Vincent J. Failla, Esq. – ID# 009882002FAILLA LAW GROUP, LLC197 FAIRFIELD ROADFAIRFIELD, NEW JERSEY 07004(973) 575-2528ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

KYLE UST,

Plaintiff,vs.

THE BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, THE ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SCOTT MURA, CAROL MCMORROW, and JOHN DOES 1-10;

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTYDOCKET NO: BER-L-1681-17

Civil Action

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, JURY DEMAND, DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

COUNSEL AND CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

TO R. 4:5-1

Plaintiff, Kyle Ust (“Plaintiff” or “Officer Ust”), by and

through his undersigned counsel, hereby alleges in this First

Amended Complaint, upon information and belief, as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff KYLE UST resides at 555 High Street, Closter,

New Jersey.

2. Defendant THE BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS (“the

Borough”) is a New Jersey municipal entity/corporation.

3. Defendant THE ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS POLICE DEPARTMENT (“the

Police Department”) is a New Jersey non-profit corporation.

1

4. Defendant SCOTT MURA (“Lieutenant Mura”), at all

relevant times herein, was a Lieutenant at the Police Department,

and served as Ust’s superior.

5. Defendant CAROL MCMORROW (“COUNCILWOMAN MCMORROW AND/OR

COUNCIL PRESIDENT MCMORROW”), at all relevant times herein, was

the Borough Council President; served on behalf of the Borough

and directly involved herself as a superior to the Borough Police

Officers, specifically Plaintiff; and filed her own Internal

Affairs Investigation against Plaintiff on or about June 21,

2017.

6. Defendants JOHN DOES 1-10 are fictitious persons yet

unknown who were agents, servants, or employees of the Borough

and or the Englewood Cliffs Police Department who were involved

in the acts described herein.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

7. Officer Ust began his law-enforcement career as a

Federal Air Marshall with the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security. He served in that capacity from September 2009 through

March 2012.

8. From in or about March 2012 to present, he has served

as a Patrol Officer for the Police Department.

9. Officer Ust suffers from a speech impediment, which

pre-dates the subject matter of this litigation.

2

10. The Borough is run by the Mayor, Mario Kranjac and the

Borough Council, by Council President McMorrow.

11. Pursuant to the Borough of Englewood Cliffs Revised

General Ordinances, Chapter 2-4, “the mayor shall see that the

laws of the state and the ordinances of the borough are

faithfully executed, and shall recommend to the council such

measures as he may deem necessary or expedient for the welfare of

the borough.”

12. In addition, the Borough of Englewood Cliffs Revised

General Ordinances, Chapter 2-4 provides that the Mayor “shall

maintain peace and good order and have the power to suppress all

riots and tumultuous assemblies in the borough” and “shall

supervise the conduct and acts of all officers in the borough and

shall execute all contracts made on behalf of the council.”

13. Therefore, the Borough, through the actions of the

Mayor and Council is directly responsible for the supervision of

the Englewood Cliffs Police Department.

14. The Borough, through the actions of the Mayor is also

directly responsible as per their own General Ordinances to

insure that all laws of the state and local ordinances of the

borough are followed.

15. The Borough is responsible for the actions of all of

the police officers as per Borough of Englewood Cliffs Revised

3

General Ordinances, Chapter 2-4, including, but not limited to

Lieutenant Scott Mura, Lieutenant McMorrow.

16. The Borough is responsible for the actions of all

Borough Council members, including Council President McMorrow.

Lieutenant Mura’s Behavioral Problems

17. As of late 2015, Officer Ust noticed that Lieutenant

Mura, his superior, was displaying behavioral problems while at

work.

18. Officer Ust noticed these problems after Lieutenant

Mura returned from nine months of medical leave due to back

surgery.

19. Lieutenant Mura’s behavioral problems included sleeping

at the control desk; constant shaking and scratching; frequent

twitching; inability to keep a steady hand; constricted pupils,

and slurred speech.

20. Upon information and belief, the issues were caused by

pain medications and posed a danger to the public, the Borough,

the Police Department, the other police officers on duty with him

and to the general public safety/policy.

21. Lieutenant Mura’s behavioral problems while being under

the influence of pain medications violated public policy by

endangering the other officers and the public as well as

violating Borough of Englewood Cliffs Revised General Ordinances,

Chapter 2-13.11.

