NANCE, et al v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al, No. 2:1997cv06184 - Document 326 (D.N.J. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/7/16. (DD, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DARREN NANCE, Plaintiff, OPINION v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants. LINARES, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff Darren Nance’s Order to Show Cause and Motion for Judgment. (ECF No. 323). Defendant City of Newark has submitted an opposition (ECF No. 324), which Plaintiff has replied to (ECF No. 325). The Court decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs application in its entirety. FACTS Plaintiff was formerly employed as a police officer by Defendant. However, due to various alleged reasons, Plaintiff was terminated on September 3, 1996. (See Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) at ¶ 52). Believing his termination was improper, Plaintiff instituted the within action on December 18, 1997. On June 9, 2010, the action was tried before the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh and on June 25, 2010 ajury returned, a verdict in Plaintiffs favor. (See ECF Nos. 195, 215). The jury awarded Plaintiff $350,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. (See Jury Verdict Sheet (ECF No. 215)). The Jury Verdict Sheet explicitly advised that Dockets.Justia.com Civil Action No.: 97-6184 (JLL) compensatory damages included Plaintiffs lost wages. (Id.). On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff, by way of counsel, submitted correspondence to this Court requesting assistance in collecting his pension benefits. (ECF No. 297). Specifically, Plaintiff was advised by New Jersey’s Department of Treasury that the jury “award must indicate the period of the award (from date and to date) and amount of award” in order for him to collect his pension and receive years-of-service credits for the period between his termination and the jury award. (ECF No. 297-1). Additionally, the award also needed to include the total value of mitigated damages Plaintiff was awarded. (Id.). Because the jury verdict sheet did not contain this information, Plaintiff was incapable of having his pension reinstated with back pay and service. (Id.). Therefore, this Court entered an Order on June 25, 2015 delineating, “the period of time applicable to the jury award of $350,000 ... and that the amount of mitigated wagers [was] $350,000.” (ECF No. 298). On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff, through counsel, submitted additional correspondence regarding the total amount of mitigated wages and seeking an Amended Order. (ECF No. 299). Specifically, Plaintiff submitted a letter “from the State of New Jersey with the correct amount of mitigated wages of $980,942.97 instead of the $350,000” that was referenced in the June 25, 2015 Order. (Id.). Therewith, Plaintiff enclosed a Proposed Amended Order which read, in pertinent part, “that the amount of mitigated wages [was] $980,942.97.” (ECF No. 299-1). This Court executed the Amended Order on November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 300). Thereafter, Plaintiff brought an Order to Show Cause on March 23, 2016. (ECF No. 301). There, Plaintiff sought to “enforce compliance with the” November 30, 2015 Order. (Id. at 4). Defendant opposed the application and the Court entertained oral argument on May 31, 2016. 2 (ECF Nos. 305, 312). The Court denied Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause holding that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden. (ECF No. 314 ¶ 12). Defendant explained that it had submitted the necessary paperwork regarding Plaintiffs pension and Plaintiff needed to take the appropriate steps to finalize the process. (Id.). The Court was satisfied Defendant had complied with the November 30, 2015 Order and denied the application in its entirety. (Id.). Plaintiff now brings this nearly identical Order to Show Cause and Motion for Judgment claiming that the he is owed the mitigated wages of $980,942.97 referenced in the November 30, 2015 Order as back pay. (ECF No. 323). ANALYSIS In essence, the pending application asks this Court to award Plaintiff additional monies not contemplated by the jury. Said differently, Plaintiff asks this Court nearly six-and-a-half years