By John Burton
RUMSON – A veteran borough police officer has brought suit against his department and the borough, charging he’s been the victim of retaliation for being a whistleblower.
Sgt. Peter Koenig has been with the department for more than 20 years, and been a sergeant for the past 11; and on June 20 he filed a civil complaint in state Superior Court, in Freehold, alleging he “has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, bodily injury, coupled with physical manifestation of emotional distress, loss of income and benefits, and other severe financial losses,” as well as regularly facing “a hostile work environment,” in response to his calling attention to what he said was improper behavior from his fellow officers, according to court documents.
RUMSON – A veteran borough police officer has brought suit against his department and the borough, charging he’s been the victim of retaliation for being a whistleblower.
Sgt. Peter Koenig has been with the department for more than 20 years, and been a sergeant for the past 11; and on June 20 he filed a civil complaint in state Superior Court, in Freehold, alleging he “has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, bodily injury, coupled with physical manifestation of emotional distress, loss of income and benefits, and other severe financial losses,” as well as regularly facing “a hostile work environment,” in response to his calling attention to what he said was improper behavior from his fellow officers, according to court documents.
Koenig, who is also a borough resident, according to the complaint, on or about May 31, 2015, “observed events at the Rumson Police Department that he reasonably and objectively believed were in violation of law, may have been criminal acts or unethical, were violation of the public policy of the State of New Jersey, and placed the health and safety of members of the public in danger.”
The complaint doesn’t offer any details related to the allegations. Attempts to contact Koenig and his attorney, Richard Flaum, were unsuccessful.
The complaint doesn’t offer any details related to the allegations. Attempts to contact Koenig and his attorney, Richard Flaum, were unsuccessful.
The suit further alleged, in response to Koenig’s whistleblowing, the sergeant was subjected to retaliation from his superiors, suffering from “repeated harassment,” being denied promotions, removed from some long-standing assignments and experiencing what his attorney maintained were “unwarranted investigations and disciplinary actions,” among other alleged discriminatory actions.
These charged actions, Flaum said, are violations of the state’s Law Against Discrimination, its Civil Rights Act and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, as well as violating his client’s freedom of speech Constitutional rights.
“Plaintiff Koenig considered the actions of his employer to be severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person think twice before reporting any additional workplace issues based upon his fear of retaliation,” stated the complaint.
These charged actions, Flaum said, are violations of the state’s Law Against Discrimination, its Civil Rights Act and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, as well as violating his client’s freedom of speech Constitutional rights.
“Plaintiff Koenig considered the actions of his employer to be severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person think twice before reporting any additional workplace issues based upon his fear of retaliation,” stated the complaint.
In his response brief to the complaint filed on Sept. 9, attorney Mitchell B. Jacobs, who is defending the department and borough against the suit, noted Koenig had contacted the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office about his allegations.
Charles Webster, spokesman for the prosecutor’s office, said this week his office found no evidence to warrant a criminal investigation and referred the matter back to the Rumson Department for its own internal investigation.
Jacobs, in his court filings, denied the allegations and countered “Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and without any reasonable basis in law or fact.” Jacobs’ response went on to state the department “had in place well-publicized and enforced anti-harassment policies, effective formal and informal complaint structures and complaint procedures, training and/or monitoring and preventative mechanisms.”
Charles Webster, spokesman for the prosecutor’s office, said this week his office found no evidence to warrant a criminal investigation and referred the matter back to the Rumson Department for its own internal investigation.
Jacobs, in his court filings, denied the allegations and countered “Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and without any reasonable basis in law or fact.” Jacobs’ response went on to state the department “had in place well-publicized and enforced anti-harassment policies, effective formal and informal complaint structures and complaint procedures, training and/or monitoring and preventative mechanisms.”
Jacobs this week said, “The borough was right in the decision-making process,” maintaining “The decisions they made were done for legitimate deployment purposes.”
Jacobs said he has reviewed the allegations of the complaint, the facts and the law “and I’m highly confident when all is said and done the borough will be found not liable for any of the allegations contained therein.”
Rumson Police Chief Scott Paterson, on advise of legal counsel, declined to comment.
Koenig is seeking “punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights,” including “economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress,” in addition to interest and attorney’s fees, according to the officer’s complaint.
Jacobs said he has reviewed the allegations of the complaint, the facts and the law “and I’m highly confident when all is said and done the borough will be found not liable for any of the allegations contained therein.”
Rumson Police Chief Scott Paterson, on advise of legal counsel, declined to comment.
Koenig is seeking “punitive and compensatory damages on all lost benefits, wages and rights,” including “economic and non-economic damages for emotional distress,” in addition to interest and attorney’s fees, according to the officer’s complaint.
