Tuesday, June 23, 2015

COMPLAINT FILED WITH US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

The following, as modified slightly for posting by removal of names, phone numbers, and addresses, is the complaint I filed with HHS:



To:      Division of Compliance Oversight (DCO)
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
From:  Lewis Seagull
Re:      Complaint about potential violation of human subject research at:
Kean University,
            1000 Morris Avenue
Union, NJ 07083
            Allegedly committed by:
            Professor Sarah “Sally” Chandler
            Kean IRB Officer Joseph Cronin
I was the victim of a violation of the Common Rule as a student at Kean University, 1000 Morris Avenue, Union, NJ 07083 during the spring 2013 academic semester. I promptly brought my complaint to the National Institute of Health, which informed me that it did not have jurisdiction.

Only this morning did I learn that your agency may have been the appropriate venue.

The seriousness of the alleged violation, which involves systemic institutional malfeasance by the Kean IRB in willfully and knowingly failing to monitor the principal investigator, should override the delay.

Kean is a research institution that provides “Federal-Wide Assurance” that it complies with all federal regulations regardless of funding source. The issue for you, I believe, will be whether the research falls within the exception provided in 34 C.F.R. § 97.101 (b) (1) for “Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices…” I contend that it does not.

Confidentiality: I do not request it. I waive any complaint against you or your agency if, as a result of your investigation, my identity becomes known to Kean or its employees. Confidentiality was important to me in 2013, but I have recently advised Kean that I am filing a complaint against it.

Background: I am a student enrolled in Kean’s “M.A. in English and Writing Studies” program. I expect to receive my Master of Arts degree in December 2015. 

Incident: During spring 2013, as a student in ENG 5030, “Writing as Being Saying and Doing,” my professor, Sarah Chandler, required the members of the class to provide autobiographical information in separate tape-recorded interviews. The professor had recently published a book on writing theory based on the same type of "data" obtained from students in prior semesters.

The students in the class, including me, were not asked to sign consent forms. Instead, we were required to participate and not permitted to withdraw without penalty. We were required to transcribe the interviews, and post the transcripts on a public website. 

Early in the process of transcribing, I realized that I had given more intimate details than I cared to share—indeed, was horrified by some of what I had admitted. I expressed my distress in an email to my professor. Later, I told her privately that I did not want to share my “data.” She told me that I must—I had no choice under penalty of receiving deductions from my grade. I told her I did not think that was right, and she said, “Too bad—it is a course requirement.”

Neither the course syllabus nor the course blog, however, indicated that publicly posting the transcript of the interrogation by our professor was required. The relevant portion of the syllabus states,
For this course, posts are primarily directed toward development of your research.  Writing should reflect critical, reflective analysis of ideas and practices discussed in class.
2. Notes & contributions to class data base: During the first two weeks of class we will brainstorm a list of the kinds of data we want to collect.  These data will include pre/post surveys regarding attitudes, relationships to dominant discourses, and mental states; an oral history, and a series of detailed descriptions of experiences associated with writing.   We will decide as a class where/how to post these material, and how/whether to make them available to the class as a whole.  At the very least, I will have access to pre/post data, detailed descriptions, and your written transcript of the oral history interview.
3.  Research project.  We will work as a group to develop an assignment sheet designating criteria for the research project.  In general, I am expecting a revised draft for an essay suitable for publication in a research journal.  Grading will vary from project to project - since different focuses/methods will require different standards for evaluation. The project will require you to conduct original, primary research on a topic of your choice related to the course focus.  The grade for the project will be based on the quality of your data, the rigor of your analysis of that data, the draft essay, the significance of the findings, and the writing process you used to create the essay. After we negotiate specific criteria as a class, they will be posted on the course blog.

The course blog is more specific in relating the details of the process:

Thursday, February 7, 2013
* * * *
Can you tell me again why we are doing the oral histories/interviews about writing?
We started class with a long discussion about the interviews, the interview process, and transcribing the interviews - and that led to a discussion of the "research project" mentioned on the syllabus and the calendar.

Purpose of the interviews: Your interview provides evidence of the language, story patterns, subject positioning, and so on that you use to talk about writing and your relationships to writing.  It also provides a set of stories that "come up" in your mind when you think about writing.  The research we will be reading for the rest of the term…suggests ways for researchers to study, "take apart," and put back together (in new, more constructive ways) our representations (and therefore our understanding) of our identities and our relationships.  We are going to use these methods to analyze our data base, and to see if we can see some patterns in relationships to writing, stories about writing, constructive (and not so constructive) ways of telling stories about writing (and these will certainly be different for each of us) and many other things. 

Transcribing.  In order to produce a record of your interview, you will "write" what you hear on the recording by producing a word document.  I suggest that you mark speakers (S for me, your first initial for you).  Your first time through - you can go quickly.  You don't have to get everything right.  I suggest (in light of the conversations we have had so far) that pretty much everything we have talked about sheds some light on writing, so you probably need to transcribe every conversations.  I suggest that you "track" where you are in the interview (especially at stories which feel important as you are listening) by noting the time (or the counter on the tape recorder) so that you move easily back and forth between the recording and your transcript.  That way, you can go back to conversations which seem relevant to what you see as emerging themes.

Keep your voice recording.  Make a copy of it.  You will need it.  The transcript is a "reduced" and much less informative version of our talk.  At the same time, it is necessary.  It holds the data still so we can look around inside it.  At the same time, for the stories you are most interested in - you are probably going to want to listen to them - to make sure you are interpreting them correctly.

Your interview data is yours.  You are not required to share it with anyone.  I am hoping each of you will feel comfortable sharing at least parts (and hopefully large parts) of your data - either through your own analysis of the material, or through making your "talk" available as data for the class.

Thus, both the course syllabus and blog seem to indicate that participation in the interview, the transcribing of the interview, and the public posting of the transcript are optional and voluntary. However, in her oral statements to the class, and to me privately, Chandler made clear that participation was neither optional nor voluntary. Not until after the semester was over, and she wrote me about my grade, did she state in writing the coercive nature of the process: 

Adequate participation in in-class writing, the oral history was created + transcribed.  Points lost for not making an edited transcript available to class data base + not posting notes/drafts to the class data site for essay development.

I cooperated as far as transcribing the interview. As I typed-up the transcript, I was becoming ill at the thought that my classmates would be permitted to read it. I expressed my feelings to my teacher in an email.

I sent the transcript to Dr. Chandler, as she required under penalty of a reduction in grade. In the transmittal email attaching the transcript, I included the explicit instruction not to post the transcript on the website until I could edit it. She later said she did not see the instruction.
 
She posted it, for all of my peers to see, on April 8, over my express objection. 

I sent her an email objecting to her posting; she said she had not opened my email, and showed me her inbox which contained my email, still in bold font indicating that it had not yet been read. When she showed me her computer screen so that I could see that my email had never been opened, all of her other emails had been opened—mine stood alone. To claim that she had not read my email, all she had to do was click a button, “Mark as Unread.”

My objections regarding posting my transcript had spanned a several-week period from late March until early April, during which my formal and informal dealings with the professor were becoming increasingly hostile. She held various instrumentalites of power over me. She was not only my professor in both courses I was taking—my fourth course in two semesters with her—she was also my faculty adviser and the director of the program.

On Monday, April 15, 2013, in ENG 5002, “Research and Methods,” a different class taught by Chandler in which I was a student, a guest lecturer on research ethics reviewed protections for research participants, including the requirements of informed written consent and the right to withdraw. Chandler was not present. I asked the guest if research ethics applied to classroom activities, and he said “yes.”

[Regarding the issue of whether preparing transcripts of interrogation by a professor is a “classroom exercise” or “human subject research,” it is 5002—Research and Methods— where we study the techniques of collecting data. In 5030—the class I am complaining about—we were collecting “data” to use it to write research papers for the purpose of publishing them for the academic community, not to learn how to collect data. We were using each other as human research subjects.]

Having learned that research universities have Institutional Review Boards to monitor and safeguard research, I went the next day—April 16—to the Kean IRB to find out what recourse I had. The Kean website indicates that research participants may make confidential inquiries or complaints to the IRB. I met with Joseph Cronin, the Assistant Director of the Kean Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, and a member of the Kean IRB.

I stated to Dr. Cronin that I thought I had been the victim of violations of universally accepted principles of research ethics (no informed consent; no right to withdraw; coercion) which I told him were committed by a tenured faculty member, but did not otherwise identify my teacher. 