later to amend a jury’s determination of his damages. Plaintiffs application fails for numerous reasons. Plaintiffs argument that the Court needs to enforce the additional award of nearly onemillion dollars as a part of his jury award is unpersuasive. According to Plaintiff, this additional sum constitutes his unpaid wages for the period of time from when he was improperly terminated through the date of the jury award. Accepting this logic would require the Court to give Plaintiff additional damages that the jury did not actually award Plaintiff. His entire argument rests on the premise that this Court entered an Order which stated that Plaintiffs mitigated wages were equal to $980,942.97. However, the jury was presented with the question regarding lost wages and determined that Plaintiffs total compensatory award, including any lost wages, was $350,000.’ A true and accurate copy of the Jury Verdict Sheet (ECF No. 215) is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. Question 1(a) include[d] physical harm, emotional specifically instructed the jury to calculate compensatory damages “which lost wages (income). See Exhibit A (emphasis added). and mental harm and ... 3 As discussed, February 2, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel first requested an Order stating the total amount of Plaintiffs mitigated wages as New Jersey’s Division of Treasury required said information in order for Plaintiff to receive “full service credit for the periods covered by the award.”2 Indeed, New Jersey’s Department of Treasury specifically advised Plaintiff that “{t]he award must indicate the period of the award (from date to date) and amount of award. If member receives mitigated wages the award must indicate mitigated wages.” (Id.). Based on Plaintiffs request this Court issued the June 25, 2015 Order to assist Plaintiff with complying with the Division of Treasury’s requirement.3 Thereafter, on November 25, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel submitted a request for an Amended Order regarding Plaintiffs mitigated wages.4 Attached to Plaintiffs counsel’s letter was a letter by Plaintiff where he explained that his pension system “notified him that [the] one (1) specific line concerning the mitigated wage amount in the Order that reads, ‘ORDERED that the amount of mitigated wages is $350,000’ had beeii inadvertently inserted. Thepensionable mitigated wage amount was not available to us when this Order was drafted... Therefore, the compensatory jury verdict amount of $350,000 should not have been entered as the mitigated wage amount... The correct 14-year mitigated wage amottnt has been calculated b the Cit of Newark and totals: $980,942.97, this is the amount that needs to be reflected in the amended Court Order.” (Id. (bold in original, italics added)). Plaintiff goes on to explain that “the pension board that due to the conflict between the [] [] advised [him] Order[’s] mitigated wage amount and the calculated (base A true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s February 2, 2015 Correspondence, with Exhibits from New Jersey’s Department of Treasury, is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. A true and accurate copy of the June 25, 2015 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. A true and accurate copy of Plaintiffs November 25, 2015 Correspondence, with Exhibits from New Jersey’s Department of Treasury, is annexed hereto as Exhibit ft 2 4 pay) wage amount forwarded by the City of Newark, the [] Order must be amended to reflect the correct mitigated wage amount prior to my pension being processed.” (Id. (emphasis added)). Accordingly, this Court entered an Amended Order modifying the mitigated wage amount to $980,942.97, pursuant to Plaintiff and his attorney’s request.5 Plaintiff fails to recognize that Order had nothing to do with the award of damages awarded by the jury. In fact, that Order was issued at the request of Plaintiff solely based on his representations that such an Amended Order was necessary and required by the State of New Jersey. Once again, the only purpose of the November 30, 2015 Order was to provide the State of New Jersey with Plaintiffs pensionable mitigated wages amount, based on a figure which was provided to the Court by Plaintiff, with the indication that said Order was needed