SMITH EIBELER, LLC Christopher J. Eibeler, Esq. ID ... · In fact, Plaintiff listed his work with MHA on his resume, Linkedin page and openly MER-L-001083-20 06/16/2020 12:26:30 PM

1

SMITHEIBELER,LLCChristopherJ.Eibeler,Esq.ID#031772004KathrynK.McClure,Esq.ID#037462004RobertW.Smith,Esq.ID#044341987MeghanChrisner-Keefe,Esq.ID#21052011LisaAckerlyHernandez,Esq.ID#018402005DavidJ.FranzmathesID#309432019101CrawfordsCornerRoad,Suite1-105RHolmdel,NJ07733(732)444-1300AttorneysforPlaintiff-------------------------------------------------------------X : CHRISTOPHERNEUWIRTH, : SUPERIORCOURTOFNEWJERSEY : LAWDIVISION:MERCERCOUNTY Plaintiff, : DOCKETNO.: : v. : CivilAction : STATEOFNEWJERSEY, : COMPLAINTANDJURYDEMAND ABCCOMPANIES(1-10)(fictitiousnamesof:unknownentities)andJOHN/JANEDOES :(1-10)(fictitiousnamesofunknownentities),:: Defendants.: : -------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff,ChristopherNeuwirth,havinganaddressof152OldClintonRoad,Flemington,

NewJersey08822 (hereafter“Plaintiff”),bywayComplaintagainstDefendants,StateofNew

Jersey,ABCCompanies(1-10)(fictitiousnamesofunknownentities)andJohn/JaneDoes(1-10)

(fictitiousnamesofunknownindividuals),saysasfollows:

FACTSCOMMONTOALLCOUNTS

A. PartiesandRelevantIndividuals

1. DefendantStateofNewJersey(the“State”)isastatewithintheUnitedStatesof

Americathatmakesandenforceslawsviaitslocalgovernment.

MER-L-001083-20 06/16/2020 12:26:30 PM Pg 1 of 30 Trans ID: LCV20201062964

2

2. State of New Jersey Department of Health (“DOH”) is a branch of the state

governmentandisresponsibleforformulatingandmanagingthestate’shealthinfrastructureby

providing statewide support services to state and local government agencies as well as the

citizensofNewJersey.

3. GovernorPhilipD.Murphy(“Murphy”),attimesrelevantherein,isaNewJersey

residentandtheGovernoroftheStateofNewJersey.

4. ColonelPatrickJ.Callahan(“Callahan”),attimesrelevantherein,isanindividual

employedbytheStateinthepositionofActingSuperintendent.

5. GeorgeHelmy(“Helmy”),attimesrelevantherein,isanindividualemployedby

theStateinthepositionoftheChiefofStafftotheGovernor.

6. MattPlatkin(“Platkin”),attimesrelevantherein,isanindividualemployedbythe

StateinthepositionoftheChiefCounseltotheGovernor.

7. HeatherTaylor,Esq.(“Taylor”)attimesrelevantherein,isanindividualemployed

bytheStateastheChiefEthicsOfficerfortheOfficeoftheGovernor.

8. JudithPersichilli(“Persichilli”),attimesrelevantherein,isanindividualemployed

bytheStateinthepositionofCommissioneroftheDOH.

9. Andrea Martinez-Mejia (Martinez-Mejia”), at times relevant herein, is an

individualemployedbytheStateinthepositionofChiefofStaffoftheDOH.

10. Joy Lindo (“Lindo”), at times relevant herein, is an individual employedby the

StateinthepositionofDivisionDirectoroftheOfficeofLegalandRegulatoryCompliance.

11. Lubna Qazi-Chowdhry (“Qazi-Chowdhry”), at times relevant herein, is an

individualemployedbytheStateinthepositionofEthicsLiaisonOfficerfortheDOH.


3

12. KaitlynWoolford(“Woolford”),attimesrelevantherein,isanindividualemployed

by theState in thepositionof ExecutiveAssistant to theDeputyCommissionerof thePublic

HealthServicesBranchoftheDOH.

B. Plaintiff’sEmployment/ConsultingHistory

13. From2011through2013,PlaintiffwasemployedastheStateHomelandSecurity

Exercise Coordinator (Government Representative 2) for theNew JerseyOffice of Homeland

SecurityandPreparedness.

14. From2013through2016,PlaintiffworkedfortheDOHinthepositionofDirector

ofPublicHealthRecovery(GovernmentRepresentative1)andthenasanInformationSecurity

Officer(InformationTechnologySpecialist).

15. From2013through2015,PlaintiffalsoworkedforMargolisHealyandAssociates,

LLC(“MHA”).PlaintifffullydisclosedhisbusinessactivitieswithMHAtotheStateandobtained

theState’sexpressapprovaltoengagewithMHAoutsidehisjobduties,responsibilitiesandhours

workingfortheState.

16. From2016through2018,PlaintiffwasemployedinthepositionofManagerofthe

EmergencyManagementandEnterpriseResilienceforNewYorkUniversityLangoneHealth.

C. Plaintiff’sEmploymentasDOHAssistantCommissioner

17. InoraboutOctober29,2018,PlaintiffcommencedemploymentwiththeDOHas

AssistantCommissioner.

18. In thepositionofAssistantCommissionerofDOH,Plaintiffwas responsible for

providing strategic leadership and guidance to the Division of Public Health Infrastructure,

LaboratoriesandEmergencyPreparednesswhich includedapproximately250staffacross the


4

Offices of Disaster Resilience, Emergency Medical Services and the Public Health and

EnvironmentalLaboratories.

19. Plaintiff was also responsible for managing an operational budget of

approximately$57million,includingmorethan$28millioninfederalgrantsfromASPRandthe

CDC for the Hospital Preparedness Program and the Public Health Emergency Preparedness

program,respectively.

20. Plaintiffparticipatedincybersecuritythreatidentificationandbusinesscontinuity

activities to strengthen enterprise resilience and ensure continuity of government during a

disaster.