4

22. Borough of Englewood Cliffs Revised General Ordinances,

Chapter 2-13.11 states specifically that “any member of the

department shall be subject to reprimand, loss of pay, suspension

from duty, reduction in rank or dismissal or removal from the

department according to the nature and aggravation of his offense

in the manner provided by law for any of the following:

a.Intoxication whether on duty or off and whether in uniform

or not…;

c.Willful disobedience of orders…;

g.Sleeping while on duty…;

h.Absent from duty without leave…;

Officer Ust Documents Lieutenant Mura’s Behavioral Issues

23. On the order of the Police Department Chief, Michael

Cioffi (“Chief Cioffi”), on or about November 15, 2015, Officer

Ust, and other officers, wrote letters to Chief Cioffi

documenting Lieutenant Mura’s behavioral problems. See Exhibit A

hereto (11.15.15 Officer Ust letter to Chief Cioffi).

24. Lieutenant Tracy was among the other officers who wrote

such letters.

25. Upon information and belief, Lieutenant Mura learned

about Officer Ust’s letter to Chief Cioffi soon thereafter.

Lieutenant Mura Retaliates By Creating a Dangerous and Hostile Work Environment

5

26. Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Mura retaliated against

Officer Ust for having reported his behavioral problems, in

writing, to Chief Cioffi.

27. The retaliation was continual, severe and pervasive and

became constant as it was on a daily and weekly basis.

28. One severe incident of hostility occurred on or about

January 26, 2016 when Lieutenant Mura brought his knife

collection to work and swung them in a dangerous and threatening

manner in front of Officer Ust and Lieutenant Tracy (who had also

reported Lieutenant Mura’s behavioral problems). While swinging

the knives, Lieutenant Mura threatened that he could “gut”

someone quickly. He also yielded a harpoon knife (concealed

within a walking stick) in a threatening manner towards Officer

Ust and Lieutenant Tracy.

29. Officer Ust told Lieutenant Tracy that Lieutenant Mura

threatened them with knives as retaliation for their letters to

Chief Cioffi.

30. On or about January 27, 2016, Lieutenant Tracy wrote

another letter to Chief Cioffi, complaining about Lieutenant

Mura’s knife incident.

31. In addition to the hostile work environment and

retaliation instituted by Lieutenant Mura, Lieutenant Mura’s

political allies Mayor Kranjac and Council President McMorrow

also started their hostile actions towards Officer Ust.

6

Lieutenant Mura Further Retaliates with a False Internal Affairs Complaint Against Officer Ust

32. On or about February 23, 2016, Lieutenant Mura further

retaliated against Officer Ust by filing a false Internal Affairs

Complaint (the “IA Complaint”) against him.

33. The IA Complaint wrongfully alleged that Officer Ust

was violating the Police Department’s Racially Influenced

Policing Policy. The matter was sent to the Bergen County

Prosecutor’s Office.

34. Lieutenant Mura filed the IA Complaint entirely without

basis; no citizens had raised any allegation or complaint about

racially influenced policing by Officer Ust.

35. Lieutenant Mura’s retaliatory IA Complaint and hostile

treatment of Officer Ust fell under the Mayor and Borough’s

responsibility pursuant to Borough Ordinance.

36. Ultimately, the IA Complaint against Officer Ust was

“not sustained” and was dismissed, but not before the harm and

damages were suffered by Officer Ust.

37. Lieutenant Mura also began harassing Officer Ust while

they shared work days on the police force and began harassing,

investigating and reporting Officer Ust for various alleged

infractions.

Defendants Fail to Cure the Hostile Work Environment Created by Lieutenant Mura

7

38. Although Chief Cioffi forwarded the letters complaining

about Lieutenant Mura, including Officer Ust’s letter, to Mayor

Kranjac and the Council, no interviews were conducted regarding

Lieutenant Mura’s behavioral problems.

39. On or about March 11, 2016, Lieutenant Tracey emailed

Mayor Kranjac stating the “unsafe work conditions” and suspected

Lieutenant Mura drug use/safety issues while on duty.

40. On or about March 13, 2016, Mayor Kranjac acknowledges

Lieutenant Tracey’s email.

41. By email dated March 22, 2016, Mayor Kranjac instructed

Chief Cioffi to stop complaining about Lieutenant Mura’s “harpoon

knives, unsafe work conditions, hostile work environments,

apparent drug use, portable radios being found

unattended . . . .”