to assist in the processing of his pension. In no way did this Court intend to increase Plaintiffs damages by that amount. The Court reaches the same result if it were to view Plaintiffs application as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. First, “[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)(emphasis added). Here, the judgment was entered on June 25, 2010. Thus, if this application were to be construed as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, it is untimely. Additionally, nowhere within Plaintiffs application does he explains how the jury award, as it stands, results in a “manifest injustice.” See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)(quotations omitted). Hence, Plaintiffs application is insufficient and denied for these reasons. A true and accurate copy of the November 30, 2015 Amended Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit F. 5 CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause and Motion for Judgment is hereby denied. / DATED: December 7 2016 J /EL. LIIJARES L ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 6 L V IfflIIIX3 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DARREN N. NANCE, CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-CV-6184 (DMC) (CCC) Plaintiff, V. VERDICT SHEET AS TO DAMAGES CITY OF NEWARK, NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants. 1. Now that you have found that Plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the City of Newark caused his employment to exercising his the First be terminated right Amendment to of retaliating by petition the the against Government Constitution and in in him violation violation of for of NJ Law Against Discrimination. Please continue to 1 (a) a. Please state the or amount (b) that will fairly compensate Plaintiff for any injury which he actually sustained as a result of the harm, City of emotional Newark’s and conduct mental calculating lost wages(income) which harm and shall lost include physical wages(income).When you should consider mitigating as I have instructed you. 3çv, CD-u Answer: $ (Fill in Dollar Figure) ____ ______________ b. If you find that there is no compensatory damages, shall award nominal damages of $1.00 as permitted by law. you Answer: $ (Fill in Dollar Figure) If you completed 1(a) If you completed 1(b) 2.a. please proceed to question 2(a). you have completed your deliberations. Do you find that convincing evidence that Plaintiff demonstrated by a clear and the conduct of the City of Newark was especially egregious? Yes No If you answered NO, you have completed your deliberations. If YOU answered YES, please continue to Question 2(b). 2.b. Do you find that Plaintiff demonstrated by a clear and convincing evidence that “upper management” employees of the City of Newark actually participated in, to, the wrongful conduct? or were willfully indifferent / Yes No If you answered NO you have completed your deliberations. If you answered YES to both these questions, please continue to Question 2 (c). 2.c. What amount of punitive damages against the City of Newark? I1V Answer: $ (Fill in Dollar Figure) OO46838O; I] 2 should be awarded When you have coiroleted your deliberations, should date and sign the verdict form below. DATED this day of A4J - OO4683gO; I) 3 , 2010. your foreperson EXHIBIT B 8 Case 2:97-cv-06184-JLL-JBC Document 297 Piled 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2 PagelD: 7242 LAW OFFICES OF ANGELO R. BIANcHI, LLC 4 York Avenue, 2nd Floor West CaIdwell, New Jersey 07006 Angelo R. Bianchi Suzanne Janusz * Telephone (973) 521-7151 Facsimile (973) 521-7156 NJ/NY Bar E-mail: bianchi/aw(4bianchf/aw.net January 16, 2015 The Honorable Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J. United States District Court M.L. King, Jr., federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102 Re: Nance v. City of Newark, Docket No. 97-6184 Ct al. f)ear Judge Linares: I have been informed you have taken over Judge Dennis Cavanaugh’s cases, and I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Darren Nance, regarding his problem with the New Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits. The following is a brief history of Mr. Nances travails. A complaint was field setting forth the fact that Darren Nance is an African-American male, employed