21. Plaintiff also partnered with the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and

Preparednesstocompletethestatewidethreatandhazardidentificationriskassessmentforthe

healthcareandpublichealthsectors.

22. Plaintiffalsoconductedpreparednessactivitiesfornumerousongoingincidents,

crises,andpre-plannedlarge-scaleeventsacrosstheStateofNewJerseyand/orimpactingthe

northeastUnitedStates.

D. Plaintiff’sConsultingServiceswithMargolisHealyandAssociates

23. At the time he began his employment as Assistant Commissioner, Plaintiff

disclosed to the State his own company, Emergency Manager Project, LLC, (“EMP”) which

administeredtheEmergencyManager1and2courses.

24. PlaintifflicensedbothcoursestoCrossroadsEducation,LLCpriortobeginninghis

employmentwiththeDOH.

25. At no time after starting his employment with the DOH in 2018 did Plaintiff


5

administeranycourses.

26. Plaintiff disclosed the EMP outside activity in his 2019 Financial Disclosure

StatementformandtheOutsideActivityQuestionnaire(“OAQ”)hesubmittedattheonsetofhis

employment.

27. StateemployeesarerequiredtocompletetheFinancialDisclosureStatementon

anannualbasisanddisclose,interalia,allsourcesofincomeforthe12-monthperiodpriorto

thefiling.

28. State employees are required to complete theOAQ (1)when they commence

Stateemployment;(2)wheneverthereisachangeintheemployee’soutsideactivity;and(3)at

aminimumeverythreeyears.

29. InoraboutAugust2019,PlaintiffwascontactedbyMargolisHealyandAssociates,

LLC (who is now owned by CozenO’Connor, P.C.) (collectively herein referred to as “MHA”)

regardingaRequestforProposal(“RFP”)theywererespondingtoonbehalfofanout-of-state

universityclientofthefirm.

30. AtthetimeofPlaintiff’shiringinOctober2018,PlaintiffdidnotidentifyMHAon

hisFinancialDisclosureFormbecausehedidnotcurrentlyworkforMHA,andhadnotreceived

anyincomefromMHAinthecalendaryearprecedingthecommencementofhisemployment.

31. Contrarytorecentmediareportscausedbythefalsedisseminationofinformation

oftheState,Plaintiffhadnotworkedfor,orprovidedanyconsultingservicesto,MHAsince2016.

32. TheRFPfortheout-of-stateuniversitywasinresponsetoahighlycomplex,large-

scalecybersecurityexerciseitwasinterestedinconductinginearly2020.

33. Based upon Plaintiff’s education, training and experience, MHA expressed an


6

interestinincludingPlaintiffastheleadexercisedesigner/facilitatorforthisparticularRFP.

34. PlaintiffwasnottoreceiveanycompensationforbeingincludedintheRFPorby

providinghisinputtoMHAontheirdraftproposalpriortosubmission.

35. BecausetheopportunitywithMHAwouldconstituteanoutsideactivityandcould

resultinfutureengagements,PlaintiffbelievedheshoulddisclosetheopportunitytotheState

pursuanttoN.J.A.C.19:61-5.9(c).

36. In connection therewith, prior to working on any project with MHA in 2019,

PlaintiffdisclosedthespecificopportunitywithMHAtoEthicsLiaisonOfficeroftheDOH,Nancy

Kelly-Goodstein.

37. PlaintifffurthersubmittedanupdatedOAQinoraboutOctober2019tofurther

disclosetheopportunity.

38. After initially disclosing the opportunity, Plaintiff andMs. Kelly-Goodstein had

additionalconversationsconcerningtheopportunityduringwhichPlaintiffprovidedadditional

clarificationsonhisrelationshipwithbothhisowncompany,EMP,andMHA.

39. AfterdiscussingtheopportunitywithPlaintiffandreviewingtheOAQ,Ms.Kelly-

GoodsteininformedPlaintiffthattherewasnoconflictofinterest.

40. Specifically,theStatedeterminedthatbecauseneithertheDOHnorPlaintiffhad

anyregulatoryoversightofinstitutionsofhighereducation(i.e.collegesanduniversities),there

wasnoconflictofinterest.

41. Thereafter, it was widely known among state employees, including DOH

leadershipandPlaintiff’sstaff,thatPlaintiffprovidedoutsideconsultingservicestoMHA.

42. Infact,PlaintifflistedhisworkwithMHAonhisresume,Linkedinpageandopenly


7

discussedhisworkwithMHAtoDOHleadership.

43. At no time did anyone from the DOH question Plaintiff’s outside consulting

serviceswithMHAduringhisemploymentwiththeState.

44. AfterprovidingconsultingservicestoMHAfortheout-of-stateuniversity’sRFP

submission,MHAprovidedPlaintiffotherprojects forout-of-statehighereducationclients in

whichhewaspaidforhisservices.

45. TheworkPlaintiffperformedforMHAafter the initialRFPsubmission included

projects that only involved institutions of higher education and therefore, consistent with

Plaintiff’sdisclosuresandtheapprovedOAQ,noconflictofinteresteverarose.

46. InoraboutDecember2019,Plaintiff requestedpermission touseaccruedand

availablevacationdaysduringwhichtimeoffPlaintiffplannedtoperformsomeprojectsforMHA.

47. Ms.Woolford,Plaintiff’ssupervisoratthetime,approvedPlaintiff’srequest.

48. Atthetime,Ms.WoolfordwasemployedinthepositionofExecutiveAssistantto

theDeputyCommissionerofthePublicHealthServicesBranch.

49. Ms. Woolford was considered DOH leadership and currently serves as the

Commissioner-appointedNewJersey“COVID-19TestingCzar”responsible forcoordinatingall

aspectsofCOVID-19testingacrossNewJersey.

