ANOTHER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY

 Chief Farabella was just reappointed for another 3 years even though a lawsuit was filed against  Farabella and Pepitone by a city employee.The lawsuit is worth reading.  The allegations, if true, are startling. These allegations also raise the question should Farabella have been reappointed at this time? Did the commissioners look into the allegations prior to voting? The lawsuit involves the departments of Parent and Pepitone who both voted to reappoint Farabella. Did they do their due diligence?

Of interest is line 55 in the lawsuit. It clearly states that Doug Long was performing legal duties for the city in 2019. Didn't the commissioners claim that Mr. Long was not involved in the city, only Marmero and Grace.

Remember at election time the lack of transparency, the lies, the lack of due diligence and the waste of your tax payers money. Millville needs commissioners who are transparent, who do their due diligence and have the interests of the citizens of Millville at heart.

The case is below. Please note the language at times is offensive.

THE VIGILANTE LAW FIRM, P.C. By: Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 030961988 By: Christopher J. Ross, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 306212019 99 North Main Street Mullica Hill, NJ 08062 856-223-9990 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SHERRY ANNE TROUT, Plaintiff, 

v. CITY OF MILLVILLE, JODY FARBELLA, JOSEPH PEPITONE, JOSEPH HOYDIS JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION CUMBERLAND COUNTY Civil Action DOCKET NO. CUM-L COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND HERE NOW 

Plaintiff Sherry Anne Trout (“Plaintiff” herein), by and through her undersigned counsel, The Vigilante Law Firm, P.C., and by way of complaint against the Defendants City of Millville, Millville City Police, Jody Farabella, Joseph Pepitone, Joseph Hoydis and John and Janes Does 1-20 avers and says: 

INTRODUCTION This is an action seeking redress for Defendants’ unlawful employment practices against Plaintiff, including hostile work environment, gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“NJLAD”) and New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. (“CEPA”). PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Sherry Anne Trout is an adult individual. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff has resided in Cumberland County, New Jersey. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 1 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 2. Defendant City of Millville (“Millville”) is municipal corporation located in the County of Cumberland and a political subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey. 

3. Millville operates under a commission form of government, with five elected commissioners, one of whom serves as Mayor. 

4. Defendant Jody Farabella (“Farabella”) is an adult individual residing in New Jersey. At all times pertinent hereto, Farabella has served as the Chief of Police of the Millville Police Department.

 5. Defendant Joseph Pepitone (“Pepitone”) is an adult individual residing in New Jersey. At all times pertinent hereto, Pepitone has served as the City Commissioner of Millville. 

6. Defendant Joseph Hoydis (“Hoydis”) is an adult individual residing in New Jersey. At all times pertinent hereto, Hoydis has served as a Lieutenant in the Millville Police Department. 

7. Jane and John Does 1- 20 names not presently known, are adult individuals residing in New Jersey who were present at or involved in official activities giving rise to the Complaint. 

8. At all relevant times, Defendants Farabella, Pepitone, Hoydis and Jane and John Does 1-20 were acting under color of law and under color of their authority as officers, agents, servants and employees of Defendant Millville. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants, as the Defendants reside in New Jersey and regularly engage in business in the County presently, or at the time of the events at issue. 

10. Venue is proper in this Court as all of the events which give rise to the Complaint occurred in this County. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 2 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 STATEMENT OF FACTS 

11. At all relevant times, Millville operated a police department which employed approximately one hundred employees including uniformed and non-uniformed personnel. 

12. Plaintiff began working for the Millville City Police Department (“MCPD”) as a secretary on or about February 15, 1990. 

13. Defendant Farabella became the Chief of Police for the MCPD in 2015. 

14. For years prior to Farabella’s appointment to the position of Chief, Plaintiff served as the Secretary to the Chief of Police of the MCPD. 

15. Plaintiff also served in the role of a supervisor of the non-uniformed office staff. 

16. As a result of her position as Secretary to the Chief, Plaintiff was required to work closely with Farabella. 

17. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was the only civilian supervisor in the MCPD. 

18. Soon after his appointment to the position of Chief, Farabella began a pattern of harassment, discrimination and retaliation directed at Plaintiff based on her gender. Defendant Farabella’s harassment of Plaintiff and environment of hostility towards women 