as a police officer from October 16, 1989, until his involuntary separation from the department on September 3, 1996. in violation of 12.U.S.C. §1983 and 1988. One of the counts of his complaint was a violation of New Jersey Law gainst Discrimination. The case went to trial. A Verdict Sheet was prepared and the jury determined that Mr. Najcc was subject to retaliation at the time and that the City of Newark violated his due twoces rigbl, see attached copy of the Verdict Sheet. There was then a Verdict Sheet as to Damages because the case was bifurcated and the jury awarded Mr. Nance $350,000.00 having found that the City by of Newark was proven to have caused his employment to be terminated 15t retalialing against Amendment of th exercising his right to petitiort the government, in violation of him for New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The jury also awarded Constitution, a violation of punitive damages in the amount of $250,000.00, see attached copy of Verdict Sheet as to 1)a mages. On June 24, 2010, after the verdict, we sought pre-judgment interest on behalf of Mr. Nince. [hat request was opposed by the City of Newark and on May 2, 201 1, Judge tavanaugh denied pre-judgment interest by Order of that date. see attached copy of Order. Mr. Nance filed a pro se appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, referencing the issue of ‘we-judgment interest. The Third Circuit (nun of Aueais ordered that the matter be referred Case 2:97-cv-06184-]LL-JBC LAW OFFICES OF ANGELO R. BIANCHI, Document 297 IZiled 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 7243 LLC The HonorabLe Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J. January 16, 2015 Page Two Re: Nance v. City of Newark, et at. Docket No. 97-6 184 back to the District Court to have the matter addressed on the issue of pre-judgment interest more thoroughly. Briefs were filed and by Opinion of January 30, 2014, see attached copy of Opinion, Judge Cavanaugh granted Plaintiffs request for pre-judgment interest on the jury award of compensatory damages. The Division of Treasury in response to Mr. Nance’s request seeking full service credit for the periods covered by the award forwarded a letter dated March 21, 2013, see attached copy of letter, signed by Salvatore J. Cirigliano advising what materials had to be presented to satisfied their requests and advised that before they could reinstate Mr. Nance”s pension benefits that we would have to go back to court. On March 2$, 2013, a letter was forwarded to Judge Cavanaugh enclosing the letter from the Division of Pension and Benefits regarding Mr. Nance requesting the court to provide an Order to comply with the request of the Division of Pensions and Benefits, see attached copy of letter. 1, again, wrote to Judge Cavanaugh on October 17, 2013, see attached copy of letter, to make a determination concerning our request regarding pension benefits, and I called the court’s attention to my letter of March 28, 2013. Judge Cavanaugh did not reply to our request concerning pension, but granted pre-judgment interest. In light of the above, I am seeking Your Honor’s assistance as to how to proceed. Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Angelo R. Bianchi, LLC By:_____ R. BIANCHI, ESQ. A Attachments Case 2:97-cv-06184-JLL-JRC Dnniiment 297-1 RIed 02/02/15 Page 11o114 RageLD: 7254 y- C%219 MMCING ADDRESS: P0 Box 295 TRaroN, NJ 08625-0295 LOC’JtON: STATE STREEr TREI’tEON. NEw JERSEY 50 WEST fU±e of NthT Jcrg DEPARTMENT Of ThE TREASURY DIV!SION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS (609) 292-7524 TDD (609) 292-7718 CHRIS CHRImE Goy€ynor KIM CUADAGNO ww.srarenjusltreasurylpensions Li. Governor ANDREW P. S!ooN-ERisroFF Stare Trrurer FLORENCE 1. SHErrao Acring Director March 21, 2013 Law Offices of Anlo R. Bianchi, LLC 4 York Avenue, 2 Floor West Caidwell, NJ 07006 Re: Darren Nance PFRS# 56220 Dear Mr. Bianchi, This is in response to your letter dated March 6, 2013 and our telephone conversation today concerning the above member. . Per NJACI7:l-2J8 a member that appeals a suspension or termination of the member’s —..ernployrnent and. who,.by award orsettlement, becomes’entit1ed..tofull pay forall or a. portion of that employment for the period of such suspension or termination shall receive service credit for the