50. Plaintiffwascompensatedlessthan$2,000duringcalendaryear2019fromMHA.

51. Plaintiffwouldhavedisclosedalloutsideincomeheearnedfromconsultingwith

MHAonhis2020FinancialDisclosureForm,whichwouldhavebeenduebyJuly31,2020.

52. PlaintiffdidnotcompleteanyworkforanyMHAclientsoncetheState’sCOVID-

19pandemicresponsebeganonJanuary24,2020.


8

E. COVID-19Pandemic

53. NewJersey’sresponsetothenovelcoronavirus(“COVID-19”)pandemicbeganon

January24,2020.

54. Plaintiffregularlyworkedsixteen(16)totwenty(20)hourdays,withnodaysoff

fromJanuary24,2020throughthepeakperiodofthepandemicinApril.

55. On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff established the DOH Crisis Management Team,

authorizedtheoriginalCoronavirusResponsePlan,andservedastheinitialIncidentCommander

forthestate’spandemicresponse,coordinatingallDOHactivitiesrelatedtoCOVID-19.

56. OnFebruary3,2020,GovernorMurphysignedExecutiveOrder102,creatinga

statewideCoronavirusTaskForce.

57. OnMarch9,2020,GovernorMurphydeclaredaStateofEmergencyinresponse

totheCOVID-19outbreakandPlaintiffservedastheDOHrepresentativetotheState’sUnified

Command.

58. OnMarch 10, 2020, GovernorMurphy and Commissioner Persichilli agreed to

have Plaintiff travel to Washington, D.C., to testify before the United States House of

RepresentativesHomelandSecuritySubcommitteeonEmergencyPreparedness,Responseand

Recovery.

59. Duringthehearing,Plaintiffprovidedthecommitteewithtestimonyconcerning

hisexperienceandexpertiseandhowNewJerseywaspreparingforandrespondingtothenovel

coronaviruspublichealthcrisis.

60. Plaintiff was also tasked to request additional funding from the federal

governmentanddistributionofitemsfromtheStrategicNationalStockpile,andelsewhere,on


9

behalfofNewJersey,whichhedidduringhistestimony.

61. Following the World Health Organization declaring COVID-19 a pandemic on

March11,2020,GovernorMurphysignednumerousExecutiveOrders,includingastay-at-home

order, the closure of non-essential businesses, retail and schools, and prohibiting all social

gatheringsandmandatingworkfromhomearrangements.

62. TherewerewidespreadshortagesofPPEandmolecular testingsuppliesas the

COVID-19pandemichitNewJersey.

63. Because of the shortage of testing, it was New Jersey’s public policy that

individuals who do not have any symptoms not be tested and that individuals with mild

symptomsstayhomewhiletheyaresickandfollowtheguidanceoftheirhealthcareprovider.

64. Testing was prioritized for individuals with symptoms of fever, cough and

shortnessofbreathsevereenoughtorequirehospitalization,thosewhowereinclosecontact

withconfirmedCOVID-19casesandindividualswhotraveledto/fromhighlyaffectedareas.

65. Testing was specifically not recommended for persons who did not have

symptoms.

66. OnoraboutApril8,2020,itwasreportedthatMr.Platkinhadtestedpositivefor

COVID-19.

67. Itwasreportedatthattime,consistentwithNewJersey’sclearmandateofpublic

policy,thatGovernorMurphyhadtwicestatedintheweeksbeforeApril8,2020thathehadnot

beentestedbecausehewasnotexperiencinganyCOVID-19symptomsandbecauseofalackof

testingsupplies.

68. OnApril9,2020,GovernorMurphyconfirmedthathehadnotbeentestedatthat


10

timeandthathedidnotplanongettingtestedinlightofMr.Platkin’spositivetest.

69. GovernorMurphyreasonedthathedidnothaveanysymptomsandthathedid

notgonearpeople.

70. WhenpressedbyareporterastowhyMr.Platkinwasabletoobtainatestwhen

hewasnotsymptomaticperpublicpolicy,GovernorMurphyasked,“Whydoeshegetafreepass

todothat?Weneedthisguy.”

71. OnApril10,2020,GovernorMurphyannouncedtheacquisitionof15point-of-

careIDNOWtestinginstrumentsfromthefederalgovernmenttoexpandaccesstoCOVID-19

testinginNewJersey.

72. The portable, rapid testing machines were dispersed to health care systems

throughoutthestateinanefforttoassistNewJerseytomeetthehighdemandfortesting.

73. OnMay13,2020, theStateannounced that itwouldbe investinghundredsof

millions of dollars to expand COVID-19 testing and that the tests would be prioritized for

vulnerablepopulations,theircaregiversandfrontlineworkers.

74. Atthistime,GovernorMurphysaidthathedirected$6billioninfederalfunding

toRutgersUniversitytohelpthemscaleup--asmuchasfive-fold--productionofasaliva-based

testkit,allowingittoreachasmanyas50,000peopledaily.

75. GovernorMurphy further publicly stated that therewas a need to double the

state’stestingcapacitysothatitcouldscreen20,000peopleadayforCOVID-19bytheendof

May,andthathewantedtosee25,000testsdonedailybytheendofJune.

76. GovernorMurphywasquotedassaying,“Everydaywetakeanotherstepforward

torampupourtestingabilities.Butweknowthateventhisjumpintestingisnotenough.We


11

need to have an even more robust testing program that is engrained throughout our

communitiesandwhichgoouttothepeopleasmuchasthepeoplecangotoit.”

F. Plaintiff’sEthicsComplaint

77. OnApril24,2020,Plaintiffreceivedamissedtelephonecalltohiscellphonefrom

ColonelCallahan.

78. Afewminuteslater,PlaintiffreturnedCallahan’sphonecall.

79. Duringthecall,CallahaninformedPlaintiffthathe“needsafavor”.

80. The“favor”wasforPlaintifforamemberofhisstafftogotothehomeofoneof

Helmy’srelativesthatweekendtocollectspecimensfromtworelativesfortestingofSARS-COV-

2tobeperformedatDOH’sPublicHealthandEnvironmentalLaboratories.