Before I gave Cronin any details, I requested and received a promise of confidentiality. He closed his window and asked me to call him “Joe,” which lent an air of reliability to his promise. During the ensuing conversation, Cronin tried to suggest the professor’s initials, I remained silent. That I never mentioned the professor’s name is confirmed in an email exchange with Dr. Cronin the following day:
Re: Question
From: Joseph Cronin jcronin@exchange.kean.edu
Sent: Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Hi Lewis,
I just want to clarify something.  The class you talked to me about yesterday, was that an undergraduate or a graduate class.  I seem to recall that it was a graduate class.  I just want to make sure my records are clear. 
Thanks
Joseph M. Cronin, Ph.D.
Assistant Director
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
 I replied:
From: Lewis Seagull
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:03 AM
To: Joseph Cronin
Subject: Re: Question
Graduate course. Does it make a difference?
He responded:
From: Joseph Cronin jcronin@exchange.kean.edu
Sent: Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM
No, it doesn’t.  I just want to make sure I understood everything fully. 

Instead of honoring his promise of confidentiality, Cronin contacted Chandler, whom he had deduced was the professor in question, to advise her of my inquiry. When I went to Cronin on Friday, April 19 to find out why he had backtracked on his sympathetic attitude, he said, “Call me Dr. Cronin.” Then he and Susan Gannon, the Director of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, asked me to leave, which I did.

On the afternoon of April 17, after the email exchange with Cronin, and—unknown to me—after he had violated his promise of confidentiality, I attended Chandler’s class. The class as a whole was “negotiating” how many points to assign to the “collection of data.” My position to the class was that it should be assigned no points because we had the right not to participate. 

Chandler guided the conversation against my position. Chandler presented to the class the issue of allowing classmates to examine my “data” for use in their research papers. I was the object of peer pressure; one of my classmates stated, “We all agreed; Lewis, you can’t back out.”

I then confronted Chandler about posting my transcript over my written objection. The professor denied ever receiving my objection to posting the email—“Lewis! How could I know?”—which was frightening to me, because, in addition to the emails in which I expressly stated that I did not want my transcript posted, we had had several conversations in which I had objected—I felt reality and history were being altered and I was thankful that I had at least two emails to give credibility to my assertion that in several private conversations I had objected to posting my transcript. When Dr. Chandler showed me that she had not read my email, I pointed to my earlier email, which she not only read but responded to:

The transcript of my interview

Lewis Seagull <lseagull@kean.edu>
Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:39 AM
To: sally chandler <ENG5030.01@gmail.com>
Hi Sally,
I am attaching the first 34 pages of my transcript. Please do not post this where anyone else can see it,
Lewis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/doc.gif

Transcript of interview with Sally Chandler[2].docx
48K

sally chandler <eng5030.01@gmail.com>
Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:11 AM
To: Lewis Seagull <lseagull@kean.edu>
Thanks, Lewis.

To say that I agreed to any of this when I signed up for the course is not true. My financial aid agreement requires I take six credits. This was the only course that fit my schedule. I tried to get into a “Digital Literacy” independent study, but could not. If I had, I would have dropped this course.
But isn’t the protocol for the research flawed? One classmate stated that she deliberately did not mention certain subjects because she knew her transcript would be made public. Apparently, I was the only one who honestly spilled his guts. Some students actually wrote about the things they deliberately refused to mention in their interviews.

Dr. Chandler told us that one reason that the interviews require a two-hour, non-stop conversation is so that the subject will let his guard down. I was not able to protect myself.

One point about confidentiality and conflict of interest regarding the intimate details of my life that I shared with my professor: If she were a lawyer, I would have the attorney client privilege; if she were a therapist, I would have a privilege as a patient. She used her power over me to require me to divulge secrets. 

I was not the only student for whom “sharing data” was distressing. A classmate, who was concerned about how upset I was in class, wrote in an email to me,

            Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:19 PM
To: Lewis Seagull <lseagull@kean.edu>
Lewis,
I want to tell you a lot of things. You should know that a lot of people are mad at you, and even though you might not care, we were all classmates, Lewis, and together had to endure a lot of uncomfortable things in Dr. Chandler's classes, albeit whether we believed or not that, technically, we didn't sign up for the some of what we had to do. Granted, I didn't sign up for a lot of the revealing and remembering and the hurt that came with all of it.
*  *  *  *
For now, goodnight. Take down my number and give me a call sometime this week; or just write me back. Here: 732 XXX XXXX.

Conclusion:  Not only did Kean University, its Institutional Review Board, and its Department of English (Daniel O’Day, Chair; Charles Nelson, Assistant Chair) take no action after being informed of the details of the alleged violation, they brought the power of the University down upon me. I was prosecuted for alleged violations of the Kean Code of Student Conduct for “hostile behavior” in complaining to my professor; I was terminated from my position as adjunct professor of English (hired September 2002; denied academic appointments commencing summer 2013)—this despite the fact that in January 2013, the assistant chair, Charles Nelson (who is responsible for assigning teaching positions), thought so highly of me that he recommended a newly hired adjunct to come to me for mentoring—and I did mentor her during the spring 2013 semester.

As an adjunct professor, I do not have tenure. Indeed, as an “at will” employee, I can be terminated for any reason or no reason, but not for the wrong reason. Charles Nelson has admitted that my complaint against Sarah Chandler is the reason I no longer receive assignments to teach at Kean. 
                                                                                                            Respectfully,

                                                                                                            Lewis Seagull






INITIAL PLEADING FILED WITH THE COURT, as Modified for Posting

The following is an amalgam of the First, Second, and Third Amended Complaints as actually filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, which have been merged for ease of review. This document contains all of the language and count designations of what has been filed. Addresses and phone numbers have been deleted, corrections have been incorporated, and formal end-of-pleading technicalities have been omitted.



Index to Complaint as Modified for Posting


PARTIES
FIRST COUNT
(Negligent Violation of the Rights of a Human Subject of Research)
SECOND COUNT
(Malicious Violation of the Rights of a Human Subject of Research)
THIRD COUNT
(Negligent Violation of the Rights of a Student)
FOURTH COUNT
(Malicious Violation of the Rights of a Student)
FIFTH COUNT
(Negligent Violation of the Rights of an Employee)
SIXTH COUNT
(Malicious Violation of the Rights of an Employee)
SEVENTH COUNT
(Negligent Grading)
EIGHTH COUNT
(Malicious Grading)
NINTH COUNT
(Negligent Application of Grade Appeal Procedures)
TENTH COUNT
(Malicious Application of Grade Appeal Procedures)
ELEVENTH COUNT
(Negligent Advisement and Denial of Scholarships)
TWELFTH COUNT
(Negligent Institution of Disciplinary Proceedings)
THIRTEENTH COUNT
(Malicious Institution of Disciplinary Proceedings)
FOURTEENTH COUNT
(Negligent Supervision)
FIFTEENTH COUNT
(Negligent Conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings)
SIXTEENTH COUNT
(Malicious Conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings)
SEVENTEENTH COUNT
(Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
EIGHTEENTH COUNT
(Malicious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
NINETEENTH COUNT
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
TWENTIETH COUNT
(Malicious Infliction of Emotional Distress)
TWENTY-FIRST COUNT
(Bullying)
TWENTY-SECOND COUNT
(Age Discrimination)
TWENTY-THIRD COUNT
(Educational Malpractice)
TWENTY-FOURTH COUNT
(Contract: Reimbursement of Travel Expenses)
TWENTY-FIFTH COUNT
(Equity: Request for Mandatory Injunction Requiring Correction of Pension)
TWENTY-SIXTH COUNT
(Equity: Request for Mandatory Injunction Requiring New Grade Appeal Procedure)
TWENTY-SEVENTH COUNT
(Reservation of Rights against Kean)
TWENTY-EIGHTH COUNT
(Gail Seagull, individually and Per Quod)
TWENTY-NINTH COUNT
(Reservation of Claim for Counsel Fees)
THIRTIETH COUNT
(Negligent and Malicious Failure to Reimburse Travel Expenses)
THIRTY-FIRST COUNT
(Defamation and Bullying)
JURY DEMAND

__________________________________

Lewis Seagull, and Gail Seagull, his wife                 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                                                                     LAW DIVISION
                                                                                                                                                                                                Plaintiffs                                
                                                                                                   UNION COUNTY

                        v.                                                             Docket No. UNN - L-001403-15