period covered by covered award or settlement provided a full normal pension contribution is received from the member or is deducted from the award. The award must indicate the period of the award (from date and to date) and amount of award. If member receives mitigated wages the award must indicate mitigated wages and the Certifying Officer of Newark City must send a letter with the premitigated wages breakdown. The member’s contributions would be based on the salaries this employee would have earned fOr the reinstated period. The employer should also forward a check for the contributions that should be collected from member. Since we do not have a copy of any legal documents that indicates the above, the parties need to go back to court before this member can be reinstated with back pay and service. Sincerely, fl Salvatore J. Cirigliano Accountant I Audit) Billing Section C: member New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper ...-: 6 3 HIIIHX3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY DARRENM.NANCE, Civil Action No. 97-6184 Plaintiff, Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J. vs. CITY OF NEWARK, NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. ORDER THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance for an Order stating the time period covered by the jury award for compensatory damages in the above-referenced matter, relating to back pay; WHEREFORE, a jury verdict was entered in the above-referen ced matter on June 24, 2010, determining that the Defendant City of Newark unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff from his employment with the Newark Police Department on Septem ber 3, 1996; WHEREFORE, a jury verdict as to damages was entered in the above-referenced matter on June 25, 2010. awarding the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance the amount of $350,000.00 for compensatory damages for injuries the Plaintiff sustained as a result of the Defendant City of Newarks conduct: WHEREFORE, the amount of $350,000.00 for compensatory damages for injuries the Plaintiff sustained was based upon lost wages, among other injuries; WI-IEREFORE, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:1-2.18, a membe r who appeals the suspension or termination of the member’s employment is entitled to a service credit, with regard to the member’s pension from the State of New Jersey, for the period of time covered by a jury award for full hack pay during a period of suspension or termin ation; _______,2015; WHEREFORE, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:1-2.18, the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance is entitled to a service credit, with regard to his pension from the State of New Jersey, for the period of time covered by the jury award for full back pay during the period of termination; WHEREFORE, the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasu ry, Division of Pension and Benefits has requested a determination of the time period applicable to the jury verdict for pay awarded during the period of termination, and the amoun t of mitigated wages; WHEREFORE, the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasu ry, Division of Pension and Benefits requires the Defendant City of Newark to provide a letter stating a breakdown of the pre-mitigated wages; WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance is entitled to a service credit for the period of time covered by the jury award for frill back pay during the period of termination, thus the Plaintiff is entitled to receive pension benefits from the State of New Jersey in accordance with his total years of service, as well as medical insurance benefit s and retirement status from the City of Newark; ITISon this day of ORDERED that the period of time applicable to the jury award of $350,000.00 for compensatory damages is from September 3, 1996, the date that the Defendant City of Newark unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance from his employment, to June 25, 2010, the date of the jury verdict; ORDERED that the amount of mitigated wages is $350,000.00; ORDERED that the Defendant City of Newark shall provid e a letter stating a breakdown of the pre-mitigated wages, as requested by the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Pension and Benefits. ORDERED that