81. Plaintiff did notwant to participate in this request because, in his reasonable

belief, the actions were unethical, unlawful, incompatible with public policy, a misuse of

governmentalresourcesand/ormisuseofpower.

82. However,fullyunderstandingthattherequestforthe“favor”wascomingfrom

top-levelpeoplewithintheGovernor’sinnercircle,PlaintiffrespondedtoCallahanthathewould

lookintoitandchecktoseeifhehadstaffavailable.

83. Callahan instructed Plaintiff that the testing could occur anytime over the

weekend,eitherSaturdayorSunday.

84. Attheendoftheconversation,PlaintiffrequestedCallahantotexthimthedetails,

whichhedid.

85. Shortly after the phone call ended, Callahan sent the textmessage to Plaintiff

confirmingtheinstruction.


12

86. ThefollowingdayonApril25,2020,CallahancalledPlaintiffandangrilydemanded

whynoonehadcontactedHelmy’srelativesandperformedthetestsyet.

87. Plaintiffrespondedthathehadnostaffavailable.

88. Callahanthenasked,“Sothen,thisissomethingyouaregoingtodo?”

89. Plaintiffresponded,“Yea,Idon’thaveachoice.”

90. Callahanresponded,“ThanksChris.Iwillletherknow.”

91. FollowinghiscommunicationswithCallahan,PlaintiffwroteanemailtoDOHChief

ofStaff,AndreaMeija-Martinez,todisclosetheimproperrequestandcomplainthathewasbeing

instructedtoperformaprivateCOVID-19testonrelativesofaGovernor’sOfficeemployeeas“a

favor”.

92. TheApril25,2020emailtoMs.Martinez-Mejiareads,inrelevantpart:

Clearly,we cannot say no, or advise them that this test doesn’tmatter,andit’sacompletewasteofanAC’stimetospendliterally6-hourscollectingonespecimen.I’msharing thiswithyousimply fordocumentationand, incase,thiscontinuestospiraloutofcontrol.

93. OnApril26,2020,at9:00a.m.PlaintiffreceivedatextmessagefromCallahanwith

furtherinstructionsconcerningthe“favor.”

94. OnApril26at10:53a.m.,Ms.Martinez-MejiarespondedtoPlaintiff’semailas

follows,“ThankyouChris.IwilldiscussthiswithCommissioner.”

95. On April 26, Plaintiff travelled from his home to the Public Health and

EnvironmentalLaboratoriesinWestTrentontoobtainspecimencollectiontubes.

96. Thereafter, Plaintiff drove to theHealth andAgricultureBuilding in Trenton to

retrievehisstatevehicle.


13

97. A fewminutes laterat11:02a.m.,Plaintiff responded toMs.Martinez-Mejia’s

emailandstated,“I’mdrivinguptherenow.”

98. WhilePlaintiffwasintheprocessofobtaininghisstatevehicle,PlaintiffcalledJoy

LindofromtheDOHOfficeofLegalandRegulatoryCompliancetocomplainanddisclosetoher

thathehadbeeninstructedtoperformprivateCOVID-19testsonrelativesofaGovernor’sOffice

employeeas“afavor”,whichhereasonablybelievedwasunethical,unlawful,incompatiblewith

publicpolicy,amisuseofgovernmentalresourcesand/ormisuseofpower.

99. Ms.LindoagreedwithPlaintiff.

100. Specifically, Ms. Lindo concluded to Plaintiff that, “[t]his is a textbook ethics

violation.”

101. Ms.LindofurtherdirectedPlaintifftopulloveronthesideoftheroad,whileshe

calledCommissionerPersichillitodiscusshiscomplaintsanddisclosuresconcerningthesituation

directlywithher.

102. Soonthereafter,Ms.LindocalledPlaintiffandinformedhimthatsherelayedhis

complaintstoCommissionerPersichilli.

103. Ms.LindaalsoinformedPlaintiffthatCommissionerPersichillitoldherthatMs.

Martinez-Mejianever sentPlaintiff’semail toCommissionerPersichilli,nordidMs.Martinez-

Mejia ever speak with Commissioner Persichilli about Plaintiff’s complaints and disclosures

concerningthesituation.

104. Ms.LindoinstructedPlaintifftonotproceedwiththespecimencollectionandto

gohome.

105. WhileenroutebacktoTrenton,Plaintiffdroppedoffhisstatevehicleandcalled


14

CommissionerPersichillitodiscussthesituation.

106. Plaintiff told the Commissioner about his conversation with Ms. Lindo and

CommissionerPersichilliconfirmedherinstructionforPlaintifftogohomeandnotperformthe

testontherelatives.

107. OnApril27,PlaintiffcalledtheStateEthicshotlinetoformally lodgeanethical

complaintconcerningthesituation.

108. However,noonefromtheStateEthicshotlineansweredthecallanditwenttoa

voicemail.

109. Thereafter,PlaintiffspoketoMs.Lindoaboutthebestmethodofcontactforthe

StateEthicsCommissionashehadpreviouslyattemptedtomakecontactonApril27.

110. PlaintiffinformedMs.LindothattherewasnoanswerattheStateEthicshotline

anddidnotfeelcomfortableleavingamessageonanunidentifiedvoicemail.

111. Inresponse,Ms.LindosuggestedthatPlaintiffcontacttheDOH’sinternalethics

officer,LubnaQazi-Chowdhry.

112. Thereafter,atelephonemeetingbetweenMs.Qazi-ChowdhryandPlaintiffwas

scheduledforMay14todiscusshisethicscomplaint.

113. In preparation for the meeting on May 14, Plaintiff attached screenshots of

Callahan’stextmessagetothemeetinginvitation.

