MRHS suits may add privacy claim

MRHS suits may add privacy claim
Female employees say they were taped by hidden camera
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The attorney representing three female employees suing the Monmouth Regional High School District in Tinton Falls said last week that two of the complaints may be amended to add allegations of invasion of privacy.

Mahwah-based lawyer Lydia Cotz said in an interview that she is considering amending complaints filed on behalf of two of the three employees who are charging the district discriminated against them based on race, gender and age.

According to Cotz, two of the women, Diana Davis and Tamara White, were allegedly videotaped, without their knowledge or consent, in the office they share at Monmouth Regional High School.

“My clients have found a camera that the administration placed in their office,” Cotz said. “This is very upsetting for them.”

According to Cotz, the hidden camera was found in an office shared by the two women before the lawsuit was filed.

“They discovered the camera prior to the suit,” she said. “What’s been going on since is, I’ve been trying to get the videos back.

“That is a problem because the administration is saying [they] don’t have the videos any longer,” she added.

Peter Spaeth, the attorney representing the defendants in the lawsuits, has not responded to calls seeking comment on the lawsuits or the allegations regarding the hidden camera. In addition to the district, the suits name former district Superintendent James Cleary, MRHS Vice Principal Scott Larkin, MRHS Business Administrator Maria Parry, current MRHS Athletic Director Anthony D’Orio, and Principal Andrew Teeple as defendants.

According to Cotz, district officials are claiming that the camera was installed because of a possible theft; Cotz, however, said her clients were unaware of the camera’s presence.

“There was no police activity; the school did this on their own,” she said. “They do not have the right to simply [carry out] surveillance [of] my clients because they feel like it.

“They [Davis and White] were told some kind of [pretext that] the camera was put there because someone was ‘taking money,’ ” Cotz said.

Cotz said she was not aware of when the camera was installed, and she implied that the alleged action may be considered criminal.

“This is a serious invasion of privacy and we think perhaps it’s stalking,” she said. “It’s problematic for my clients in many ways.

“We don’t know why the camera was put there; we don’t know how long the camera was put there; we do know the clients weren’t told about the camera,” she added. “We think it was another personal attack on my clients for making grievances.”

Cotz said one of the complaints is that the two women use the office to change clothing.

“What is disturbing about it is that it is an area where my clients have been getting undressed,” she said. “Those are their own offices and these women use the offices to get changed during the day, especially Ms. White because she was involved in coaching.”

Photographs provided by Cotz show a hole in the wall of the office shared by Davis and White where the women claim a camera was placed next to the office clock providing a view of the entire office.

“[My clients] sent me pictures where the camera was placed,” she said.

A hole was actually carved out, she said.

Cotz said her clients originally discovered the camera, which they believe was then removed from the office.

“They saw the camera and they have since tried to locate the camera,” she said. “[We believe] the camera was removed by another teacher; then we understand that the camera was in the possession of [school officials].

“Since then, we’ve been trying to find out where this camera is,” she added. “We have gotten no response, and the [district’s] lawyer has told me that there is no video.”

Another legal issue, Cotz said, is that the district is refusing to produce the videotapes.

“We have been asking for the videos to be given back, and the administration has been saying that they don’t have them anymore,” she said. “We think this is an extreme violation of their privacy.

“We don’t believe them because they have been saying they don’t have all kinds of documents that we know that they do have because they’ve been produced by my clients,” she added.

Cotz said because of this, she is expecting to file a motion to amend the complaint.

“We are going to file a motion to allege new facts,” Cotz said. “We are now going to allege a spoliation [destruction of evidence] motion.

“If they do not come up with these videos, then they have purposely destroyed them for purposes of this lawsuit,” she added. “That’s a serious issue.”

Cotz claims that she has been asking for the videos for some time.

“When Ms. Davis filed her lawsuit, she had already been asking for those videos,” she said. “They knew I’d be asking for this in discovery, and now those videos are nowhere in sight.

“They are supposed to preserve evidence,” she added.

Cotz is expecting the district to oppose the addition of the camera complaint to the suits filed.Cotz filed three separate lawsuits on behalf of Monmouth Regional employees Davis, PatriciaDomanich and White. Cotz said that Domanichwould not be included in the additional complaint involving the alleged hidden camera.

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 Cleary, who retired in June, and the school district as defendants. The complaint charges discrimination based on age, gender and race.

The suit brought on behalf of Domanich, 52, names Cleary, Vice Principal Larkin, Business Administrator Parry and the school district as defendants. The complaint charges discrimination based on age and gender.

The legal action in which White is the plaintiff names Cleary, the school district, and athletic director D’Orio as defendants. The complaint charges discrimination based on gender.

In the response to the legal actions, Spaeth, of Wolff, Helies, Duggan, Spaeth & Lucas, Manasquan, countered that the suits are frivolous and requested a jury trial.

Contact Kenny Walter at

Kwalter@gmnews.com.