Sarah Chandler, Joseph Cronin,                                                 CIVIL ACTION
Daniel O’Day, Charles Nelson,
Suzanne Bousquet, Nicole Rodriguez,
Melissa Scott, Kathryn Inskeep,
Maria Ingelmo, Philip Connelly,
Geri-Ann Benedetto, Luis Diaz,                    
John Doe (a fictitious name), and                 
Kean University                                                          COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
                                                                                                     (VERIFIED)
      
                                                Defendants
__________________________________                                                               


            Lewis M. Seagull, and Gail W. Seagull, his wife, residing in the County of Union, State of New Jersey, by way of verified complaint against defendants, say:
PARTIES
      1.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Kean University (“Kean”) was a public institution of higher education licensed by the State of New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education (the “State”), accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (“MSCHE”), and authorized to confer undergraduate and graduate degrees.
      2.  Kean is governed by and subject to the rules and regulations of the State and MSCHE, as well as applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the United States Department of Education (“DOE”) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Kean is also governed by and subject to the common law.
      3.  Kean is a research institution that provides “Federal-Wide Assurance” that it complies with all federal regulations regardless of funding source. As such, all research on human subjects at Kean is subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the DOE under 34 C.F.R. § 97.101, et seq.  All research on human subjects at Kean is also subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by HHS under 45 C.F.R. § 46.101, et seq.
      4.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff Lewis Seagull (hereinafter “plaintiff,” except where expressly referring to his wife, plaintiff Gail Seagull) was a student enrolled in Kean’s “M.A. in English and Writing Studies” (“the program”), a graduate degree program offered by the Kean Department of English, which is now known as the Kean School of English (“English Department”). Successful completion of the program results in the awarding of a Master of Arts degree.
      5.  From September 2002 through the end of the spring 2013 academic semester, plaintiff was employed by Kean as an adjunct professor of English.
      6.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Daniel O’Day (“O’Day”) was employed by Kean as a tenured Professor of English. At some time prior to 2013, O’Day became the chair of the English Department, and continued as chair through May 2015.
      7.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Charles Nelson (“Nelson”) was employed by Kean as a tenured Professor of English. At some time prior to 2013, Nelson assumed the duties of assistant chair of the English Department, which included supervising adjunct professors and assigning the classes each adjunct would teach.
      8.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Sarah Chandler, also known as “Sally Chandler,” (“Chandler”) was employed by Kean as a tenured Professor of English. At some time prior to 2013, Chandler became the Director of Kean’s “M.A. in English and Writing Studies.”  On information and belief, Chandler resigned as director effective December 2014, and is retiring from teaching at Kean effective the end of the spring 2015 academic semester.
      9.  From the time plaintiff enrolled in the program until May 2013, Chandler was plaintiff’s academic adviser.
      10.  Chandler was plaintiff’s teacher in both of the courses in which he was enrolled during the fall 2012 academic semester: ENG 5017, “Creative Nonfiction” (3 credits) and ENG 5030, a “shell” designation utilized by the Kean registrar to refer to different courses variously referred to as “Topics in Composition.” The subject of this “ENG 5030” was how to teach first-year college writing (3 credits).
      11.  Chandler was also plaintiff’s teacher in both of the courses in which he was enrolled during the spring 2013 academic semester: ENG 5002, “Research and Methods” (a required course; 3 credits) and ENG 5030, “Topics in Composition: Writing as Being Saying and Doing” (3 credits).
      12.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Kathryn Inskeep (“Inskeep”) was employed by Kean as a teacher in the English Department and as director of the Kean Writing Center. Inskeep’s tenure status and professorial rank are unknown to plaintiff. Inskeep was plaintiff’s teacher during the fall 2014 semester in ENG 5700, “Writing Center Theory and Practice.”
      13.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Suzanne Bousquet (“Bousquet”) was employed by Kean as the Acting Dean of Kean’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences, which includes the Department of English and the program.
      14.  In April and May 2013, defendant Joseph Cronin (“Cronin”) was employed by Kean as the Assistant Director of its Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (“ORSP”), and was one of the Kean employees responsible for implementing and monitoring Kean’s Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) policies and procedures to insure that research at Kean was conducted in an ethical manner and that the rights of human subjects of research were protected.
      15.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Melissa Scott, also known as Melissa Sterba, (“Scott”) was the director of Kean’s Office of Community Standards and Student Conduct.
      16.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Nicole Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) was employed by Kean’s Office of Community Standards and Student Conduct.
      17.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Philip Connelly (“Connelly”), was employed by Kean University as its Executive Vice President for Operations. His duties included, but were not limited to, management of and responsibility for Kean’s Department of Human Resources, Campus Police, Budget, Student Financial Services, and University Counsel. Connelly was also entrusted by Kean with special responsibilities regarding administration of the Kean Travel Policy.
      18.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Geri-Ann Benedetto, also known as Geri Benedetto (“Benedetto”), was employed by Kean University as Associate Vice President and Chief University Counsel.
      19.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Maria Ingelmo was employed by Kean as a member of the staff of defendant Bousquet, the Acting Dean of Kean’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
      20.  During the 2013 spring and fall academic semesters, defendant Luis Diaz (“Diaz”) was a classmate of plaintiff in the program.
     21.  John Doe is a fictitious name used to designate other officers or agents of Kean or other private individuals whose identities are presently unknown to plaintiffs and who participated in the acts and omissions mentioned in this complaint.
FIRST COUNT 
(Negligent Violation of the Rights of a Human Subject of Research)

       1.  Plaintiff was admitted as a student to Kean’s M.A. in English and Writing Studies in 2011. He began attending classes during the spring 2012 academic semester.
      2.  One year later, during the spring 2013 semester, plaintiff was a student in a course taught by Chandler designated “ENG 5030, Topics in Composition: Writing as Being, Saying and Doing” (“the course”).
      3.  During the semester, Chandler required students enrolled in the course to participate in a research project, which involved permitting Chandler to sound-record an interview she conducted of each student during which she elicited personal and intimate biographical information. Each student was then required to prepare a transcript of the interview, which she referred to as “data,” and post a copy on a public web-site. The “data” was to be used to prepare a research paper suitable for publication to the academic community. Members of the class were encouraged to use each other as “human research subjects,” and to “look around inside” the intimate biographical information contained within the transcripts of other members of the class.
      4.  Chandler did not seek approval for the research from Kean’s IRB, as required of all research conducted at Kean on human subjects.
      5.  Chandler did not receive approval for the research from Kean’s IRB, as required of all research conducted at Kean on human subjects.
      6.  Chandler negligently violated plaintiff’s rights as a human subject of research.
      7.  Chandler’s negligent violations of plaintiff’s rights included, but were not limited to: failing to obtain plaintiff’s informed consent; refusing to allow plaintiff to withdraw from the study; using coercion to force plaintiff’s participation; violating the “Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects”; violating Kean’s rules and regulations relating to research, and violating plaintiff’s right to privacy.
      8.  Chandler’s acts and omissions also negligently violated plaintiff’s rights under DOE regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 97.101, et seq., and were not covered by the exception contained in 34 C.F.R. § 97.101 (b) (1) for “Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices…”
      9.  Chandler’s acts and omissions also negligently violated plaintiff’s rights under HHS regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 46.101, et seq., and were not covered by the exception contained in 45 C.F.R. § 46.101 (b) (1) for “Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices…”
      10.  Chandler’s acts and omissions also negligently violated plaintiff’s rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and regulations and rulings thereunder.
      11.  Plaintiff complained about Chandler’s acts and omissions relating to the research to defendant Cronin, who negligently violated plaintiff’s right to confidentiality by disclosing information that had been given to him in confidence and with his promise of confidentiality.
      12.  On information and belief, Cronin was negligent in providing to Chandler the erroneous opinion that she did not need approval to conduct the research referred to in paragraph 3 of this count; alternatively, Chandler was negligent in describing said research so that Cronin rendered his opinion based on erroneous information, or they were both negligent in supplying and/or eliciting information about the proposed research.
      13.  Cronin negligently violated plaintiff’s rights as a human subject of research.
      14.  Cronin’s acts and omissions also negligently violated plaintiff’s rights under Kean’s IRB policies and procedures, as well as DOE and HHS regulations.
      15.  Cronin’s acts and omissions also negligently violated plaintiff’s rights under FERPA and regulations and rulings thereunder.
      16.  Cronin was negligent in providing information and advice to plaintiff in that the information and advice was incorrect.
      17.  The acts and omissions of Chandler and Cronin in violating plaintiff’s rights as a human subject of research were a breach of duties each of them owed to plaintiff.
      18.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions by Chandler and Cronin, in violation of plaintiff’s rights as a human subject of research and right to confidentiality, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.       
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler and Cronin, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name and seek damages from Kean as a direct defendant under this count.
      1.  The allegations of the first count are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  The acts and omissions of Chandler and Cronin in violating plaintiff’s rights as a human subject of research were knowing, intentional, deliberate, and malicious.
      3.  Chandler misused Kean’s hegemonic academic hierarchy, power imbalance in the classroom, and in Kean’s administrative structure to intimidate and injure plaintiff.
      4.  Chandler’s used her power imbalance as plaintiff’s instructor, academic adviser, director of the program, and standing in the English Department to intimidate and injure plaintiff.
      5.  Cronin knowingly, intentionally and maliciously provided misleading and/or false information to plaintiff about his rights and about the propriety of the acts and omissions of Chandler. He did this to prevent and/or deter plaintiff from exercising his rights.
      6.  Cronin, entrusted by Kean to safeguard the rights of all human subjects of research conducted at Kean, breached a special duty he owed to plaintiff.
      7.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or malicious acts of Chandler and Cronin in violating plaintiff’s rights as a human subject of research, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler and Cronin, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.
      1.  The allegations of the first and second counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Chandler exhibited a pattern of behavior toward plaintiff, commencing in September 2012 and continuing through October 2013, that was abusive, and which gave plaintiff’s classmates license to abuse him, including but not limited to specific incidents referred to in the “Notice of Tort Claim” dated May 8, 2015.
      3.  Rather than protect plaintiff’s right to respect as a student, which was her duty as his teacher, adviser, and director of the program, and as required by standard and accepted educational practices, Chandler flouted plaintiff’s rights, and breached the duty she owed to him.
      4.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson and Bousquet owed plaintiff a duty to protect his rights as a student.
      5.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, each held a supervisory position over Chandler.
      6.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, owed plaintiff a duty to protect him from inappropriate acts and omissions committed by an employee of Kean under their supervision.
      7.  When plaintiff complained to O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet about the violations by Chandler of his rights as a student in general, and as a human subject of research in particular, they negligently refused to investigate or otherwise take appropriate action.
      8.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet breached their duty to plaintiff by failing to investigate plaintiff’s complaints or take appropriate action.
      9.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count. 