114. During the call, Plaintiff complained to Ms. Qazi-Chowdry that he had been

instructedtoperformprivateCOVID-19testsonrelativesofaGovernor’sOfficeemployeeas“a

favor”,whichhereasonablybelievedwasunethical,unlawful,incompatiblewithpublicpolicy,a

misuseofgovernmentalresourcesand/ormisuseofpower.


15

115. AfterlisteningtoPlaintiff’scomplaint,Ms.Qazi-ChowdhryrespondedtoPlaintiff’s

complaintbystatingthatshewouldnotbethepersontohandleitbecausethesituationinvolved

misconductofhighrankingindividualswithintheGovernor’sOffice.

116. Ms.Qazi-ChowdhryfurthertoldPlaintiffthatshewouldhavetospeakwiththe

StateEthicsCommissiontodeterminethebestwaytohandlethecomplaint,andthatshewould

contactPlaintiffbytheendofthedaywithfurtherinstructiononhowheshouldproceed.

117. Laterthatday,Ms.Qazi-ChowdrycalledPlaintiff.

118. Duringthiscall,Ms.Qazi-ChowdhryinformedPlaintiffthatshehadspokentothe

StateEthicsCommissionand instructedPlaintiff that“youneedtohaveaconsultationwitha

lawyer”beforeproceedingwithprocessingthecomplaint.

119. Plaintiff was completely taken aback by Ms. Qazi-Chowdhry’s direction and

responsetohercomplaints.

120. Plaintiffresponded,“okay”,andtheconversationthenended.

121. Thefollowingday,PlaintiffcalledMs.Qazi-Chowdrytoasktwoquestionstoclarify

herinstructionsfromthedayprior.

122. The first question Plaintiff asked: “what kind of lawyer were you suggesting I

consultwith”andthesecond:“whatamIsupposedtotellthem?”

123. Ms.Qazi-Chowdhryrespondedtothefirstquestion,a“criminaldefenselawyer.”

124. Ms.Qazi-ChowdhryrespondedtothesecondquestionbyinstructingPlaintiffhave

thecriminaldefenselawyerexplainthe“consequencesofsubmittingtheethicscomplaint.”

125. BaseduponMs.Qazi-Chowdhry’simplicationofcriminalrepercussionsifPlaintiff

went forward with the complaint, Plaintiff asked Ms. Qazi-Chowdhry whether “this [his


16

complaint]isdeadinthewater?”

126. Addressing the threatof criminal repercussions,Plaintiff further stated thathe

had small children andmay not want to proceed with the complaint if he was going to be

criminallyprosecutedbecauseofit.

127. Ms.Qazi-ChowdhryrespondedbyassuringPlaintiffthatshewouldnotprocessthe

complaintuntilafterhespokewithacriminaldefenselawyer.

128. This conversation confirmed Plaintiff’s initial concern that he was being

threateningwithcriminalrepercussionsshouldhegoforwardwiththeethicscomplaint.

129. Thefollowingweek,Ms.Qazi-ChowdhryandPlaintiffhadanothercommunication

abouttheprocessingofthecomplaint.

130. During the conversation, Ms. Qazi-Chowdhry asked Plaintiff if he had the

opportunitytomeetwithacriminaldefenselawyer.

131. Plaintiff responded affirmatively and that after speaking with the criminal

attorney,hewascomfortablethathedidnotdoanythingwrongandcertainlynothingcriminal.

132. Ms.Qazi-Chowdhryresponded,“Okay,good.”

133. PlaintiffaskedMs.Qazi-Chowdhryforfurtherclarificationabouthiscomplaintand

howitwouldproceed.

134. Ms. Qazi-Chowdhry responded that she would not be handling his ethics

complaintandwouldnotprovideadirectanswertoanyofhisquestionsaboutthenextstepsin

processingthecomplaint.

135. FollowingthislastcommunicationwithMs.Qazi-Chowdry,seniorstaffremoved

scheduledmeetings with Plaintiff from his calendar, refused to share information with him,


17

wouldnotrespondtohisemailsandwouldnotparticipateinscheduledmeetingswithhim.

136. Plaintiffwasnolongerconsultedonimportantmatters,includingthereceiptand

distribution of remdesivir to hospitals and the $613 million Epidemiology and Laboratory

Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) cooperative

agreementgrant.

137. Additionally,Plaintiffstoppedreceivingcommunicationsfromotherseniorstaff

members including,butnot limited to,CommissionerPersichilli,Ms.Martinez-MejiaandMs.

Woolford.

138. On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff received an email meeting invitation from the

Commissioner’sExecutiveAssistant,DeeMorris, tomeetwith the“staff fromtheGovernor's

Office”scheduledforMay20,2020from3:30p.m.to4:30p.m.

139. PlaintiffrespondedtoMs.Morris’emailandaskedwhichstaffwouldbeattending

themeeting.

140. Plaintiffreceivednoresponsetothisemail.

141. OnMay20,2020,Plaintiffattendedameetingwithtwoattorneysfromtheoffice

oftheGovernor,oneofwhomwastheChiefEthicsOfficer,HeatherTaylor.

142. Duringthemeeting,theattorneysaskedPlaintiffifhewasawareofanewsarticle

citing to anonymous sources, about recording the Commissioner in meetings and leaking

confidentialinformationtothemedia.

143. Specifically,Plaintiffwasaskedifheknewofthenewsreporterand/orifhehad

anycontactwiththenewsreporter.

144. Plaintiff stated thathedidnot speakorprovideany information toanymedia


18

memberandthathedidnotknowwhowasdoingso.

145. ThepurportedinvestigationtakenintotheallegedleaksfromwithintheDOHto

themediawas not completed fairly, thoroughly or completely as required by state law and

regulations.

146. OnMay28,2020at10:30a.m.,PlaintiffwasinformedbytheDirectorofHuman

Resourcesthathewasterminated.

147. WhenPlaintiffasked ifhis terminationwas forcauseorno-cause,Plaintiffwas

informeditwasa“no-causetermination”andthathis“serviceswerenolongerneeded.”

