DREW BRADFORD v. TOWNSHIP OF UNION PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-6285-03T1

DREW BRADFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF UNION PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, THEODORE A. JAKUBOWSKI,
HAROLD BELL, ROZ ZEID, JEFFREY
LONGUEIL and BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
UNION,

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________________

Text Box
 
September 26, 2005

Argued September 13, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Payne.
 
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-3720-01.

Drew Bradford, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Jacqueline A. DeGregorio argued the cause for respondents (Weiner Lesniak, attorneys; Ms. DeGregorio, of counsel and on the brief; Margaret M. Miller, on the brief).
 
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff was employed by the defendant Board of Education of the Township of Union as a mathematics teacher for the school year commencing on September 1, 2000 and ending on June 30, 2001. Because that was the first year of plaintiff's employment, he was untenured. By letter dated May 1, 2001, the Superintendent of Schools, defendant Theodore A. Jakubowski, provided plaintiff with a written notice that his employment with the defendant would not be renewed for the 2001-2002 school year. By letter dated May 21, 2001, the Superintendent provided plaintiff with a statement of the reasons for the non-renewal of his employment.
Plaintiff subsequently filed this action against the Board and certain of its administrators, asserting causes of action for defamation, conspiracy, loss of prospective economic advantage, and violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, based on the non-renewal of his employment contract as well as other alleged adverse employment actions by defendants.
After the completion of discovery, defendants moved for a summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for leave to amend his complaint to add claims that defendants had failed to evaluate him in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1 and failed to "non-renew" his employment contract in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1. Plaintiff also asked the court to defer consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment until after it ruled on his motion to amend the complaint.
By letter opinion dated April 16, 2004, which was memorialized by an order entered that same date, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint but postponed a hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment for a month. After hearing oral argument, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment by a letter opinion dated May 14, 2004, which was memorialized by an order entered that same date.
On appeal, plaintiff presents the following arguments:
I. AS VERIFIED BY DR. KENNETH JOB'S EXPERT REPORT, THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS (PA 146-147, 38) WOULD BE VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND "A LARGE NUMBER OF ETHICAL AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES."

II. ATTORNEY CAROLE BOYD, WITHOUT DISPUTE, CLEARLY SHOWED TWO VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 18A COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST DREW BRADFORD WHICH ACCORDING TO THIS SAME LAW OF NEW JERSEY GUARANTEE APPELLANT RENEWAL OF HIS CONTRACT.

III. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT JUDGE WERTHEIMER SENT A HOSTILE UNSIGNED NOTE TO APPELLANT BEFORE ANY RES JUDICATA. TAPE RECORDING SUPPLIED FROM PRESIDING JUDGE EDWIN H. STERN FROM APPELLANT SHOWS DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS JUDGE RICHARD WILLIAMS REQUESTED RECUSAL OF JUDGE WERTHEIMER. THIS AND OTHER REASONS SHOW A BIAS JUDGE WERTHEIMER.

IV. IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH ALL THE WHITE STUDENTS WERE ACCEPTED AND ALL THE AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS WERE REJECTED WITH THE IMMEDIATE REPLY, "WE CAN HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FAILURES," REFERRING TO THE REJECTED AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS, A JURY COULD DETERMINE TO BE RACISM. AND, A JURY SHOULD MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, NOT JUDGE WERTHEIMER.

V. APPELLANT DID TESTIFY THAT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS WERE DENIED ENTRANCE INTO SPECIAL EDUCATION, CONTRARY TO THE WRITING OF JUDGE WERTHEIMER.

VI. APPELLANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE BEYOND HIS INITIAL REPORTING OF VIOLATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

VII. THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE SHOWING RETALIATORY FALSE UNDATED REASONS FOR TERMINATION OF APPELLANT. AGAIN, A JURY SHOULD DETERMINE IF THESE WERE BAD FAITH REASONS NOT JUDGE WERTHEIMER.

VIII. IN RETALIATION, RESPONDENTS DENIED APPELLANT A PROMISED HEARING BEFORE TERMINATING HIM. FOUR NEUTRAL WITNESSES CERTIFIED TO THE BOARD ALSO "MAKING NASTY SCOWLING FACES AND QUICKLY DISCARDING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE LOOKING THE EVIDENCE."

IX. LACK OF A PERMANENT CONTRACT DOES NOT PERMIT CEPA VIOLATIONS. APPELLANT WAS DENIED CROSS-EXAMINATION TO EXPLAIN VOCAL PROMISE OF LIFETIME CAREER. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY WAS DENIED TO AMEND TO ESTABLISH RESPONDENT VIOLATIONS GUARANTEEING RENEWAL OF CONTRACT.

X. APPELLANT WAS DENIED ALL CROSS-EXAMINATION AFTER 18 HOURS OF DEPOSITION. ONLY 20 DAYS OF ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY BEFORE ANY RES JUDICATA OR TRIAL DATE PREJUDICES NEITHER PARTY, AND IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

XI. APPELLANT DID ARTICULATE A CLEAR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MS. PADDEN.

XII. AMENDING THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS TO CLARIFY THE ACTUAL OCCURRENCES IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND PREJUDICED NEITHER PARTY. SUCH AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE LIBERALLY GRANTED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED HERE.
 
We reject these arguments and affirm the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and the summary judgment in defendants' favor substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wertheimer's April 16 and May 14, 2004 letter opinions. Plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.

Text Box
 
 


A-