      1.  The allegations of the first through third counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Chandler’s pattern of behavior, referred to in paragraph 2 of the previous count, was knowing, intentional, deliberate and malicious.
      3.  O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, in failing to investigate plaintiff’s complaints against Chandler or otherwise take appropriate action, knowingly, intentionally, deliberately and maliciously caused harm to plaintiff.
      4.  Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet misused the hierarchical structure of Kean in an attempt to make Chandler the victim and plaintiff the wrongdoer.
      5.  Chandler’s acts and omissions in violating plaintiff’s rights as a student were knowing, intentional, deliberate, and malicious.
      6.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, deliberate, and/or malicious acts and omissions by Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through fourth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  In September 2002, plaintiff received a contract from Kean to teach two courses offered by the Department of English.
      3.  Commencing with the fall 2003 semester, and continuing through the spring 2013 semester, plaintiff received contracts to teach two or more courses per semester at Kean, including summer sessions.
      4.  According to New Jersey law, federal law, and the common law, plaintiff was and continues to be an employee of Kean.
      5.  Defendants O’Day and Nelson, as chair and assistant chair of the English Department, and as plaintiff’s supervisors, owed plaintiff a duty to deal with him fairly and in good faith in his capacity as an adjunct professor and an employee of Kean.
      6.  On April 1, 2013, Nelson sent an email informing plaintiff that Nelson had assigned Chandler to observe plaintiff teach a class in Technical Writing for the purpose of determining plaintiff’s fitness as an adjunct professor.
      7.  Plaintiff asked Chandler to recuse herself based upon her conflicts of interest: Chandler was not only plaintiff’s instructor in two courses, his academic advisor, and the director of the program, she and plaintiff were in the midst of a dispute about the research project that is the subject of the previous four counts of this verified complaint.
      8.  Chandler refused to recuse herself from the observation.
      9.  When plaintiff complained to Nelson that Chandler had been assigned to observe plaintiff teach pursuant to Department of English procedures, and that Chandler had refused to recuse herself in light of her numerous conflicts of interest, Nelson negligently violated plaintiff’s rights by failing to investigate and by failing to reconsider his decision to assign Chandler.
      10.  Nelson’s acts and omissions in failing to deal fairly and in good faith with plaintiff in his role as an employee are imputed to O’Day, Nelson’s supervisor, who knew or should have known of Nelson’s acts and omissions.
      11.  Nelson and O’Day violated plaintiff’s rights by failing to take appropriate action, or by assigning another professor in the English Department to observe and evaluate him.
      12.  The acts and omissions of O’Day and Nelson in failing to deal fairly and in good faith with plaintiff in his role as an employee are imputed to Bousquet, the dean of the college, who held a supervisory position over O’Day and Nelson.
      13.  Bousquet knew or should have known of the negligence of O’Day and Nelson, and should have implemented policies and procedures to protect an employee in plaintiff‘s position.
      14.  Defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet negligently breached their duty to plaintiff to deal with him fairly and in good faith in his capacity as an adjunct professor and an employee of Kean.
      15.  On April 16, 2013, Chandler did observe plaintiff teach his class, ENG 3091-01, “Technical Writing.”
      16.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Chandler, Nelson, O’Day, and Bousquet in violating plaintiff’s rights to good faith and fair dealing as an adjunct professor and an employee of Kean, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, Nelson, O’Day, and Bousquet, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name and seek damages from Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through fifth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson and Bousquet, knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously breached their duty to plaintiff to deal with him fairly and in good faith in his capacity as an adjunct professor and an employee of Kean.
      3.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or malicious acts and omissions by Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
       WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1. The allegations of the first through sixth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  In higher education in general, and in the Kean program in particular, the grades a student receives form the basis for his Grade Point Average (“GPA”) and are important in other ways:
A.    Grades are recorded on a student’s permanent transcript, which may be transmitted to other institutions or prospective employers, and thus may impact the student’s ability to obtain admission to other programs or future employment;
B.    A student’s GPA will determine his class rank, and will determine whether he graduates with honors, high honors, or highest honors;
C.    A student’s GPA will impact scholarship award determinations, and his eligibility for other grants, awards, or benefits;
D.    The program requires that a student possess a minimum GPA in order to receive the M.A. degree;
E.    Federal programs require a student to maintain a minimum GPA to be eligible for federal financial assistance;
F.     Grades are an instrument of power that a professor may use to reward a favored student or punish a disfavored student, and
G.    Grades impact a student in ways not specifically enumerated, including but not limited to the effect they have on his self-esteem and motivation.
      3.  Defendants Chandler and Inskeep owed plaintiff a duty to be fair, act in good faith, and not allow bias to enter into their determination of plaintiff’s grade in the courses they taught and in which plaintiff was a student.
      4.  At the end of the spring 2013 semester, Chandler was negligent, and did deviate from accepted practices, in the process she used to determine plaintiff’s grade in ENG 5002, “Research and Methods.”
      5.  At the end of the spring 2013 semester, Chandler was negligent, and did deviate from accepted practices, in the process she used to determine plaintiff’s grade in ENG 5030, “Topics in Composition: Writing as Being, Saying and Doing.”
       6.  At the end of the fall 2014 semester, Inskeep was negligent, and did deviate from accepted practices, in the process she used to determine plaintiff’s grade in ENG 5700, “Writing Center Theory and Practice.”
      7.  During the fall 2014 semester, plaintiff submitted to Inskeep, as she required, written work in the form of weekly blog entries, comments on other students’ blog entries, a midterm project, and a final project; plaintiff was also required to lead (along with two or three classmates) two “round-table discussions” on topics that were the subject of weekly readings. 
      8.  Inskeep was negligent, and did deviate from accepted standards of educational practice, by failing to provide plaintiff with any comments, grades or feedback, or any other indication that she had assessed plaintiff’s work. The only assessment plaintiff received from Inskeep was his final grade.
      9.  On April 27, and again on May 20, 2015, plaintiff brought to the attention of Jeffrey Toney, the Kean University Provost, who is also Kean’s Vice President of Academic Affairs, Inskeep’s violation of accepted standards of educational practice. Toney imperiously ignored plaintiff’s complaint, demonstrating the culture at Kean, and the tone set by the chief academic officer of the university.
       10.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Chandler and Inskeep, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
       WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler and Inskeep for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count. 

