Martinez v. City of Union City

OPINION

Kevin McNulty United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Samantha Martinez works as a police officer in Union City, New Jersey. She alleges that a higher-ranking officer, Lieutenant Matulewicz, sexually harassed her and discriminated against her on the basis of her gender, creating a hostile work environment. After Martinez complained through the appropriate channels within the police department, she alleges, Matulewicz and his allies waged a retaliatory campaign of intimidation and harassment against her. Throughout the entire ordeal, the department and city leadership allegedly did nothing to protect Martinez from harassment and discrimination. Together, Martinez alleges, the actions of Matulewicz and his allies and the inaction of department leadership violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, and the parallel provisions of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, (“NJLAD”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12. Defendants now move jointly to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that it fails to state a claim.

For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss (DE 10) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

2

I. Background^[1]

Martinez is an employee of the Union City Police Department, an arm of the City of Union City, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 2, 4.) Martinez works as an Emergency Services Unit (“ESU”) Patrolman and, at the time of the complaint, was the only female member of ESU. (Id. ¶ 19, 33.) In December 2018, Martinez began to work the “powershift, ” which lasts from 7:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., a time of heightened criminal activity. (Id. ¶ 21.) When she began working that shift, she encountered Lt. Matulewicz, the primary alleged harasser. (Id. ¶ 23.)

The first alleged incident of harassment occurred on February 29, 2020, when Matulewicz referred to Martinez's direct supervisor, Lt. DeRojas, as Martinez's “boyfriend.” (Id. ¶ 24.) Martinez objected to this false characterization of her relationship with DeRojas. (Id. ¶ 25-26.) She did not report this initial incident, but Matulewicz's harassment only increased. (Id. ¶ 27.) At some point thereafter, as Martinez's colleagues informed her, Matulewicz said to DeRojas at his desk that “he hoped she's doing you real good, ” and “he hoped she's sucking you real good.” (Id. ¶ 28.) Matulewicz told other officers that Martinez was also engaged in a sexual relationship with another officer, Officer Aviles. (Id. ¶ 29-30.) These malicious rumors, which Martinez was repeatedly asked about by her coworkers, caused her anxiety and humiliation. (Id. ¶ 30, 99.)

In addition to his alleged sexual harassment, Matulewicz refused to assign Martinez to the ESU truck because of her gender, smearing her as “fake ESU.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Matulewicz allegedly assigned more junior male officers to the truck and insisted Martinez “will never be on that truck and be ESU.” (Id. ¶ 37.)

3

Matulewicz continued to harass Martinez after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic by sending her out on “report only” calls in contravention of department safety policies (id. ¶ 38-40) and by calling her back to headquarters over public radio transmission (id. ¶ 41). In June 2020, Sergeant Hernandez, who worked under Matulewicz's command, refused to come to the scene of a contentious traffic stop at Martinez's request, instead belittling her over the radio, and laughing about it at the desk with Matulewicz. (Id. ¶ 42, 45.) Martinez documented Hernandez's refusal to respond to the scene in her report, but Hernandez, allegedly assisted by Matulewicz, altered the report to remove the reference. (Id. ¶ 42-44.) Martinez learned from coworkers that Matulewicz and Hernandez were conspiring to find ways to punish her. (Id. ¶ 46.)

On June 25, 2020, Martinez told a captain of Matulewicz's harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, which the captain reported to internal affairs. (Id. ¶ 48, 50.) Martinez was interviewed twice by internal affairs between June 25 and July 2, 2020, and after the interview process, Martinez submitted a comprehensive PD-11 complaint to the Chief of Police. (Id. ¶ 51, 53.) Martinez's participation in that confidential internal affairs process was soon broadly known in the department, putting her in fear of further harassment and retaliation. (Id. ¶ 54.) On July 7, 2020, Matulewicz was transferred from desk supervisor to the radio room so that he would not have contact with Martinez. (Id. ¶ 55.) After participating in the internal affairs interviews, Matulewicz's allies singled out Martinez for reprimands and discipline based on her remaining in her uniform shortly after her shift ended and for following departmental policy in responding to a call. (Id. ¶ 59-62.)

