

The Monmouth Regional School District has denied allegations of discrimination based on race, gender and age made in lawsuits brought by three female employees.

Peter Spaeth, attorney for the district, filed a response to the suits, which name the district's former superintendent and its current business administrator, high school vice principal and athletic director as defendants. The suits were filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton.

Mahwah-based lawyer Lydia Cotz filed three separate lawsuits on behalf of Monmouth Regional employees Diana Davis, Patricia Domanich and Tamara White. Cotz said last week the three legal actions have since been consolidated.

The suit brought on behalf of Davis was filed in February and a response was filed in April. The other two suits were filed in August and responses were filed on Oct. 29 and 30.

The suit filed on behalf of Davis, 56, who is African American, names former Monmouth Regional Superintendent James Cleary, who retired in June, and the school district as defendants.

The suit brought on behalf of Domanich names Cleary, Monmouth Regional High School (MRHS) Vice Principal Scott Larkin, MRHS Business Administrator Maria Parry and the school district as defendants.

The legal action in which White is the plaintiff names Cleary, the school district and Anthony D'Orio, currently MRHS athletic director as defendants.

In the response to the legal actions, Spaeth, of Wolff, Helies, Duggan, Spaeth & Lucas, Manasquan, countered that the suits are frivolous and requests a jury trial. Spaeth has not been available for comment on the lawsuits.

"This action is frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation in fact and brought in bad faith," the answer to the Domanich suit states, "and any wrongdoing alleged falls within the realm of the jobs of the defendants."

"The defendants, if involved at all, acted within the scope of their authority and in good faith in the performance of their duties," the response states. "Defendants deny the existence of or breach of any duty and further deny the existence of or breach of any contractual obligation, express or implied."

The response also states that the charges levied exceed the statute of limitations and that the court the charges were filed in was improper.

"The suit is barred by the statute of limitations," the answer states. "This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation."

In addition, it states, the "defendants were carrying out their duties as officials and employees of the Monmouth Regional School District, and are entitled to qualified immunity under the statutes."

Spaeth claims that the situation that allegedly arose came as a result of Domanich's conduct.

"Any injury occurring to the plaintiff was the direct and proximate result of the plaintiff's own conduct," the answer states. Domanich has been employed at the school as a truant officer since 1993 and is claiming that the defendants have created a work environment that is hostile to women.

"Female employees who voice opinions, assert their rights as employees or as citizens, who disagree within proper channels about official policies and directives, or express concerns that policies, laws and directives are not being followed and obeyed are routinely demeaned, harassed and driven from employment," the suit claims.

The response to the White lawsuit claims the suit was filed after the statute of limitations had expired and the court lacks jurisdiction. The response also claims the defendants did not intentionally harm the plaintiff.

"These defendants are guilty of no intentional misconduct which proximately caused any injury to plaintiff," the response states. "Defendants were carrying out their duties as officials and employees of the Monmouth Regional School District."

The complaint filed on behalf of White, who was hired in 1995 as a social studies teacher and varsity cheerleading coach, describes alleged sexual harassment that she claims was tolerated by the administration from the time she was hired.

According to the suit, White complained throughout her tenure and in 2005 was terminated as cheerleader coach in retaliation for the complaints. She reinterviewed for the position in 2006 but was ultimately turned down and someone with less experience was given the position, the suit states.

White also claims harassment and discrimination by the high school administration.

"Female employees are frequently and routinely harassed with petty administrative issues that were tolerated, or at least overlooked with the younger staff," the suit claims.

The response to the complaint filed on behalf of Davis states that the identity of the male individual cited who received different treatment than she did is not revealed.

"We are unable to respond to this question as the plaintiff fails to identify the individual who she contends received this treatment," the answer reads.

The suit claims that a younger, Caucasian male was given compensation for taking over an additional department, but the suit fails to identify who the person is.

In the complaint, Davis claims that she asked for the additional compensation in 2007 but was denied and was told that someone younger could replace her. She was then given a one-time stipend, the suit states.

In the response, the defendants admit that Davis received a one-time stipend but deny that Davis was told that someone younger could replace her.

Like the other responses, the Davis response labels the suit frivolous and beyond the statute of limitations.

According to the suit filed on behalf of Davis, she was hired in 2002 to supervise the Social Studies Department and the media center. She remains as supervisor of the two departments, as well as the ESL Department.

"Plaintiff has been subjected to discrimination by defendants on the basis of her race and/or her gender and/or her age over the past several years, and has been retaliated against by defendants for voicing her complaints about this discrimination," the suit claims.

The complaint also states that when Davis took over the third department in 2005, she did not receive additional compensation for the extra duties, which was contrary to the common practice of the district.

The response denies these allegations.

"Defendants deny the allegations since the plaintiff was relieved of her responsibility to teach two classes," the response states.

She was then removed as supervisor of the media center in 2007 following her frequent demands for additional pay, the complaint states.

Davis is seeking punitive and compensatory damages.

Cotz said in an email last week that after the judge was served with the three suits, he consolidated the three.

"By consolidating the cases we can depose Mr. Cleary in a more efficient manner by just deposing him once," she said. "Same goes for the three plaintiffs."

Contact Kenny Walter at

kwalter@gmnews.com.