      1. The allegations of the first through seventh counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Chandler knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously breached her duty to plaintiff to deal with him fairly, in good faith, and without bias in determining the grades she awarded him.
      3.  Chandler threatened plaintiff that she would use grades to punish him.
      4.  Chandler did use grades to punish and/or intimidate plaintiff.
      5.  On or about May 1, 2013, Chandler entered into an agreement with plaintiff in which she promised, among other things, to adhere to certain parameters in determining plaintiff’s grade.
      6.   Chandler violated her agreement, and did not adhere to that which she and plaintiff had agreed.
      7. Chandler was guilty of bad faith in notifying plaintiff at the deadline that he had not submitted one required assignment. The agreement of May 1 required Chandler to conduct conferences with plaintiff concerning his progress toward completing course assignments, but Chandler willfully and intentionally did not inform plaintiff of the missing assignment until the deadline. Plaintiff, under extreme pressure, completed the assignment, but Chandler refused to accept it because it was submitted 13 hours after the deadline.
      8.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this count to seek punitive damages against Inskeep if the proofs support a claim that she acted knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously in wrongfully determining plaintiff’s grade causing him injury.
      9.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or malicious acts and omissions by Chandler, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendant Chandler for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through eighth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Kean, recognizing the importance of grades, has implemented a “Grade Grievance Procedure” (“GGP”), a written policy that permits a student to appeal a grade and establishes the steps for the appeal process.
      3.  The GGP establishes a role for the department chair in administering the policy.
      4.  The GGP establishes a role for the dean of the college in administering the policy.
      5.  During April through August 2013, O’Day, as chair of the English Department, was negligent in how he executed his role, and how he used and applied the GGP to a grade appeal pursued by plaintiff.
       6.  Specifically, O’Day failed to meet with plaintiff as required, and negligently exercised his discretion by failing to intervene and informally mediate the grade dispute.
      7.  O’Day negligently usurped the prerogatives of the Grade Grievance Committee (“GGC”).
      8.  O’Day negligently delayed advising plaintiff of the decision of the GGC, which delay was the proximate cause of emotional and physical injury to plaintiff of both a temporary and permanent nature.
      9.  Although plaintiff has accepted the decision of the GGC referred to in paragraph 5 hereof, the allegations of paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 establish the beginning of a pattern of negligent misuse of the GGP by O’Day.
      10.  Additional context for the reasonableness of plaintiff’s belief that neither Chandler nor O’Day would deal with him fairly or in good faith regarding grade appeals is that on April 23, 2013, Chandler, with the active support of O’Day, had negligently and/or maliciously instituted a complaint against plaintiff for alleged violations of the Kean Code of Student Conduct for “hostile conduct” in complaining about violations of his rights as a human subject of research. See, Twelfth and Thirteenth Counts, below. O’Day had taken action to attempt to terminate plaintiff’s employment by Kean as an adjunct professor. See, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Counts, below. At the time of the grade appeal, the bullying of plaintiff by Chandler and O’Day was at its height. See, Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-first Counts, below.
      11.  To avoid personal contact with Chandler, plaintiff attempted by E-mail to initiate an appeal of Chandler’s grade determinations in ENG 5002, “Research and Methods,” and ENG 5030, “Topics in Composition: Writing as Being, Saying and Doing” (“the two courses”).
      12.  The GGP expressly states that the purpose of “Step 1” is to permit the student to “request information about the faculty member’s grading decision or evaluative judgment.”
      13.  The only “information” plaintiff needed for his grade appeals in the two courses was the process Chandler had used to deduct points so that he could demonstrate that her deductions were unfair, contrary to accepted practice, and in violation of the agreement entered on May 1, 2013.
      14.  Chandler refused to supply the information, and insisted on a personal meeting.
      15.  Chandler’s insistence on a personal “meeting” was based upon the language of the GPP, which states in part, “The student meets with the faculty member to request information…”
      16.  Chandler’s literal reading of the GGP, without regard to the context or purpose of the provision, was one of numerous attempts by her and other defendants to negligently rely on the strict language of the GGP, without regard to its purpose, to intimidate plaintiff, and to thwart his ability to obtain a fair adjudication.
      17.  Given the power imbalance between Chandler and plaintiff, and the overall context set forth in paragraph 10 hereof, plaintiff did not want, nor did he need, a face-to-face meeting with Chandler. The word “meet” in this context does not necessarily require a face-to-face meeting.
      18.  O’Day was aware of plaintiff’s desire for a grade appeal, and of the dispute between plaintiff and Chandler about what was required to complete “Step 1” of the GGP, but remained silent when he had a duty, as chair of the English Department, to act.
      19.  O’Day breached a duty he owed to plaintiff to assure that plaintiff was treated fairly under the circumstances, which circumstances dictated that plaintiff not be forced into a face-to-face meeting with Chandler.
      20.  Plaintiff sought the assistance and intervention of Dean Bousquet, who at the time, he believed to be fair and impartial.
      21.  Dean Bousquet negligently refused to help plaintiff or to intervene.
      22.  Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet did not complete the grade appeal process for the two courses.
      23.  Chandler, O’Day and Bousquet were negligent in failing to provide plaintiff with grade appeals for the two courses.
      24.  The “no contact” order entered by the Kean Office of Student Conduct referred to in paragraphs 14 and 16-18 of the Fifteenth Count rendered plaintiff’s ability to complete the grade appeals in ENG 5002 and ENG 5030 impossible.
      25.  O’Day and Bousquet were negligent in not providing plaintiff with a procedure to complete the grade appeals.
      26.  On February 27, 2015, plaintiff initiated an appeal of Inskeep’s grade determination in ENG 5700, “Writing Center Theory and Practice.”
      27.  On April 21, 2015, plaintiff met with Inskeep pursuant to “Step 1” of the GPP.
      28.  By E-mail dated April 27, 2015, plaintiff advised O’Day and Bousquet that he was appealing Inskeep’s grade determination, and requested that they both recuse themselves from the process. The pertinent portions of the E-mail, titled in part, “Logistics of Grade Appeal,” are as follows:
Dr. O’Day and Dean Bousquet: 
Three issues:
1.     I do not think it advisable that I have personal contact with either of you or Charles Nelson.
*  *  *  *
3.     I am in the process of an appeal of the grade I received from Dr. Inskeep in ENG 5700 for fall 2014. The procedure requires the appeal to be made to the chair of the department. In light of issue one, I suggest I direct my appeal to Dr. Zamora but will abide by your direction.
“Dr. Zamora” is Maria “Mia” Zamora, who assumed the duties of director of the program in December 2014, and who plaintiff holds in high regard.
      29.  More than two weeks passed without a response from O’Day or Bousquet.
      30.  By E-mail dated May 12, 2015, Bousquet negligently informed plaintiff that his appeal was not timely, and referred plaintiff to the link for the text of the GGP.
      31.  Plaintiff and Bousquet exchanged a series of E-mails between May 13 and 20, 2015, through which plaintiff identified the negligence of Bousquet in applying the GGP.
      32.  Bousquet was negligent in failing to respond to the substance of plaintiff’s messages, continually referring him to the link to the GGP, other than to acknowledge that the appeal was timely.
      33.  On May 20, 2015, plaintiff complied with the demand of Bousquet that he submit his written grade appeal to O’Day by “5:00 p.m. May 20, 2015.” Bousquet was negligent because she did not have the authority to make the demand or set the deadline.
      34.  O’Day has negligently failed to notify plaintiff of what if any action he intends to take regarding plaintiff’s appeal of the grade in ENG 5070.
      35.  The acts and omission of O’Day and Bousquet regarding plaintiff’s appeal of the grade in ENG 5070 are breaches of a duty owed to plaintiff, and constitute negligence.
      36.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of O’Day and Bousquet, plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, judgment against defendants O’Day and Bousquet for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through ninth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Defendants Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet, knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously breached their duty to plaintiff to deal with him fairly in connection with his attempts to appeal the grades he received in ENG 5002, “Research and Methods,” and ENG 5030, “Topics in Composition: Writing as Being, Saying and Doing.”
      3.  Defendants O’Day and Bousquet intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously breached their duty to plaintiff to deal with him fairly in connection with his attempts to appeal the grade he received in ENG 5700, “Writing Center Theory and Practice.”
      4.  Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet used the GPP to harass, intimidate, and subjugate plaintiff.
      5.  The insistence by Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet, on adherence to their interpretation of the GGP, rather than attempting to fashion a fair process, was malicious and imperious.
      6.  Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet used the GGP as an instrument to intimidate and bully plaintiff, rather than an instrument to promote good faith and fair dealing, as was their duty.
      7.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or malicious acts and omissions by Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through tenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Chandler, as plaintiff’s adviser in the program, breached a duty she owed to him, and was negligent in failing to advise plaintiff of scholarships, grants, fellowships, and/or internships that would have helped him defray the cost of tuition, fees, and expenses of the program.
      3.  Chandler, as director of the Kean Writing Center, did not advise plaintiff of the availability of a position working at the Writing Center, nor did she cooperate with his obtaining such a position, which would have entitled plaintiff to full reimbursement of his tuition and fees.
      4.  Plaintiff obtained a new adviser, who did make plaintiff aware of scholarships, grants and fellowships to which he might be entitled.
      5.  As a result of the negligent and/or malicious grading by Chandler and Inskeep, and the negligent and/or malicious failure of Chandler, O’Day, and Bousquet to afford plaintiff a fair process for appealing his grades, plaintiff’s GPA adversely affected his ability to qualify for scholarships, grants, and/or fellowships.
      6.  Scholarships at Kean are administered through the Kean Foundation.
      7.  The Kean Foundation was negligent in refusing to consider a faculty recommendation submitted on behalf of plaintiff.
      8.  On information and belief, O’Day held or holds a position of authority with the Kean Foundation.
      9.  On information and belief, O’Day used his position with the Kean Foundation to influence its decisions against plaintiff’s interests.
      10.  On May 5, 2015, plaintiff was officially notified that he had been denied a Kean University Cougar Spirit Graduate Scholarship.
      11.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Chandler, O’Day and Bousquet, plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day and Bousquet for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through eleventh counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Defendants Chandler, O’Day, Diaz and John Doe negligently caused disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against plaintiff through Kean’s Office of Student Conduct.
      3.  These defendants knew or should have known that the allegations against plaintiff were spurious and that the conduct of which he was accused, even if true, were not violations of the Kean Student Code of Conduct (“the code”).
      4.  These defendants knew or should have known that any statements made by plaintiff that were alleged to violate the code were privileged and permissible in an open academic environment.
      5.  The code provides that statements protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution do not violate the code; statements allegedly made by plaintiff that formed the basis of the complaints against him were so protected.