42. Nothing is done by the Borough, Police Department or

Mayor/Council regarding Lieutenant Mura’s issues and no internal

affairs investigation is ever opened against Lieutenant Mura.

43. In March 2016, Officer Ust asked Chief Cioffi to assign

him a new supervisor, so that he could evade Lieutenant Mura’s

continual harassment.

44. On or about March 23, 2016, Town Attorney Brent

Pohlman, Esq. issues a Whistleblower Procedure document to the

police department.

8

45. On or about March 23, 2016, Officer Ust advised the

Chief of the Police Department that he did not feel safe working

for Lieutenant Mura and that he felt that Lieutenant Mura was

going to come after him.

46. Throughout March, 2016, Lieutenant Mura continued his

pattern of harassment and retaliation against Officer Ust by

continuously following him and reporting him for minor

infractions such as drinking coffee outside of his police

cruiser.

47. Shortly thereafter, the Chief reassigned Officer Ust

away from Lieutenant Mura.

48. On or about March 26, 2016, Lieutenant Mura issued an

“Order Detail,” stating that reassignments must go through him,

as the Tour Commander in an attempt to intimidate Officer Ust and

cause further hostilities toward Officer Ust.

49. Lieutenant Mura took affirmative actions to insure that

Officer Ust would be working on the same dates/times as he was in

order to be able to continue his harassment and retaliation.

50. On or about March 28, 2016, Officer Ust was seen by Dr.

Gallon and diagnosed with anxiety due to the hostile work

environment and he is prescribed Lexipro and Alasapram.

51. Officer Ust’s speech impediment began to worsen as the

anxiety and stress increased.

9

52. In April 2016, Lieutenant Mura took another nine-month

medical leave, in violation of Title 40A:14-137.

53. The Mayor, Council and Borough took no action against

Lieutenant Mura for his pain medication usage nor for his false

Internal Affairs complaint and hostile treatment of Officer Ust,

even though they had a direct supervisory responsibility to do

so.

54. The Mayor, Council and Borough took no action against

Lieutenant Mura for his second leave of absence, which was in

violation of the Borough code.

55. The Mayor, Council and Borough continued to protect

Lieutenant Mura, even as he continued his drug use while on duty

and also continued to retaliate and harass Officer Ust.

56. In reviewing the Borough’s handling of the charges

brought against Lieutenant Mura, it was found by a disciplinary

hearing officer hired by the Borough that six of the nine

administrative charges brought against Lieutenant Mura should

have resulted in a punishment, specifically a 130 day suspension

without pay.

57. The Borough ignored the report and did not discipline

Lieutenant Mura at all.

58. Lieutenant Mura was never drug tested nor did he ever

have an Internal Affairs investigation issued against him by the

Borough or the Department.

10

Chief Cioffi is Suspended For His Failure to Act Regarding Lieutenant Mura

59. In or about April 2016, Chief Cioffi was suspended for

thirty days for failure to act on the letters written by Officer

Ust and others, regarding Lieutenant Mura’s behavior.

60. During the thirty-day suspension period, Deputy Chief

Michael McMorrow (“Deputy Chief McMorrow”) filled Chief Cioffi’s

role.

61. On or about April 14, 2016, Lieutenant Tracy advised

Deputy Chief McMorrow of the knife incident.

62. On or about April 21, 2016, Lieutenant Tracey, the

Bargaining Unit representative, makes public comments at a

Borough Council meeting that the Borough police officers are not

safe at work due to Lieutenant Mura’s knife wielding and drug

use.

63. Still, nothing is done by the Borough, the Mayor or the

Police Department and Officer Ust continues to have to work under

a hostile work environment and in danger.

64. After Deputy Chief McMorrow failed to act regarding the

knife incident, Lieutenant Tracy wrote him another letter on

April 22, 2016, asking him to take action. Again, Deputy Chief

McMorrow failed to act.

65. On or about April 22, 2016, Deputy Chief McMorrow

indicates that he is going to launch an Internal Affairs

investigation into Lieutenant Mura wilding knives, drug use and 11

reassignment demands, but no Internal Affairs investigation is

ever issued or completed.

66. On May 2, 2016, the Police Department held a meeting

with Mayor Kranjac and Deputy Chief McMorrow regarding Lieutenant

Mura’s behavior.