148. As a result of the harassing and discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

emotional distress and continues to experience ongoing emotional distress and significant

economicdamages.

F. Plaintiff’sDueProcessRights

149. Contrarytowhathewastoldasthereasonforhistermination,thepublicposition

beingtakenbytheStateisthatthereasonforPlaintiff’sterminationwasbecausehefailedto

properlydisclosehisconsultingworkforMHAandthathedidnotobtainappropriateapproval

todoso.

150. ThispositionisdemonstrablyfalseandeasilyverifiablebyStaterecords.

151. At no time prior to his termination, or during his termination discussions, did

anyone from the State ever accuse Plaintiff of failing to disclose his outside employment

relationshipwithMHA.

152. Plaintiff was never informed of any ethics investigation being conducted

concerningPlaintiff’soutsidebusinessactivities.


19

153. Plaintiff’sterminationhasbeenthesubjectofnumerousmediareportsinwhich

anonymouspersonsassociatedwiththeStateand/orGovernor’sOfficebegandisclosingfalse

anddefamatoryinformationconcerningPlaintiff,Plaintiff’semploymentwiththeStateandthe

purportedreasonsforhistermination.

154. In these reports, anonymous sources of the State claim that Plaintiff was

terminated“forcause.”

155. AnonymoussourcesoftheStatefurthertoldnewsoutletsthatPlaintiffbecame

“overloaded”withworkathis“otherjob”atMHA.

156. TheallegationthatPlaintiffwasever“overloaded”withhisworkathis“otherjob”

atMHAisfalseanddefamatory.

157. AnothernewsstoryreportedthatanonymoussourceshavestatedthatPlaintiff

facedcriticismforpoorattendanceattheDOHpost.

158. TheallegationthatPlaintifffacedcriticismforpoorattendanceattheDOHpostis

alsofalseanddefamatory.

159. Uponinformationandbelief,theStatehasnotconductedanyinvestigationinto

theidentificationofanyoftheanonymoussourceswhohavebeenleakingfalseanddefamatory

informationaboutPlaintifftothemedia.

160. Instead, the State has publicly made general comments about Plaintiff’s

terminationthatessentiallyendorsethedefamatorystatements.

161. The statementshave caused thepublic tobelieve the leaks aboutPlaintiff are

credible.

162. For example, when asked about Plaintiff’s termination, Governor Murphy


20

perpetuatedthefalsehoodsbeingdisseminatedby“anonymous”sourcesbystating,“Folksare

not–it’sparforthecoursethatyou’renotsupposedtohaveanothersourceofincome…”

163. Afewdays later,GovernorMurphywasagainquoted inresponsetoquestions

aboutPlaintiff’stermination,“Idon’thaveagoodansweraboutanyoneelsewhomayhavea

secondjob,butthereisaprocessandIdon’tthinkIaddresseditascrisplyasIcouldhave.”

164. Governor Murphy further stated, “Someone has to declare themselves and

see[k][sic]basicallyanexemptionorwaiver.”

165. Governor Murphy’s public adoption of the falsehoods being pushed by

“anonymoussources”haveseverelydamagedPlaintiff’soncestellarprofessionalreputation.

166. Mr.PlatkinhasalsobeenattributedtofalsereportsthatPlaintiffviolatedethical

rulesbyfailingtodisclosehisconsultingservicestoMHA.

167. Forexample,onearticlereported,“ChiefCounselMattPlatkinsaidthatthereare

certainclassesofstateemployeeswhoarenotpermittedtoearnoutsideincomeandotherswho

mustgettheapprovaloftheStateEthicsCommission.”

168. Itfurtherreads,“Platkinsaidthattherearecertainclassesofstateemployeeswho

arenotpermittedtoearnoutsideincomeandothersmustgettheapprovaloftheStateEthics

Commission.Platkinsaidiftheemployeedidreceiveapproval,theywouldstillhavetodisclose

outsideincomeandotherswhomustgettheapprovaloftheStateEthicsCommission.”

169. Themisrepresentationsoftheanonymoussources,andendorsementofsameby

stateemployees,includingGovernorMurphyandMr.Platkin,havecausedotherpoliticiansto

callforaninvestigationintoPlaintiffandtherelationshipbetweentheDOHandMHA.

170. Assemblyman Christopher DePhillips, who asked the State Commission of


21

Investigation and the State Controller to launch an investigation, was quoted, “A troubling

patternofethicsbreacheshasbeenemergingfromtheDepartmentofHealth,anditcallsfora

thoroughandswiftinvestigation.ThepeopleofourstatedeservetoknowiftheirStateHealth

Departmenthasbeenabusingethicalandtransparencyprotocols,especiallyduringtheongoing

pandemic.”

171. Plaintiff’s reputation has been and continues to be severely damaged by the

State’sdefamatoryandretaliatoryconduct.

172. Prior to his termination, no one from theGovernor’sOffice or the State ever

confronted Plaintiff regarding any accusation of impropriety concerning his association with

MHA.

173. NoinvestigationwaseverconductedintoPlaintiff’sdisclosuresofhisassociation

withMHA.

174. Plaintiffwastoldthathisterminationwasnotforcauseandwasneverprovided

anyopportunitytodefendhimselfagainstthesefalseallegations.

175. If theStatehadaffordedPlaintiffhisdueprocess rightsunderapplicable state

regulations,thefactssurroundinghisworkwithMHAwouldhavebeenfullyknownandtheState

wouldhaveclearedPlaintiffofanysuspectedwrongdoing.

176. Plaintiff would have also been able to explain thatMHA erroneously kept his

profilepageposted,whichstatedthatheworkedforthemfor“twoyears.”

177. Infact,asimple“WayBackMachine”internetarchivesearchoftheMHAwebsite

reflects that as of December 31, 2015, Plaintiff’s profile reads, “Chris as [sic] aManager of

EmergencyManagementServicesatMargolisHealyfortwoyears.”