      6.  The complaints brought against plaintiff had a chilling effect on plaintiff’s freedom to legitimately express dissatisfaction with the defendants, deterred him from fully exercising his rights, and caused him to delay bringing this lawsuit or notifying outside agencies of his allegations until such time as he had completed his course work and would no longer have contact with classmates or instructors. As of the date of the filing of this lawsuit, plaintiff’s only necessary contact with Kean professors, administrators, or students is with one person who functions as his independent-study thesis mentor and academic adviser.
      7.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Chandler, O’Day, Diaz and John Doe, plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day, Diaz and John Doe for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twelfth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Diaz, and John Doe maliciously caused disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against plaintiff through Kean’s Office of Student Conduct.
      3.  Diaz distorted to the point of falsification an incident involving plaintiff that he alleged to be a violation of the code.
      4.  Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet misused the hierarchical structure of Kean in an attempt to make Chandler the victim and plaintiff the wrongdoer.
      5.  As a direct and proximate result of the malicious acts and omissions by Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and John Doe, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Diaz, and John Doe, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through thirteenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, each had a supervisory role over Chandler.
      3.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, owed plaintiff a duty to provide him with professors who were properly trained and fit to be instructors.
      4.  Defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, breached a duty they owed to plaintiff by negligently training and supervising Chandler.
      5.  Defendant Bousquet had a supervisory role over O’Day and Nelson.
      6.  Defendant Bousquet breached a duty she owed to plaintiff by negligently training and supervising O’Day and Nelson.
      7.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligent supervision and training, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injury of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants O’Day, Nelson, and Bousquet, jointly, severally and in the alternative, for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiff reserves the right to name and seek damages from Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through fourteenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.       
      2.  Defendants Scott and Rodriguez were negligent and did deviate from accepted educational practices in how they handled disciplinary proceedings instituted against plaintiff.
      3.  Scott and Rodriguez owed a special duty to plaintiff to be fair and impartial due to the magnitude of the consequences plaintiff faced if he was found guilty of a violation of the Code of Student Conduct.
      4.  The complaints brought against plaintiff subjected him to being terminated from the program by indefinite suspension (“Revocation of the privilege of attending the University and using the facilities”) or expulsion (“Permanent termination of student status and rights to be present on University property and attend/participate in University-sponsored events”).
      5.  Rodriguez, who handled the initial conference following the complaint Chandler filed against plaintiff on April 23, 2013, demonstrated bias against plaintiff.
      6.  By way of illustration but not limitation, bias by Rodriguez was evident when she asked plaintiff why he was the “only one who had problems with Chandler,” which begged the question of whether plaintiff was the only one. When plaintiff brought to the attention of Rodriguez that Chandler had violated his rights as a human subject of research by publishing the transcript of a sound-recording of an interview dealing with personal and intimate biographical information, over plaintiff’s express, written objection, Rodriguez stated that Chandler “did not read your E-mail.” Rodriguez did not give credibility to plaintiff’s assertion that to claim an E-mail is “unread,” one only has to click a button, nor did she consider that the express objection to publication was contained in an earlier E-mail that Chandler not only read, but responded to.
      7.  As a result of an agreement entered into between plaintiff and Chandler on May 1, 2013, the April 23 complaint by Chandler was dismissed. Plaintiff was, however, left with the reasonable belief that the Office of Student Conduct would not be fair and impartial to him in a contested matter.
      8.  By letter dated October 4, 2013, defendant Scott notified plaintiff that Chandler had filed a new complaint against him.
      9.  The timing of the bringing of the new complaint did not permit plaintiff sufficient time to prepare a defense.
      10.  Defendant Scott was negligent in attempting to serve the complaint electronically via plaintiff’s Kean E-mail account on Friday, October 4, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.; plaintiff did not have a reason to check this business account until Monday morning, October 7. 
      11.  Scott negligently scheduled a conference for Monday, October 7 at 1:00 p.m., leaving plaintiff with only a few hours to prepare.
      12.  When plaintiff requested additional time to prepare his defense and to consult with an attorney, he was arbitrarily, and without notice or opportunity to be heard, suspended from attending his classes.
      13.  Plaintiff was forced to notify his professors that he had been suspended from attending classes, which damaged his reputation and his standing with his classmates and professors, as well as set him back in his course work.
      14.  The October 4 letter contained the following provision:
"If you are not available to keep this meeting, please contact the office at 908-737-5240 to reschedule. Failure to attend this conference will result in a hold being placed on your records.  I have attached a no contact order to this letter instructing you to have no further contact with Dr. Chandler during the investigations of these allegations."
      15.  As mentioned, the opportunity to “reschedule” came with the price of suspension from classes until the conference was held.
      16.  The “no contact order” mentioned in the quoted portion was issued negligently and without basis in that plaintiff had had no contact with Chandler since August 2013. The order was ultimately continued indefinitely and remains in place as of the date of the filing of this complaint.
      17.  The “no contact” order was issued without prior notice, and without affording plaintiff the due process of notice or an opportunity to be heard.
      18.  The “no contact” order rendered impossible plaintiff’s completion of the grade grievances in ENG 5002 and 5030 referred to in the Ninth and Tenth Counts hereof.
      19.  Defendants Scott and Rodriguez violated plaintiff’s rights during the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, as more fully set forth in documents submitted by plaintiff to the Office of Student Conduct dated October 14 and 28, 2013, as well as in other ways.
      20.  By way of illustration but not of limitation, the following process, policies, and procedures of the Office of Student Conduct, as administered and applied by Scott and Rodriguez, denied plaintiff due process:
A.    Plaintiff was not told what section of the Code he was alleged to have violated;
B.    The allegations were vague;
C.    Plaintiff was questioned about statements made by “witnesses” against him prior to being shown the statements;
D.    Plaintiff was not given the statements of the witnesses against him in advance so that he could prepare;
E.    Plaintiff was not confronted by the witnesses against him, but only their written statements;
F.     When plaintiff was finally permitted to examine the statements of the witnesses against him, he was not allowed to copy them or remove them from the room;
G.    Plaintiff was not permitted to question the witnesses against him, or to otherwise challenge the evidence against him—plaintiff’s participation was limited to presenting his “side”;
H.    No defenses are permitted under the Kean Code of Student Conduct hearing procedures; the Code’s only provision for defenses states:
I. DEFENSES
It has become common for students accused of policy violations to try to defend their actions with excuses, such as prescription drug interactions, self-defense, disabilities, etc. The college’s policy on defenses is clear. Defending your actions is admitting to a policy violation. “Yes, we fought, but he started it.” This still means you had a fight, and that violates our rules. You may have taken someone’s property under the influence of an anti-depressant, but you still took someone else’s property. While your defense will not excuse your actions, Kean University will take the legitimacy of your defense into consideration in addressing the proper sanction. If you were not the aggressor in a fight, you will still be sanctioned, but your sanction may be lesser than the sanction of the person who started the fight.
I.      Scott and Rodriguez threatened that plaintiff would be referred to mental health authorities if he did not admit his guilt—as if only a crazy person would assert his innocence;
J.     Questions posed by Scott at the hearing assumed that plaintiff was guilty;
K.    The violation for which plaintiff was convicted, “creating a hostile environment,” is not listed by the Code as an offense.
      21.  Rodriguez and Scott were negligent in that their acts and omissions were “material deviation[s] from written procedures that jeopardize[s] the fairness of the process.”
      22.  Rodriguez and Scott were negligent in that they exhibited “demonstrable bias by the conduct officer.”
      23.  As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Lewis Seagull suffered economic, physical, and emotional injury of both a temporary and permanent nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Scott and Rodriguez, jointly, severally and in the alternative, for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiff reserves the right to name and seek damages from Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through fifteenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.       
      2.  Defendants Scott and Rodriguez knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously breached their duty to plaintiff to deal with him fairly and in good faith in the disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the Kean Office of Student Conduct.
      3.  As a direct and proximate result of the malicious acts and omissions of Scott and Rodriguez, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Scott and Rodriguez, jointly, severally and in the alternative, for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through sixteenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.       
      2.  As of the date of this Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff is considered by Kean’s Department of Human Resources to be an active employee of the university.
      3.  Following the spring 2013 academic semester, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and/or John Doe refused to offer plaintiff contracts to teach at Kean, which refusal is continuing.
      4.  The refusal by O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and/or John Doe to offer plaintiff contracts to teach at Kean is a direct consequence of plaintiff’s assertion that his rights as a student had been violated and/or his assertion that his rights as an adjunct professor had been violated.
      5.  The failure to offer teaching contracts to plaintiff was for the wrongful purpose of intimidating him, bullying him, and retaliating against him for his assertion of his rights as a student in the program and as an adjunct professor.
      6.  The acts and inaction of O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, John Doe, and Kean constitute a constructive discharge of plaintiff from employment.
      7.  The acts and inaction of O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, John Doe, and Kean constitute a wrongful retaliatory discharge of plaintiff from employment.
      8.  The failure to offer teaching contracts to plaintiff constitutes a misuse of the hierarchical power of the university, and is otherwise contrary to public policy as well as the applicable rules, regulations, statutes, and the common law.
      9.  The failure to offer teaching contracts to plaintiff constitute tortious interference with plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage and/or contract rights.
      10.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, John Doe, and Kean in wrongfully interfering with plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injury of both a physical and emotional nature, and caused him loss of income and other economic loss, including but not limited to his pension and life insurance benefits.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, judgment against defendants, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and John Doe, jointly, severally or in the alternative for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiff reserves the right to name and seek damages from Kean as a direct defendant under this count.

