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.
(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.