67. At the meeting, Officer Tracy spoke on behalf of the

concerned police officers, indicating that Lieutenant Mura had

created an “unsafe work environment,” but that Mayor Kranjac and

the Council were protecting him from punishment.

68. Officer Ust spoke at the meeting, stating that he

recently had seen Lieutenant Mura in a car speaking with Deputy

Chief McMorrow’s wife, who is the Council President McMorrow and

believed that Council President McMorrow and the Mayor were

protecting Lieutenant Mura due to a political alliance and

personal relationship.

69. On May 3, 2016, Deputy Chief McMorrow called Officer

Ust into his office, and directed him to meet with his wife about

what he said at the meeting.

70. Deputy Chief McMorrow attempted to pressure Officer Ust

to meet with Council President McMorrow outside of her official

duties and in violation of PBA guidelines.

71. Officer Ust declined to do so, believing he was not

permitted to report directly to the Council President without

going through his superiors and the PBA.

12

72. On or about May 3, 2016, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent

Association attorney sent a letter to the town attorney,

indicating that a Councilwoman may not meet directly with an

Officer.

73. Upon information and belief, no investigation regarding

the Mura claims ever occurred.

74. On or about June 22, 2016, Deputy Chief McMorrow wrote

a letter to the Chief reporting that Officer Ust was drinking

coffee outside of his police cruiser on a traffic job and the

Chief calls Officer Ust to his office stating that he will have

to discipline Officer Ust for this action.

75. Deputy Chief McMorrow began the retaliation and

harassment, which started with Lieutenant Mura.

76. On or about June 22, 2016, the Chief issues an Order to

all officers that all beverages and snacks are to be consumed

inside their motor vehicle out of the public eye while on duty.

77. On or about December 14, 2016, Mayor Kranjac and the

Council issued Resolution 16-162, which dismissed all pending

claims against Lieutenant Mura.

78. In February, 2017, Lieutenant Mura went for a medical

fitness for duty test and failed since it was noted that he was

being prescribed methadone.

13

79. Lieutenant Mura was still not suspended, not placed on

leave, not drug tested and not investigated by the Borough,

Council or Police Department.

80. Lieutenant Mura was not even relieved of his firearm

and/or badge.

81. In March, 2017, Lieutenant Mura was sent for two

psychological exams, but failed to appear for both.

82. Still, the Borough, Council and Police Department took

no action against Lieutenant Mura and he was allowed to continue

carrying his firearm.

83. On or about March 27, 2017, Officer Ust was suspended

by Chief Cioffi based on Mayor Kranjac’s order pending outcome of

a psychological exam. (See copy of March 27, 2017 Doresey &

Semrau letter attached as Exhibit B)

84. Officer Ust is relieved of his firearm, police

identification and badge as per Chief Cioffi and Mayor Kranjac.

(See copy of March 27, 2017 Englewood Cliffs Police Department

letter attached hereto as Exhibit C).

85. On or about March 31, 2017, Officer Ust took part in a

six hour psychological exam and passed, was reinstated by the

Chief later that day and had his gun and badge returned.

Council President McMorrow Further Retaliates with a False Internal Affairs Complaint Against Officer Ust

86. On or about June 5, 2017, Officer Ust and Lieutenant

Tracy were on a traffic job together at the intersection of 14

Johnson and Van Wagoner, when Councilwoman McMorrow continued to

drive by them watching them and harassing them while they worked

in an attempt to further intimidate them.

87. On June 21, 2017, to further the hostile work

environment, harassment and retaliation, Council President

McMorrow, Deputy Chief McMorrow’s wife, filed a new Internal

Affairs complaint against Officer Ust for allegedly “following

her” and stating in a private police department meeting that she

was in a car with Lieutenant Mura.

88. Council President McMorrow was not in attendance at

this private police department meeting and should have no

knowledge of what was said at that internal police department

meeting.

89. Officer Ust stands by his statement that he observed

Council President McMorrow in a car with Lieutenant Mura, but

refutes that he was following her at the time.

90. Officer Ust was asked to speak openly and freely at the

police department meeting and once again after doing so, suffered

direct harassment, retaliation, intimidation and once again an

internal affairs investigation being launched against him.

91. Both times Officer Ust was asked to speak freely and

openly by his superiors at a police department meeting, the

result has been the filing of a baseless internal affairs

investigation against him.