      1.  The allegations of the first through seventeenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and/or John Doe engaged in a civil conspiracy against plaintiff to intimidate, bully, and punish him for his attempts to assert his rights as a student and as an adjunct professor.
      3.  O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and John Doe willfully refused to provide plaintiff with notice that he had been discharged and denied him a process to review the propriety of the discharge.
      4.  The refusal by O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and John Doe to offer teaching contracts to plaintiff, to provide notice of discharge, or due process, is a knowing intentional, willful, and malicious interference with plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage and/or contract rights. 
      5.  As a direct and proximate result of the knowing, willful, intentional, and malicious interference with prospective economic advantage, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injury of a physical, emotional and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, and John Doe, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through eighteenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  The acts and omissions of defendants Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Inskeep, Scott, Rodriguez, Diaz, and John Doe, caused plaintiff emotional distress.
      3.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical and emotional nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Inskeep, Scott, Rodriguez, Diaz, and John Doe, jointly, severally and in the alternative, for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count. 

      1.  The allegations of the first through nineteenth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  The acts and omissions of defendants Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Scott, Rodriguez, Diaz, and John Doe, were knowing, deliberate, intentional, and/or malicious, and were for the purpose of causing emotional distress to plaintiff.
      3.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this count to seek punitive damages against Inskeep if the proofs support a claim that she acted knowingly, intentionally, deliberately, and/or maliciously for the purpose of causing him emotional distress.
      4.  As a direct and proximate result of the knowing, willful, deliberate, intentional, and/or malicious infliction of emotional distress interference, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injury of a physical, emotional and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Scott, Rodriguez, Diaz, and John Doe, jointly, severally and in the alternative, for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twentieth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Chandler misused the power imbalance in the classroom to bully plaintiff.
      3.  Chandler threatened to, and did misuse the power she had to assess plaintiff through the grading process to bully plaintiff.
      4.  Chandler misused the power she had to observe plaintiff teach to evaluate his fitness for continued employment by Kean as an adjunct professor to bully plaintiff.
      5. Chandler misused her power imbalance as plaintiff’s instructor, academic adviser, director of the program, and standing in the English Department to bully plaintiff.
      6.  Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Scott, Rodriguez, and John Doe misused the power imbalance inherent in the hierarchy of Kean’s administrative structure to bring the full power of the University down upon plaintiff to bully him.
      7.  Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Scott, Rodriguez and John Doe misused the power imbalance inherent in Kean’s hierarchical structure to attempt to make Chandler the victim and plaintiff the wrongdoer, which constitutes bullying.
      8.  As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or malicious bullying of plaintiff by Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Scott, Rodriguez, and John Doe, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Chandler, Cronin, O’Day, Nelson, Bousquet, Scott, Rodriguez, and John Doe, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-first counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Plaintiff was born October 27, 1952.
      3.  During the spring 2013 academic semester, plaintiff was 60 years of age.
      4.  Chandler misused her power in the classroom and the age difference between plaintiff and his classmates to foster an attitude of disrespect toward plaintiff by his classmates.
      5.  When Chandler became aware that plaintiff’s classmates were disrespecting and abusing him on account of this age, she breached a duty she owed to plaintiff by failing to take appropriate action.
      6.  Plaintiff reserves the right under the Twenty-seventh Count to bring more general claims of age discrimination resulting from acts and omissions of Kean, including but not limited to an attitude of abuse and disrespect by plaintiff’s classmates in other settings, which attitude was fostered by Kean’s institutional culture, and against which no appropriate action was taken.
      7.  As a direct and proximate result of the age discrimination by Chandler, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendant Chandler for statutory remedies, including enhanced damages or counsel fees, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count. 


      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-second counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Defendants Chandler, Inskeep, O’Day, Nelson and Bousquet committed educational malpractice by the inadequacy of course offerings, abuse of classroom power, failure to foster an open academic atmosphere, and the other acts and omissions specified in previous counts.
      3.  Defendants Chandler, Inskeep, O’Day, Nelson and Bousquet deviated from accepted standards of educational practices.
      4.  As a direct and proximate result of these acts and omissions, Lewis Seagull suffered economic, physical, and emotional injury of both a temporary and permanent nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, judgment against defendants Chandler, Inskeep, O’Day, Nelson and Bousquet, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs reserve the right to name Kean as a direct defendant under this count. 

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-third counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2. From February 12 through February 15, 2015, plaintiff incurred expenses while traveling, on behalf of Kean, to the University of Texas, Austin, to deliver a paper to enhance the prestige of Kean University and to benefit the greater academic community.
      3.  Kean made only partial reimbursement of plaintiff’s expenses.
      4.  Kean owes a remaining balance of $432.09.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, judgment against defendant Kean University for the sum of $432.09, plus interest and costs of suit.   