22

178. The informationthatPlaintiffwasaManageratMHAfor“twoyears”wastrue

whenitwasfirstpublishedinoraboutmidtolate2015,butisobviouslyuntruefive(5)years

laterinMay2020.

179. Upon information and belief,MHA’s profile link of Plaintiff was leaked to the

mediatosupportthefalseassertionthatPlaintiffhasbeenworkingatMHAfortheimmediate

precedingtwoyears.

180. Contrarytothenewsreports,anonymoussourcesandcallsforinvestigationsfrom

politicalfoesofGovernorMurphy,Plaintiff’spriorprofilepagethatidentifiedhimasworkingfor

MHAasa“ManagerofEmergencyManagementServicesatMargolisHealyfortwoyears”was

mistakenlyneverupdatedorremovedfromMHA’swebsite.

181. ThePlaintiff’sdueprocessrightsinthefaceofanallegationofanethicsviolation

aredescribed indetail in theNew JerseyConflictsof Interest Law,N.J.S.A.52:13D-12et seq.

(ConflictsLaw)andontheStateEthicsCommission’swebsite.

182. Allegations of wrongdoing are received by the Ethics Commission from many

sources,includingStateemployeesormembersofthepublic,andcanbemadeviaaphonecall

totheEthicsCommissionhotlineorinwriting.

183. ComplaintstotheEthicsCommissioncanbemadeanonymous.

184. AllegationsofwrongdoingmayalsobefiledwiththeStateagencyemployingthe

Stateofficeroremployeeinaccordancewithproceduresestablishedbytheagency.

185. As it relates to Plaintiff, an allegation would properly be filed with the Ethics

CommissionortheDOH.

186. Uponreceiptofanallegation,theDOHisrequiredtofiletheallegationwiththe


23

EthicsCommission.

187. AlldeterminationsbytheDOHwithrespecttotheConflictsLawwhichinvolvethe

removalofaStateofficeroremployeeoranyotherdisciplinaryactionsareeffectiveonlywhen

approvedbytheEthicsCommission.

188. WhentheEthicsCommissionreceivesanallegation,thestafffirstreviewsitforan

initial determination as to whether the alleged conduct falls within the jurisdiction of the

Commission.

189. Upon informationandbelief,noallegationsofwrongdoinghavebeenmadeto

eithertheEthicsCommissionortheDOHregardingPlaintiff.

190. IftheEthicsCommissiondeterminesthatithasjurisdictionoveranallegation,the

Commission initiates a preliminary investigation, whichmay include a review of documents,

interviewsofthecomplainant,theStateofficeroremployeeinvolved,andanyotherindividuals

whopossessknowledgeofthecircumstancessurroundingtheallegedconduct.

191. Anyinterviewsconductedareunderoathandrecorded,andtheintervieweehas

therighttobeaccompaniedbyanattorney.

192. Uponinformationandbelief,nopreliminaryinvestigationwasconductedbythe

EthicsCommissionortheDOHinregardstoPlaintiff’sworkwithMHA.

193. Upon the conclusion of a preliminary investigation, a written report of the

investigationispresentedatanEthicsCommissionmeeting.

194. Thesubjectofaninvestigationisnotified,inwriting,ofthedatethatthematter

willbepresentedtoandconsideredbytheEthicsCommission.

195. Thesubjectandhis/herattorneyhavetherighttobepresentattheCommission


24

meeting.

196. Plaintiff never received notice of an Ethics Commissionmeeting at which any

allegationsagainsthimwouldbereviewed.

197. If the Ethics Commission determines that there are indications of a violation

meriting further proceedings, a complaint is issued and the case is referred to theOffice of

AdministrativeLaw(“OAL”)forafulldueprocesshearingpursuanttotherequirementsofthe

Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq., and the Uniform Administrative

ProcedureRules,N.J.A.C.1:1.

198. AftertheOALhearingisconcluded,theAdministrativeLawJudge(“ALJ”)issuesan

initialdecisioninaccordancewiththetimeframesetforthintheAdministrativeProcedureAct.

199. TheEthicsCommissionultimatelyissuesaFinalOrder,inwhichtheCommission

mayaccept,rejectormodifytheALJ’sinitialdecision.

200. The subject of the complaint has the right to appeal Final Orders of the

CommissiontotheSuperiorCourt,AppellateDivision.

201. PlaintiffneverreceivednoticeofanyOALhearing,ALJdecisionorFinalOrderof

theEthicsCommissionregardinganyallegedviolations.

202. Alternatively, the Ethics Commission may permit the subject of an ethics

investigationtoenterintoaconsentagreementwiththeCommissioneitherpriortoorafterthe

issuanceofacomplaint.

203. Consentordersareretainedinanindividual’spersonnelfile.

204. Consentorders,complaintsandanswersarepublicrecords.

205. Consent orders and other final agency decisions are posted on the Ethics


25

Commission’swebsite.

206. Nothing has been posted to the Ethics Commission’s website in reference to

Plaintiff.

207. Despitetheforegoing,Defendantscontinuetodisseminatefalseanddefamatory

information concerning Plaintiff to the public and through anonymous sources to damage

Plaintiffandfurtherretaliateagainsthimforengaginginprotectedactivity.

208. Asaresultoftheforegoing,Plaintiffhasbeendeniedhisrighttodueprocessand

hassufferedseverereputational,economicandemotionaldistressdamages.

FIRSTCOUNT

CONSCIENTIOUSEMPLOYEEPROTECTIONACT(“CEPA”)

N.J.S.A.34:19-1etseq.

209. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the prior allegations of the within

Complaintasifsetforthatlengthherein.

210. Plaintiff’s disclosures, complaints and/or objections toDefendants concerning

beinginstructedtoperformaprivateCOVID-19testonrelativesofaGovernor’sOfficeemployee

as“afavor”constitutesprotectedactivityunderCEPA.