In September 2020, Martinez learned from a fellow officer that graffiti in the men's bathroom referred to her as “a rat.” (Id. ¶ 79.) Later that month, while on a daytime detail, Martinez saw Matulewicz, who had been told not to have any contact with her and should have been in the radio room, drive by her detail twice. (Id. ¶ 85.) This intimidation frightened Martinez and she

4

immediately reported it to internal affairs. (Id. ¶ 86.) Shortly thereafter, Martinez was told that more graffiti had appeared in the bathroom, stating that she “records cops.” (Id. ¶ 87). On October 6, 2020, two department-wide emails were sent, one warning officers against damaging or defacing city property and another reminding officers not to wear their uniforms off-duty. (Id. ¶ 88-89.) The next day, the chief of police sent an email to the department that stated, “All personnel are reminded that harassment in any form is unacceptable. It is a violation of our policy and is contrary to our training.” (Id. ¶ 92.) Two weeks later, the department informed all officers that they were required to take a training course titled “Discrimination and Harassment in The Workplace.” (Id. ¶ 93.)

A few weeks later, Martinez alleges, Sergeant Armas followed her as she received a ride to the station from another officer, and ran the car's plates in an attempt to intimidate her. (Id. ¶ 94-102.) Six months later, Martinez learned that Armas had been disciplined for this incident. (Id. ¶ 105.) That same month, Martinez was assigned to a detail with Lt. Ocasio, one of Matulewicz's allies, and learned that a Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) representative was calling Martinez a “troublemaker” and saying that her supervisors should stick together and retaliate against Martinez whenever possible. (Id. ¶ 109, 115.) Martinez did not allow this latest report to be added to her original report, because she feared that making another complaint would lead to increased retaliatory harassment. (Id. ¶ 110.) Other officers soon began to spread the idea that Martinez was a troublemaker and that officers should avoid her. (Id. ¶ 113, 123.)

On February 12, 2021, Martinez was included in a group text message with a number of other officers, including Matulewicz, as well as the mayor of Union City.^[2] (Id. ¶ 116, 122.) The message included a number of pictures with captions (inferably intended for circulation as internet memes) that purported

5

to criticize the mayor for “protect[ing] his minions” in the police department who harassed Martinez. (Id. ¶ 119.) Other memes labeled Martinez as a victim who was being sexually harassed and bullied by other officers. (Id. ¶ 120-21.) The sender of the memes is unknown to Martinez. (Id. ¶ 122.)^[3] Finally, when Martinez attempted to join the FOP, her application was refused because the FOP representative said Martinez “is a rat. She wants to go after supervisors and file complaints against them.” (Id. ¶ 124.)

On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff completed an EEOC Questionnaire and on February 11, 2021, she received a right to sue letter. (Id. ¶ 16, 18.) On May 12, 2021, Martinez filed the complaint in this case. (DE 1.) Count I asserts a claim of sexual harassment and hostile work environment; Count II asserts a claim of gender discrimination; and Count III asserts a claim of retaliation. All three are brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. They are asserted against the City of Union City and its Police Department, Lieutenant Matulewicz, and John and Jane Does 1-10.

On June 29, 2021, the named defendants moved jointly to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (DE 10.) Martinez filed an opposition to that motion (DE 14), and defendants filed a reply (DE 16.) This motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision.

II. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) does not require that a pleading contain detailed factual allegations, but it must assert “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The allegations must raise a claimant's right to relief above a speculative level, so that a claim is “plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. That standard is met when “factual content [] allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

6

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim. The defendant bears the burden to show that no claim has been stated. Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 349 (3d Cir. 2016). I accept facts in the complaint as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc). In addition, the “plausibility paradigm announced in Twombly applies with equal force to analyzing the adequacy of claims of employment discrimination.” Wilkerson v. New...