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-fourth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Plaintiff began employment at Kean on September 5, 2002.
      3.  Plaintiff is enrolled in the New Jersey Public Employees' Retirement System (“PERS”).
      4.  Kean has provided erroneous information to the State of New Jersey regarding plaintiff’s start date.
      5.  Plaintiff has more than ten years of service and is entitled to 100% vesting of his pension benefits.
      6.  Kean has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
      7.  If Kean does not correct plaintiff’s pension information and fully fund his pension, he will suffer irreparable injury without an adequate remedy at law.
      8.  To make plaintiff completely whole, Kean must fund plaintiff’s pension and afford him salary-based life insurance as if he had been given contracts to teach each semester, including summer sessions, since spring 2013.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, requests that the court issue a mandatory injunction requiring defendant Kean to correct plaintiff’s pension information, to fully fund his pension, and provide him with life insurance benefits as if his employment had continued.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-fifth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  As alleged in paragraph 2 of the Seventh Count hereof, the accuracy of plaintiff’s grades is important for a variety of reasons.
      3.  As alleged in the Seventh and Eighth Counts, the grades plaintiff received in three courses are inaccurate: ENG 5002, “Research and Methods,” ENG 5030, “Topics in Composition: Writing as Being, Saying and Doing,” and ENG 5700, “Writing Center Theory and Practice.”
      4.  As alleged in the Ninth and Tenth Counts, defendants have refused to follow the GGP or to modify the GGP as appropriate under the circumstances.
     5.  Unless the court issues a mandatory injunction requiring Kean to implement proper and fair grade appeal procedures, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury without an adequate remedy at law.
     6.  Each of the three courses in question were composed of both graduate and undergraduate students. The number of graduate students enrolled were, to the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, eight in ENG 5002, eight in ENG 5030, and three in ENG 5700. Accordingly, the remedy sought by plaintiff, to create a panel of experts to assess and rank the work of all students anonymously, will not be unduly burdensome.
     WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, requests that the court issue a mandatory injunction requiring defendant Kean, at its sole cost and expense, to:
A.    Create a panel of three disinterested Professors of English Composition and Rhetoric (“the panel”) from the seven New Jersey State Colleges and Universities, other than Kean, to assess the anonymous work of the graduate students in each course for the purpose of ranking the relative merits of the work;
B.    Plaintiff will identify the submissions he claims were improperly assessed;
C.    Chandler and Inskeep will remove the identities from the submissions of the other graduate students, and the material will be delivered to the panel, along with the assignment sheets and grading rubrics to which the work responds;
D.    Each panel member will independently assess the work, and assign a numerical grade to each in accordance with the Kean grade schema;
E.    The panel will then meet as a whole to arrive at a consensus for the appropriate numerical grade for the work submitted by all graduate students;
F.     The grades shall be curved in accordance with the original grade distribution set by Chandler and Inskeep, omitting plaintiff’s grades, which skew the distribution.
Based upon the input from the panel, the court shall determine the appropriate grades to be awarded plaintiff in the three courses.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-sixth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Tortious conduct by Kean University is ongoing and is subject to the Doctrine of Continuing Torts.
      3.  On May 8, 2015, Plaintiffs served a “Notice of Tort Claim” on Kean, by hand-delivering a copy to its president, executive vice-president, and executive director, and by mailing under certified #7014 0510 0000 7898 1250.
      4.  The statutory waiting period set forth in NJSA 59:8-8 for filing suit against Kean has not expired.
      5. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this complaint to assert claims directly against Kean under any or all previous counts of this complaint.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-seventh counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Gail Seagull is the lawful wife of Lewis Seagull. 
      3.  She seeks damages individually for the emotional distress she received as a result of the conduct mentioned in this complaint.
      4.  She also seeks damages per quod.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Gail Seagull, demands judgment against defendants, jointly, severally and in the alternative for damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-eighth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  If counsel fees are available under any count or with respect to any claim herein, against any or all defendants, plaintiffs respectfully request that they be awarded.

      1.  The allegations of the first through twenty-ninth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  Regarding the claim for reimbursement of travel expenses set forth in the twenty-fourth count, defendant Connelly, with the purpose to harass, intimidate and bully plaintiff, did arbitrarily and maliciously abuse his discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for the reimbursement of proper and/or adequate travel expenses.
      3.  Benedetto, with the purpose to harass, intimidate and bully plaintiff, published false and misleading statements and did conspire with others to deny plaintiff reimbursement for proper and adequate travel expenses.
      4.  Ingelmo, with the purpose to harass, intimidate and bully plaintiff, did arbitrarily and maliciously deny plaintiff proper or adequate travel expenses, breached a duty she owed to plaintiff to guide him in complying with the Kean Travel Policy, did deny him approval to incur proper and necessary expenses, did misrepresent the applicable provisions of the Kean Travel Policy, and/or did conspire with others so that plaintiff could not obtain proper or adequate reimbursement for travel expenses.
      5.  Bousquet negligently supervised Ingelmo. Ingelmo’s acts and omissions are imputed to Bousquet.
      6.  Bousquet, with the purpose to harass, intimidate and bully plaintiff, acting by herself or through supervision of Ingelmo, did arbitrarily and maliciously deny plaintiff proper or adequate travel expenses, breached a duty she owed to plaintiff to guide him in complying with the Kean Travel Policy, did deny him approval to incur proper and necessary expenses, did misrepresent the applicable provisions of the Kean Travel Policy, and/or did conspire with others so that plaintiff could not obtain proper or adequate reimbursement for travel expenses.
      7.  Inskeep, with the purpose to hamper plaintiff’s ability to obtain travel arrangements the cost of which would comply with Kean policy and standards for reimbursement, maliciously refused to guide plaintiff, gave him incorrect information, improperly presented his position to Kean, and did otherwise act in a manner calculated to deny plaintiff proper or adequate travel expenses or reimbursement for same.
      8.  John Doe acted in the same or similar manner as the other defendants named in this count.
      9.  As a direct and proximate result of the negligent, intentional and/or malicious acts of defendants Connelly, Benedetto, Ingelmo, Bousquet, Inskeep, and John Doe, in bullying plaintiff and in violating plaintiff’s rights as a student to reimbursement of travel expenses, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendants Connelly, Benedetto, Ingelmo, Bousquet, Inskeep, and John Doe, jointly, severally and in the alternative, for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      1.  The allegations of the first through thirtieth counts are repeated as if set forth at length.
      2.  On June 12, 2015, Benedetto published to others written statements about plaintiff that were false and injurious to plaintiff’s business reputation (“libel per se”).
      3.  Specifically, Benedetto sent an E-mail to others, and did otherwise publish, the following statements that were false and defamatory:
A.    “You… present[ed] yourself to Student Accounting as a Kean University adjunct professor.”
B.    That plaintiff’s conduct constituted an “improper misrepresentation.”
      4.  The innuendo that makes these statement defamatory is that “you” referred to plaintiff.
      5.  The inducement that makes these statement defamatory is that, at the time, plaintiff was not a Kean University Adjunct Professor, and thus his presentation of himself as such, would render plaintiff sneaky, untrustworthy, and disreputable.
      6.  On information and belief, on the same or different dates, Benedetto stated similar or additional defamatory statements about plaintiff to others that were injurious to plaintiff’s business reputation (“slander per se”).
      7.  Plaintiff promptly, and in writing, demanded an apology and retraction.
      8.  Benedetto refused to make an apology or publish a retraction.
      9.  Benedetto’s comments were negligent, in that she did not conduct a proper investigation nor perform due diligence to determine if the statements were true prior to publishing or uttering them.
      10.  Benedetto’s comments placed plaintiff in a “false-light,” a legal term of art, and a separate cause of action.
      11.  Benedetto bullied plaintiff by threatening him, stating that the actions she falsely ascribed to him, set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, are “under review for further action.”
      12.  Benedetto bullied plaintiff by threatening that action would be taken against him by the Kean Campus Police and/or the Kean Office of Community Standards and Student Conduct for conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
      13.  As a direct and proximate result of the defamation and bullying by Benedetto, plaintiff suffered temporary and/or permanent injuries of a physical, emotional, and economic nature.
      WHEREFORE plaintiff, Lewis Seagull, demands judgment against defendant Benedetto for damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit.

      Plaintiffs request a jury.