15

92. The Borough, Council, and Mayor made it clear to

Officer Ust and the other officers that they did not want to hear

about Lieutenant Mura’s drug problems, the dangerous situation he

was creating within the Borough and for the public and that he

was being protected by his political allies.

The Mura IA Complaint Caused Officer Ust To Be Rejected From a New Job

93. Due to the ongoing hostile work environment, Officer

Ust was effectively forced to find a new job.

94. He applied for, and was granted an interview as a

county prosecutor detective.

95. At his May 11, 2016 interview for that position, he was

questioned about the IA Complaint Lieutenant Mura had filed

against him.

96. Upon information and belief, the false IA Complaint,

which was still pending at the time, caused Officer Ust to be

rejected from the new job.

97. The Borough and Mayor stood by and did nothing

regarding Lieutenant Mura’s behavior and actions.

98. Now, as a result of Council President McMorrow’s

hostile actions, a second new internal affairs investigation has

been filed against him and a second blemish upon his record has

been suffered.

99. Both Internal Affairs investigations filed by

Lieutenant Mura and Council President McMorrow are supported by 16

only lies and fraudulent statements, made in a concerted effort

to harass, intimidate and retaliate against Officer Ust.

Further Damages

100. In addition to being effectively forced to find a new

job and being rejected from the county prosecutor detective job,

Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent injuries, pain and

suffering, emotional and other harm, and other financial and

economic injuries.

101. The Borough and Borough Police Department, either

expressly or by way of failure properly to supervise and control

Council President McMorrow and Lieutenant Mura, in essence gave

them both full and unfettered authority to do as they pleased at

the Borough and Police Department, a fact that was common

knowledge within the Borough and Police Department and also among

the Police Officers.

102. Council President McMorrow has continued the disparate

and oppressive treatment of Officer Ust by continuing to give

unwarranted increased scrutiny to Officer Ust and by continuing

to file charges against him meant to tarnish his record.

103. The stress has only increased over time against Officer

Ust and his career and health have become increasingly affected.

Notice of Claim

17

104. Officer Ust properly provided notice of his claims

pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-1 et

seq.

COUNT IRetaliation Under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act

(Against All Defendants)

105. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges all of the prior

paragraphs as if set for in full herein.

106. Pursuant to the New Jersey Conscientious Employee

Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 through 34:19-8 (“CEPA”):

An employer shall not take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:

a. Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or another employer, with whom there is a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes:

(1) is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law. . .

(2) is fraudulent or criminal. . .

b. Provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law by the employer . . . .

c. Objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes:

(1) is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated to law;

(2) is fraudulent or criminal . . . (3) is incompatible with a clear mandate of

public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare. . . .

18

107. N.J.S.A. 34:19-2 defines “retaliatory action” as “the

discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other

adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms

and conditions of employment.”

108. Defendants have conducted continuing acts of

retaliation against Plaintiff, in violation of CEPA.

109. These acts began after Officer Ust wrote the November

15, 2015 letter to Chief Cioffi.

110. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff due to, among

other things, (i) his complaints regarding Lieutenant Mura’s

behavior; (ii) his complaints about the and hostile work

environment; and (iii) his complaints about the unsafe and

dangerous working conditions caused by Lieutenant Mura, all of

which Defendants failed to remedy.

111. Defendants retaliated by, among other things, engaging

in a pattern of harassment, threats, and mistreatment designed to

drive Plaintiff away from his place of employment.

112. Lieutenant Mura further retaliated by filing a false IA

Complaint against Plaintiff. The other Defendants aided and

abetted Lieutenant Mura’s actions.

113. The individual defendants are personally liable for

directing and allowing retaliation against Plaintiff.

114. As a proximate result of the retaliation, Plaintiff has

suffered damages as described above.19

COUNT IIHostile Work Environment Under CEPA

(Against All Defendants)

115. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges all of the prior

paragraphs as if set for in full herein.

116. The ongoing and constant incidents of harassment

described above would not have occurred but for Plaintiff having

reported Lieutenant Mura’s behavior to his superiors.

117. The harassment was continual, stemming from the

November 15, 2015 Officer Ust letter to Chief Cioffi.

118. The harassment was severe and pervasive enough to make

a reasonable person believe that the conditions of his employment

were altered, and the working environment was hostile and

abusive.

119. The Borough, Council, Department and individual

defendants are personally liable for directing and allowing the

ongoing hostile work environment.