the Plaintiff Danen M. Nance shall receive pensio n benefits from the State of New Jersey in accordance with his total years of service , which shall include a service credit for the period of time from September 3, 1996, the date of the unlawful termination, to June 25, 2010, the date of the jury verdict; ORDERED that the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance shall receive medical insurance benefits and retirement status from the City of Newark in accord ance with his total years of service, which shall include the service credit for the period of time from September 3, 1996, the date of the unlawful termination, to June 25, 2010, the date of the jury verdict . L. LINARES, U.S.D.J. j EXHIBIT B 10 Case 2:97-cv-06184-JLL-JBC Document 299 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 11 PagelD: 7261 LAW OFFICES OF ANGELO R. BIANCHI, LLC 4 York Avenue, 2nd Floor West CaIdwell, New Jersey 07006 Angelo R. Bianch Telephone (973) 521-7751 Facsimile (973) 521-7756 E-mail: bfanchi/awbianchllaw.net NJ/NY Bar November 25, 2015 The Honorable Jose L Linares, U.S.D.J. United States District Court M.L. King, Jr., Federal Bldg & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102 Re: “Document Filed Electronically” Nance v. City ofNewark, et al. Docket No. 97-6184 Dear Judge Linares: Enclosed please find an Amended Order regarding Darren Nance’s receipt of pension benefits from the State of New Jersey with the correct amount of mitigated wages of $980,942.97 instead of $350,000.00, which was originally signed by Your Honor on June 25, 2015 (copy of letter and Order enclosed). Additionally, I am. also enclosing a copy of Mr. Nance’s letter to me explaining the need for the Amended Order, a copy of a letter from the City of Newark, and a copy of the correct wage calculations from the City of Newark for your review. Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Angelo R Bianchi, LLC 5:! ANGELO R. BIANCHI ANGELO R BIANCHI, ESQ. Enclosures Case 2:97-cv-06184-]LL-]BC Document 299 Filed 11/25/15 Page 6 of 11 PagelD: 7266 November23, 2015 Angelo Bianchi, Esq. 4 York Avenue West Caidwell, NJ 07006 RE: June 25, 2015 Court Order Mr. Darren M. Nance 71 Treacy Avenue Newark, NJ 07108 Dear Mr. Bianchi, I am writing this letter to explain the need to have the June 25, 2015 Court Order signed by the honorable Jose L. Linares, amended, Upon presentation of the Order to the City of Newark and the Police and Fire Pension Retirement System, I have been notified that one (1) specific line concerning the mitigated wage amount in the Order that reads, “ORDERED that the amount of mitigated wages is $350,000” had been inadvertently inserted. The pensionable mitigated wage amount was not available to us when this Order was drafied by your assistant staff attorney Suzanne in June of 2015. Therefore, the compensatory jury verdict amount of $350,000 should not have been entered as the mitigated wage amount into the present Order. The correct 14-year mitigated wage amount has been calculated by the City of Newark and totals: $980,942.97, this is the amount that needs to be reflected in the amended Court Order. The City of Newark has forwarded the aforestated mitigated wage amount to the New Jersey Police and Firemans Pension System and the pension board has advised that due to the conflict between the standing Order mitigated wage amount and the calculated (base pay) wage amount forwarded by the City of Newark, the standing Order mtist be amended to reflect the correct mitigated wage amount prior to my pension being processed. My pension is currently being held in abeyance and I cannot officially retire until the Order is corrected/amended with respect to the sole issue of the incorrect mitigated wage amount. I am attaching the wage calculation figures processed by the City of Newark along with this letter so that you may attach same along with an accompanying letter to Judge Linares explaining the need for, and showing proof for, the Order being amended. This process should simply require a letter of explanation for the amended Order to Judge Linares and filing same electronically which should resolve the issue. I would appreciate your attention to this matter as this situation is now approaching six-months since the Order was signed and supposed to have been effectuated by the