19. Farabella engaged in a pattern of belittling and demeaning comments and questions directed at Plaintiff, including: a. Constantly asking Plaintiff what she “did” to get her title as supervisor implying that Plaintiff was in a quid pro quo relationship with the Mayor, frequently commenting to Plaintiff “I’d love to know what you did to him or for him to get this title.” b. Commenting that “I don’t know what you have on him, but it must be really good!” c. Referring to Mayor Santiago as Plaintiff’s “boy.” d. Telling Plaintiff to “put on her big girl panties.” CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 3 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 e. Routinely referring to Plaintiff and the women she supervised as a “softball team.” f. Warning male employees to stay away from the female staff he deemed angry or emotional for one week, suggesting that they were menstruating, often stating that “if a deer bled for a week they would shoot and kill it.” g. Demeaning and undermining Plaintiff’s role as a supervisor of civilian employees, suggesting she was overpaid and did not deserve her title. h. Accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly manage the budget when he routinely overspent line items which required Plaintiff to ask the Chief Financial Officer to move money in the budget to cover his overspending. i. Humiliating Plaintiff when she took medication by mocking her and suggesting she was “comatose.” j. Screaming at Plaintiff in an abusive tirade when certain employees took time off. k. Using sexually explicit and graphic language to describe the relationships between the uniformed staff. 

20. Farabella would purposely make these comments in front of Plaintiff’s co-workers, in order to humiliate and embarrass plaintiff and other female staff. 

21. On at least three occasions, Plaintiff was required to provide testimony to the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s office on internal investigations that involved MCPD personnel. 

22. Farabella harassed her as a result of her cooperation in the investigations, referring to her as “PW”, professional witness, and telling her she needed to keep her mouth shut and say she knew nothing and that she had to develop a bad memory. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 4 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 23. Farabella routinely tried to block Plaintiff from any involvement in matters where she could be a witness, despite her role as supervisor, because he did not want her to serve as a witness in any investigations. 

24. Farabella’s routinely made belittling and demeaning comments about women and minorities in general, including: a. Telling plaintiff that female Millville Commissioner Ashleigh Udalovas was a “dirty whore.” b. Graphically described to Plaintiff the sexually-charged rumors he overheard regarding Udalovas. c. Referring to female Millville employee Regina Burke as a “fat bitch.” d. While watching Burke on the City Hall security cameras, Farabella would call Plaintiff into his office to comment “look, here comes the fat bitch waddling in now.” e. Referring to women as “bitches” when they did not agree with him. f. Using the word “cunt” in the workplace to describe women. g. Saying that he dislikes renting his rental properties to “niggers” but had to because of Section 8 housing 

25. Farabella made a point of routinely calling plaintiff into his office to make the comments set forth above, interfering with Plaintiff’s job duties and work assignments. 

26. These comments and remarks were routine and pervaded the workplace. Hostile environment towards women within the Millville Police Department 

27. In addition to Farabella’s references to women in the in the department, other members of the department constantly referred to women as “bitches.” CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 5 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 28. On or about October 7, 2019, a civilian co-worker Efrain Tirado, asked Plaintiff if she liked to be spanked?” 

29. Tirado made this comment in front of Ashley Ridgway, a female civilian employee and Defendant Hoydis, a police lieutenant. 

30. In violation of Millville’s anti-harassment policy, Hoydis did not respond or address the offensive comment and returned to his office. 

31. Hoydis told Plaintiff she should put any complaints “on paper.” Hoydis made it clear that he would not do anything about it unless it was in writing in violation of Millville’s Employee Complaint Procedure Policy. 

32. On more than one occasion, including January 7, 2020, Hoydis referred to the female staff in the payroll department as “cunts” or “incompetent cunts.” 

33. On or about January 27, 2020, the MCPD had Texas Roadhouse rolls and butter delivered. 

34. In front of others including Plaintiff, Hoydis told a female civilian employee that “the only way this butter could be any better is if I was licking it off your nipples.” 

35. Due to fear of retaliation by Hoydis and the Chief, no person present made a complaint about this conduct. 

36. These comments and remarks were routine and pervaded the workplace and interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to do her job. Retaliation towards Plaintiff regarding the incident involving Maria Bonilla 

37. On or about August 28, 2018, Plaintiff and female civilian employee, Maria Bonilla (“Bonilla”), both reported to work at the MCPD.

 38. Bonilla was a civilian employee in the Records Department at the MCPD who was supervised by Plaintiff. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 6 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 39. On this date, as a result of ongoing harassment, retaliation and disparate treatment that was directed at Bonilla by Lt. Larry Mulford (“Mulford”) which went unabated and unaddressed despite prior complaints, Bonilla began crying uncontrollably and requested to be taken to the hospital. 

40. Plaintiff accompanied Bonilla to get medical treatment. 

41. Plaintiff communicated by interoffice memo to Farabella a description of the incident which occurred to advise him of the incident. 

42. In her August 28, 2018 memo plaintiff objected to Mulford’s conduct as undermining her authority as a supervisor and his interference with her role as the supervisor of the civil employees. Plaintiff also objected to Mulford’s hostile treatment of Bonilla. 

43. Following the incident and her memo Plaintiff learned that the confidential healthcare information regarding Bonilla was shared with other employees. 

44. On or about August 29, 2018, Plaintiff sent an interoffice memo to Farabella, objecting to the fact that Bonilla’s healthcare information was not being kept confidential and protected by the Department and could interfere with ongoing investigations. 

