State appellate court rules in favor of superintendent
BY KATHY BARATTA Staff Writer
Legal vindication was realized last week for Freehold Regional High School District Superintendent of Schools James Wasser when a state appellate court rejected a former employee's appeal of a lower court's decision.

The case involved John A. Martucci, a former administrative supervisor for curriculum and instruction in the FRHSD. Martucci was seeking the right to be able to continue bringing litigation against Wasser and other FRHSD officials.

Wasser was represented by attorney Francis V. Cook of Fox Rothschild LLP, Princeton, and Martucci was represented by attorney Stuart Moskovitz, Freehold.

Martucci initially lodged a harassment complaint against Wasser alleging defamation and alleging that retaliatory measures had been taken against him by district officials following allegations he (Martucci) made in 2000 that accused Wasser and other FRHSD officials of improprieties, all in violation of the Conscientious Employees Protection Act (CEPA).

A press release issued by the FRHSD last week noted that an investigation into Martucci's charges that was undertaken by the state Attorney General's Office in 2001 determined there was no wrongdoing.

The press release stated, "On Jan. 10, 2008, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by former employee John Martucci against the Freehold Regional High School District and Superintendent of Schools Dr. H. James Wasser.

"In his lawsuit, Mr. Martucci complained that he was harassed and suffered retaliation. The trial court rejected these claims and dismissed the case without a trial, finding that Mr. Martucci was not the victim of unlawful harassment or retaliation.

"Mr. Martucci then appealed the trial court's dismissal of his case to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which is a three judge panel. The appellate panel has now unanimously affirmed dismissal of Mr. Martucci's complaint.

"Lastly, it should be noted that the Attorney General's investigation, referenced in the Martucci lawsuit, was closed without any charges being brought against Dr. Wasser, who was deemed an 'innocent target,' " the press release stated.

In a statement, Wasser said, "I am very happy to finally put an end to this complaint by a disgruntled employee. The Appellate Court ruling puts an end to the valuable time and expense incurred by this lawsuit."

According to one of the points noted in the published Appellate Court decision that denied Martucci's appeal of the lower court's ruling, Martucci's complaint had been filed in 2003 and the granting of the summary judgment was filed and granted in 2006, "over three years later."

The appellate decision also noted that when the motions were filed for the 2006 summary judgment, the period for discovery in the case had expired and the case had already been listed for trial and that the FRHSD Board of Education had complied with Moskovitz's "last outstanding discovery request" one month before the district had filed for the summary judgment it was ultimately granted.

According to the decision, Moskovitz claimed he needed more in-depth answers than had been supplied in answer to his submitted interrogatories to Wasser and the other FRHSD officials.

The appellate panel also affirmed in its decision that " … the record does not support a CEPA claim against any defendant."

According to Moskovitz, any delays occurred due to procedural circumstances beyond his control.

"The judge forgot to put in the order that for two of those years we couldn't proceed because she had issued an order and it took two years for the appellate court to reverse her - to bring the case back. That's where the delay was."

As to the decision of the appellate panel to uphold the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Wasser and the FRHSD, Moskovitz said, "It's unfortunate 10 people, one of them my client, went to the attorney general and all 10 of them are now out of the system. It would have been nice if the court allowed them the proper remedies, but the court chose not to."