City of Newark. Sincerely, Mr. Darren M. cc: 11/23/15, via email delivery ance Case 2:97-cv-06184-]LL-]BC Document 299 Filed 11/25115 Page 7 of 11 PagelD: 7267 CTYNERK Mayor Ras J. Baraka Department atAdminLtxation Ovan of Keii Dnie1s Dirctor 020 Brand StrLn, Ram 212 Newnk. NJ 07102 PH: 073-73-80a8 Fax 073fl22- 1906 WA REGULAR MAIL September 4, 2015 N] Division of Pensions & Bene6ts Client Services P.O. Boc 295 Trenton, NJ 08625-O25 RE: Dgnen M. Nance PFRS 56220 SS#153-62-9710 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed, pLeased find o copy of the Cerdficadon of Service and final Salary for Mr. Nance. Also enclosed is the Court Order, for your rfcrencc, If I can be of additional assstance please do not hesitate to let mc knotv. Sincerely, ecia Daniels Case 2:97-cv-06184-JLL-JBC Document 299 I 2 3 Name SSN Empi ID Filed 11/25/15 Page 8 of 11 PagelD: 7268 4 Hire Date 11 12 10t1611 989 Sr. Step Annw #of Days Before Split (Base Salary) a Nance,Darcen 1/1/1996 12/31/1996 1011611996 207 1/1/1997 12/31/1997 1011611998 206 1/1/1998 12/31/1998 — 206 1/1/1999 12/31/1999 206 1/1/2000 12/31/2000 205 1/1/2001 12/31/2001 • 206 1/1/2002 12/31/2002 206 1/1/2003 12/31/2003 206 1/1/2004 12/31/2 207 1/1/2005 12/31/2005 1/1/2006 12/31/200 206 205 . 1/1/2007 12/31/2007 206 aJ1/2008 12/31/2008 207 1/1/2009 12/31/2009 - 1/112.01012/31/2010 • 206 260 Case 2:97-cv-06184-JLL-JBC 14 22 23 . #of Dabs ‘ After Split (Base Salary) Sr. Pay Split in? .- 55 55 58 65 55 55 55 55 . — - - .— --- --- -- 55 55 55 55 55 . — --- --- --- , Document 299 29 Page 9 of 11 PagelD: 7269 Filed 11/25/15 30 31.00 32.00 33 What Total ‘‘r End What New What New What New What New Base Yr tnd Base New Base Step as of Base Salary Base Salary Salary Satary Salary 1/1/ Should b Aft Should be as Before Split Should be of121311 aaotl/I1 asof 121311 . - 5th 5th Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay SIPay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay Sr.Pay 42,551.00 48,55100 53,526.00 55,132.00 55,132.00 55,132.00 55132.00 66,592.24 69,255.93 72,026.17 74,907.2? 77,903.51 81,019.65 82,842.58 84,913.65 48,551.00 46,551,00 55,132.00 55,132.00 55,132.00 55,132,00 55,132.0 66,592,24 69,255.93 72,026.1’ 74,907.22 77,903.51 81,019.65 82,842.58 84,913.65 38,505.97 38,319,95 42,246.57 43,514.15 43,302.91 43,514.15 43,514.15 52559.39 54,927.12 56,572.28 58835.17 61,487,06 64,256.96 65,385.33 84,588.31 10,231.05 10,231,05 11,617.85 11,617.85 11,617.85 11,617.85 11,617.85 14,032.85 14,594.16 15,177.93 15,785,05 16,416.45 17,073.11 17,457.25 326.34 - 68,737.02 48,551.00 53,664.43 55,132.00 54,920.77 55,132.00 55,132,00 66,592.24 69,521.28 71,750.21 74,620.22 77,903.51 81,330.07 62,842.58 84913,e5 Case 2:97-cv-06184-JLL-]BC 38.0000 43 Document 299 WIx 44 50 Niiit lirly &iould 2i68 232524 25.0351 26.4042 26.5058 2G.4O4, 26.4042 31.a928 33.0420 34.6220 36,0131 37,3101 36.6544 39.6756 40.6675 Hrs 2096 2088 2081 2088 2080 2088 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2088 2088 -.. EZEE Base 9&ary 48,737.02 261 38,551,00 261 53,864,43 261 55,132.00 54,920.77 261 55,132.00 55,132.00 66,5924 59,521.28 71,760.21 74,820.22 77,903,51 81,330.07 261 82,842,58 261 84,913.65 56 53 Long Lon ‘Y As oil/li — — — —- — — - — - Filed 11/25/15 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6% % 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 10% Page 10 of 11 PagelD: 7270 57 69 Long% Mot Long Pay - 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 6% 8% 8% ‘10% 10% 10% 1,949.48 1,942.04 2,386.93 3,307.92 3,295.25 3,307,92 3,307.92 4,276.19 5,561.70 5,740.02 59G9.62 6,232.28 8,647.87 8,284,26 8,491.37 74 YEAR 2,514.98 2,514.96 2,B01.79 2,91060 2,010.80 2,910,60 2,910.80 3,529.65 3,725,49 3,874.51 4,029,49 4190.67 4,375,24 4,538.88 5,725.98 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Case 2:97-cv-061$4-JLL-]BC Step Log% Sase Pa — - - —. — Filed 11/25/15 Page 11 of 11 PagelD: 7271 Total Pay Long Pay —— - 5th 48 73792 4% 5th 48,561 00 4% 5th/Sr Pay 53,864 43 4% to 6% 56132CJ0 SrPay 6% Sr Pay 6% 54 92D 77 Sr.Pay 55,132.00 6% Sr.Pay 6% 65,132.00 Sr.Pay 66,592.24 6% tø 5% Sr.Pay 8% 69,621.28 SrPay 7175021 8% St.Pay 8% 74,620.22 Sr.Pay 6% 77,903.61 Sr.Pay 51,330.07 8% to 10% SrPay 10% 52,8425 Sr.Pay 10% 84,913.65 Total 980,44297 imzz Document 299 53 201 52 194948 2,51&99 53,00808 1,94204 2,51498 5 053 1 2,801 79 2,3136 93 6135078 3,30792 291060 51 12687 3,25 25 2 910 60 61,360.78 2,910.80 3,307.92 6i35QJ8 3,30792 2,910.80 74,398.28 4,278.19 3,529.85 5,561.70 3,725:49 18,806.55 5136482 67400% 3,87451 86,i.41 5,969.62 4,029.49 88,326.54 6,232.23 6,190.67 92553.16 6,547,87 4,375.24 5,662 5,23426 453888 99,131.09 8,.37 5,725.98 70 900 76 63,46507 1,1009 64 — . i:i: 3 IfflIllX3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY Civil Action No. 97-6184 DARREN M. NANCE, Plaintiff, Hon. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J. vs, “Document Filed Electronically” CITY OF NEWARK, NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., AMENDED ORDER Defendants. THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance for an Order stating the time period covered by the jury award for compensatory damages in the above-referenced matter, relating to back pay; WHEREFORE, a jury verdict was entered in the above-referenced matter on June 24, 2010, determining that the Defendant City of Newark unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff from his employment with the Newark Police Department on September 3, 1996; WHEREFORE, a jury verdict as to damages was entered in the above-referenced matter on June 25, 2010, awarding the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance the amount of $350,000.00 for compensatory damages for injuries the Plaintiff sustained as a result of the Defendant City of Newark’s conduct; WHEREFORE, the amount of $350,000.00 for compensatory damages for injuries the Plaintiff sustained, among other injuries; WHEREFORE, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:1-2.18, a member who appeals the suspension or termination of the member’s employment is entitled to a service credit, with regard to the member’s pension from the State of New Jersey, for the period of time covered by a jury award for full back pay during a period of suspension or termination; WITEREFORE, pursuant to NJA.C. 1721-2.lg, the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance is entitled to a service credit, with regard to his pension from the State of New Jersey, for the period of time covered by the jury award for full back pay during the period of termination; WHEREFORE, the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Pension and Benefits has requested a determination of the time period applicable to the jury verdict for pay awarded during the period of termination, and the amount of mitigated wages; WHEREFORE, the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Pension and Benefits requires the Defendant City of Newark to provide a letter stating a breakdown of the pre-mitigated wages; WhEREFORE, the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance is entitled to a service credit for the period of time covered by the jury award for full back pay during the period of termination, thus the Plaintiff is entitled to receive pension benefits from the State of New Jersey in accordance with his total years of service, as well as medical insurance benefits and retirement status from the City of Newark; ITlSonthis 30 dayof W1_L ,2015; ORDERED that the period of time applicable to the jury award of $350,000.00 for compensatory damages is from September 3, 1996, the date that the Defendant City of Newark unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance from his employment, to June 25, 2010, the date of the jury verdict; and it is further ORDERED that the amount of mitigated wages is $980,942.97; and it is further 2 ORDERED that the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance shall receive pension benefits from the State of New Jersey in accordance with his total years of service, which shall include a service credit for the period of time from September 3, 1996, the date of the unlawful termination, to June 25, 2010, the date of the jury verdict; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff Darren M. Nance shall receive medical insurance benefits and retirement status from the City of Newark in accordance with his total years of service, which shall include the service credit for the period of time from September 3, 1996, the date of the unlawful termination, to June 25, 2010, the date of the jury verdict. JOSEL LINARES, U.S.D.J. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