45. Immediately following, and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints and objections, Defendants began to limit Plaintiff’s role as supervisor. 

46. On October 2, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an interoffice memo which objected to the Department’s interference with her role as supervisor and which questioned Farabella’s use of a birthday holiday to which he was not entitled. 

47. On or about December 18, 2018, Plaintiff was informed by Farabella that Pepitone wanted her reassigned to the Records Division to fill in for Bonilla who was on extended leave, which was a demotion. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 7 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 48. Plaintiff objected to the reassignment as an unlawful demotion and retaliation and spoke with Pepitone who told her that she would not be reassigned and if she was she would receive a salary increase and that it was a role with more responsibility 

49. Pepitone and Farabella made the decision to reassign Plaintiff. 

50. Plaintiff objected to the reassignment and informed Farabella that she believed she was retaliated against. 

51. In response, Farabella told Plaintiff he “didn’t want to hear it” and that “nothing lasts forever” and that Plaintiff needed to “put on your big girl panties. 

52. Farabella told Plaintiff she did not work enough for the amount of money she made. 

53. On January 2, 2019, Plaintiff returned from a two-week vacation and was ordered by Farabella to report to the records room. When Plaintiff objected Farabella yelled at her. 

54. As of January 3, 2019, Plaintiff was required to work part of the time in the position of Chief’s secretary and part in the records room. 

55. Farabella supplied Plaintiff with a written list of job duties that was prepared by Solicitor Doug Long. 

56. On January 10, 2019, in response to a discussion regarding the work performed in the records room, Farabella screamed and yelled profanity at Plaintiff. 

57. Despite Pepitone’s assurance, the position in the Records Room had none of the responsibilities or authority Pepitone promised. 

58. Farabella informed Plaintiff that she would be replaced by someone named Kelly, who plaintiff later learned was the ex-wife of the principal at the school where Pepitone worked and who had no experience in administrative police support. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 8 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 59. Plaintiff asked where the new secretary would sit and Farabella told her “at your fucking desk.” 

60. On or about January 11, 2019, Farabella informed Plaintiff she was to move to Records fulltime. 

61. Farabella advised Plaintiff that she would be working with both Larry Mulford and Hoydis. 

62. Plaintiff voiced her concerns that Mulford and Hoydis had previously complained about Plaintiff and she feared they would retaliate against her for the incident involving Bonilla. 

63. Farabella told Plaintiff that he didn’t want to hear any “bullshit about a hostile work environment” and that he wanted those words out of the building and wasn’t going to entertain them from Plaintiff. 

64. Later that same day, Farabella called Plaintiff into his office to address a rumor about her speaking to an attorney. 

65. Farabella warned that Plaintiff should think about it before doing anything, threatening that she would be retaliated against further if she retained an attorney or exercised any legal rights she had. 

66. Farabella, in a veiled threat, told Plaintiff that it would be sad if one of MCPD’s officers pulled over Plaintiff’s father, who is elderly and hard of hearing, and he couldn’t hear them, and they would have to take his driver’s license away. 

67. Plaintiff understood that Farabella was threatening to use the powers of his office to cause harm to her family. 

68. While in the records room, the hostile work environment continued with Hoydis and Mulford referring to Regina Burke as a “stupid bitch” in plaintiff’s presence. Other Protected Activity CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 9 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 69. While assigned to records, part of Plaintiff’s duties were to maintain records related to Megan’s Law registrations in the City. 

70. Plaintiff learned that a Megan’s Law registrant was a participant in the Millville Police Athletic League as P.A.L basketball coach and that he was honored on the recommendation of Officer Kott in February 2019 at an MCPD P.A.L. awards banquet. 

71. Upon learning this information from the registrant himself, Plaintiff became very alarmed that MCPD would allow a child molester to participate in P.A.L. as a coach. 

72. Plaintiff complained to Officer Kott, who was working with P.A.L. and the registrant about this after learning that the registrant has molested a child in a bathroom and engaged in other predatory acts. Kott responded that it did not matter because the kids he was coaching were from “bad families.” 

73. Plaintiff complained to Hoydis, who told her he discussed the matter with Farabella who said she had better leave it alone because the Chief did not want egg on his face because Kott was about to be promoted. 

74. Hoydis explained that Megan’s Law registrants had rights and that Plaintiff could be in trouble if she released any information and pursued this issue. 

75. On May 13, 2019, Farabella accused Plaintiff of filing a union grievance about her transfer and warned her to “get her people under control or he was going to take her money away.” 

76. Plaintiff understood that Farabella was threatening her not to pursue the grievance and to require her to force the union to drop the grievance even though Plaintiff did not belong to the union. 