120. As a proximate result of the hostile work environment,

Plaintiff has suffered damages as described above.

COUNT IIIMalicious Use of Process/Malicious Prosecution

(Against Lieutenant Mura and Council President McMorrow)

121. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges all of the prior

paragraphs as if set for in full herein.

122. Lieutenant Mura and Council President McMorrow both

maliciously filed their IA Complaints against Plaintiff.

20

123. They did so without a reasonable ground of suspicion

supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant an ordinarily

prudent man/woman in believing he was guilty of an offense.

124. In fact, there were no complaints or allegations

against Officer Ust that prompted the IA Complaints.

125. Lieutenant Mura’s bad faith is demonstrated by the fact

that the charges were filed after he learned of Officer Ust’s

letter to Chief Cioffi.

126. Council President McMorrow’s bad faith is demonstrated

by the fact that the charges were only filed after she learned of

Officer Ust’s statement that she was seen with Lieutenant Mura in

a car and after he refused to meet with her privately outside of

Borough and Police Department protocol.

127. As a proximate result of Lieutenant Mura’s and Council

President McMorrow’s malicious use of process/malicious

prosecution, Plaintiff has suffered damages as described above.

COUNT IVNew Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(C)n

(Against All Defendants)

128. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges all of the prior

paragraphs as if set for in full herein.

129. As described above, the defendants, and each of them,

were at all times relevant herein persons or agencies under color

of law. The individual defendants at all such times acted with

the tacit, actual and/or constructive authorization, approval, 21

and acquiescence of Defendants the Borough and/or the Borough

Police Department.

130. By virtue of the defendants’ aforementioned conduct,

acts, and omissions to act, the Plaintiff has been deprived of

substantive due process and equal protection rights, privileges

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United

States and substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured

by the Constitution and laws of this State, including those

specific rights, privileges, and immunities set forth in the

following paragraphs. Defendants also interfered with, or

attempted to interfere with, Plaintiff’s exercise or enjoyment of

those substantive rights, privileges or immunities by way of

threats, intimidation, harassment and/or coercion as described

above.

131. As a police officer suffering from anxiety and having a

pre-existing speech impediment, Plaintiff is a member of a

protected class. Defendants’ continued pattern of conduct and

their actions as aforedescribed constituted differential and

disparate treatment of Plaintiff on the basis of his condition,

and such differential treatment neither served nor had any

substantial relation to any important governmental objective, nor

did such differential treatment suitably further an appropriate

government interest. Defendants’ conduct and actions thus

violated the rights guaranteed and secured to Plaintiff under the

22

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph I of the New Jersey

Constitution.

132. As set forth above, Defendants Mura and McMorrow

submitted blatantly false and fraudulent internal affairs

complaints against Plaintiff for the unlawful purpose of having

him fired and to further tarnish his record as a police officer.

The Plaintiff reported this official misconduct through the chain

of command all the way up the police department, the council,

Council President and Mayor. Attorney General Guidelines, which

govern the Borough Police Department, mandate that Lieutenant

Mura’s and Council President McMorrow’s misconduct should have

been investigated and appropriate disciplinary and corrective

action should have been taken. However, and despite further

reports by or on behalf of Plaintiff, no such investigation or

action was ever taken against Lieutenant Mura or Council

President McMorrow. By their conduct, actions and/or omissions

to act, defendants deprived Plaintiff of the important

protections and rights set forth in the said Guidelines.

133. As aforementioned, Officer Ust performed all duties of

the rank on a consistent almost daily basis. Officer Ust did so

for a protracted period of time, even as his superiors in the

department and Borough continued their attacks and hostilities

23

against him. Defendants, by their acts and omissions to act,

deprived Plaintiff of such statutory rights and entitlement.

134. As a result, Plaintiff’s good name and reputation were

damaged, and he was denied an offer of employment as a county

prosecutor detective.

135. As a proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages

as described above.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues

presented herein.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to R. 4:25-4, Vincent J.

Failla, Esq. of the Failla Law Group, LLC, is hereby designated

as Trial counsel for the Plaintiff.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1

I certify, pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, that the matter in

controversy is not the subject of any other action or arbitration

proceeding, now or contemplated, and that no other parties should

be joined in this action at this time.

FAILLA LAW GROUP, LLCAttorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: September 11, 2017. _________________________________BY: VINCENT J. FAILLA

24