77. On May 14, 2019, Farabella asked Plaintiff to submit a flex time slip for his time off during his absence from work. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 10 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 78. Plaintiff attempted to do so and was informed that Farabella did not have sufficient paid time off to cover the day off. 

79. When Plaintiff informed him of this, Farabella told her to hold the slip and that he would attend additional events that week and get more flex time, which Plaintiff understood was unlawful. 

80. Plaintiff later complained to the Mayor about Farabella’s unlawful use of flex time. 

81. In July 2019 Farabella began asking Plaintiff when she was planning to retire. 

82. When she informed him that she did not have a set plan, he became irate and threatened her that she would not hold him hostage. 

83. In response to his demands for a retirement date, Plaintiff complained he was not permitted by law to make such a demand and he responded that she was “fucking up his budget” and that she better make a plan fast. 

84. Plaintiff was told that effective January 2021, her demotion to records room would also include a reduction in salary. 

85. Due to Defendants’ unlawful conduct and the change in the terms and conditions of her employment, Plaintiff was forced to retire on September 1, 2020. COUNT I New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Gender-Based Discrimination in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 

86. Plaintiff repeats the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herewith. 

87. At all times, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

88. The conduct of the Defendants constitutes unlawful harassment in violation of the NJLAD. 

89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 11 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 will continue to suffer damages, including economic loss and statutory emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment and an award of damages against the Defendants, jointly, severally and in the alternative, together with back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest, costs of suit and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Hostile Work Environment in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 

90. Plaintiff repeats the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herewith. 

91. At all times, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

92. The conduct of Defendants constitutes unlawful harassment hostile work environment in violation of NJLAD. 

93. The conduct directed towards Plaintiff would not have occurred but for Plaintiff’s status as a female. 

94. The conduct directed towards Plaintiff was severe and pervasive. 

95. The conduct directed towards Plaintiff created a hostile work environment that was both hostile and abusive. 

96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic loss and statutory emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment and an award of damages against the Defendants, jointly, severally and in the alternative, together with back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest, costs of suit and CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 12 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT III New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Unlawful Retaliation in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 

97. Plaintiff repeats the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herewith. 

98. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity known to the Defendants. 

99. Plaintiff was transferred to Records, despite her having an exemplary career as Chief’s secretary for nearly 18 years. 

100. Plaintiff’s transfer resulted in substantially altered employment conditions and responsibilities. 

101. The conduct of the Defendants constitutes unlawful retaliation in violation of the NJLAD. 

102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic loss and statutory emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment and an award of damages against the Defendants, jointly, severally and in the alternative, together with back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, costs of suit and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT IV Violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act “CEPA” N.J.S.A. 34:19-3 

103. Plaintiff repeats the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herewith. 

104. Plaintiff engaged in conduct protected under CEPA by a. disclosing or threatening to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 13 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 policy, or practice that the employee reasonably believes is: i. in violation of a law, rule, or regulation; or ii. fraudulent or criminal. b. Providing information to or testifying before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any violation of law. c. Objects to or refuses to participate in an activity, policy, or practice which the employee reasonably believes: i. constitutes a violation of a law, rule, or regulation; ii. is fraudulent or criminal; or iii. is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare, or protection of the environment. 

105. Plaintiff reasonably believed that the Defendants violated Megan’s law N.J.S.A 2C:7-1 

106. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Farabella’s conduct regarding his timesheets was a crime under N.J.S.A 2C:30-2 and N.J.S.A 2C:20-3 and violated Millville’s employee rules, regulations and policies regarding time keeping. 

107. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Farabella’s comments and harassment regarding Plaintiff’s testimony violated N.J.S.A 2C:30-2 Millville’s employee rules, regulations and policies regarding retaliation and harassment. 

108. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants’ conduct in demoting her violated the NJ Civil Service laws under Title 11A relating to transfers and demotions. 

109. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants’ conduct in releasing confidential health information related to employee Bonilla violated HIPPA laws. 

110. Defendants violated CEPA by demoting plaintiff and creating a hostile work environment CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 14 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 

 111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of CEPA, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including emotional stress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment and an award of damages against the Defendants, jointly, severally and in the alternative, together with back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, costs of suit and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Demand is hereby made by Plaintiff for a trial by jury as to all issues on this cause of action. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esquire of The Vigilante Law Firm, P.C. is hereby designated as trial counsel on behalf of Plaintiff. 

CERTIFICATION I certify that the matter in controversy in this action is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding and no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated. I further certify that I am unaware of any other persons who should be named as parties in this action. CERTIFICATION Pursuant to R. 1:38-7 to the extent this pleading contained any personal identifiers, they have been redacted. CUM-L-000805-20 12/30/2020 12:15:54 PM Pg 15 of 16 Trans ID: LCV20202374403 THE VIGILANTE LAW FIRM, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: /s/ Jacqueline M. Vigilante Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esquire