211. Plaintiffreasonablybelievedsuchconductwasunethical,unlawful,incompatible

withpublicpolicy,amisuseofgovernmentalresourcesand/ormisuseofpower.

212. The adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff, including the

terminationofPlaintiff’semploymentanddenialofhisdueprocessrightsunderapplicablestate

lawandregulation,was in retaliation forPlaintiff’scomplaints,disclosuresandobjections to


26

conduct he reasonably believed was unethical, unlawful, incompatible with public policy, a

misuseofgovernmentalresourcesand/ormisuseofpower.

213. Defendants’conductwasinviolationofCEPA.

214. Defendantsengagedin,participatedin,condoned,ratified,perpetuatedand/or

aidedandabettedtheCEPAviolations.

215. Defendants’ conduct and actions were malicious and/or undertaken with a

wantonandwillfuldisregardofandforPlaintiff.

216. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress,

compensatoryandotherdamages.

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffdemandsjudgmentagainstDefendants,jointlyandseverally,for

harmsufferedasaresultoftheviolationsofCEPA,N.J.S.A.34:19-1,etseq.,asfollows:

A. Reinstatement;

B Backpayandbenefits;

C. Frontpayandbenefits;

D. Compensatorydamages;

E. Consequentialdamages;

F. Punitivedamages;

G. Equitablerelief;

H. DeclaringthatDefendantshaveviolatedCEPAandrequiringDefendantstotake

appropriatecorrectiveactiontoendunlawfulretaliationintheworkplace;

I. Pre-judgmentinterestandenhancementstooff-setnegativetaxconsequences;


27

J. Anyandallattorneys’fees,expensesand/orcosts,including,butnotlimitedto,

court costs, expert fees and all attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in the

prosecution of this suit (including enhancements thereof required to off-set

negative tax consequences and/or enhancements otherwise permitted under

law);and

K. Such other relief as may be available and which the Court deems just and

equitable.

SECONDCOUNT

CEPA--POST-TERMINATIONRETALIATION

217. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the prior allegations of thewithin the

Complaintasifsetforthatlengthherein.

218. After unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s employment for engaging in whistle-

blowingactivity,DefendantstookfurtherretaliatoryactionagainstPlaintiffbydefamingPlaintiff

andmisrepresentingtothepublichisperformance,attendanceandreasonsfortermination.

219. DefendantsfurthermisrepresentedtothepublicthatPlaintiffdidnotproperly

disclosehisoutsidebusinessactivitieswithMHA.

220. DefendantsfurthermisrepresentedtothepublicthatPlaintiffengagedinand/or

participatedincertainleaksconcerningtheState’sresponsetotheCOVID-19pandemic.

221. The reported “anonymous” sources of this false and defamatory information

wereindividualsoftheGovernor’sOfficeand/orotherstateemployeesorrepresentatives.

222. GovernorMurphyandPlatkinaidedandabettedthepost-terminationretaliatory

conductthroughtheirpublicstatementstoquestionsposedtothemconcerningthereasonsfor


28

Plaintiff’stermination,setforthherein.

223. Byendorsingtheanonymous leaks, theStatehascausedthepublictobelieve

thatPlaintiffwasterminatedforethicalreasons,whichisnottrueandhascausedPlaintiffto

sufferirreparableharm.

224. Assetforthabove,Defendantsprovidedfalseanddefamatoryinformationtothe

mediatodamagePlaintiff’sstellarprofessionalreputationandtofurtherretaliateagainsthim

forengaginginprotectedactivity.

225. Thepost-termination retaliatoryactions takenbyDefendantsagainstPlaintiff

areinviolationofCEPA.

226. Defendants’actsoromissionswerethecauseofPlaintiff’sharmandDefendants’

acts or omissions were actuated by actualmalice or accompanied by a wanton and willful

disregardofpersonswhoforeseeablymightbeharmedbythoseactsoromissions.

227. AsadirectandproximateresultofDefendants’violationofCEPA,Plaintiffhas

sufferedcompensatory,emotionaldistressandotherdamages.

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffdemandsjudgmentagainstDefendantsforharmsuffereddueto

theaforesaidviolationofCEPAasfollows:

A. Reinstatement;

B Backpayandbenefits;

C. Frontpayandbenefits;

D. Compensatorydamages;

E. Consequentialdamages;

F. Punitivedamages;


29

G. Equitablerelief;

H. DeclaringthatDefendantshaveviolatedCEPAandrequiringDefendantstotake

appropriatecorrectiveactiontoendunlawfulretaliationintheworkplace;

I. Pre-judgmentinterestandenhancementstooff-setnegativetaxconsequences;

J. Anyandallattorneys’fees,expensesand/orcosts,including,butnotlimitedto,

court costs, expert fees and all attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in the

prosecution of this suit (including enhancements thereof required to off-set

negative tax consequences and/or enhancements otherwise permitted under

law);and

K. Such other relief as may be available and which the Court deems just and

equitable.

SMITHEIBELER,LLC By: ___________________ CHRISTOPHERJ.EIBELERDated:June16,2020 AttorneysforPlaintiff

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoRule4:5-1,itisherebystatedtothebestofmyknowledgeandbeliefthatthe

matterincontroversyisnotthesubjectofanyotheractionpendinginanyothercourtorofa

pendingarbitrationproceeding,

SMITHEIBELER,LLC By: __________________ CHRISTOPHERJ.EIBELERDated:June16,2020 AttorneysforPlaintiff


iAnnotate User

Pencil

iAnnotate User

Pencil

30

JURYDEMAND

Plaintiffherebydemandstrialbyjuryonallissuessotriable.

SMITHEIBELER,LLC By: ________________________ CHRISTOPHERJ.EIBELERDated:June16,2020 AttorneysforPlaintiff

DESIGNATIONOFTRIALCOUNSEL

PursuanttoRule4:25-4,CHRISTOPHERJ.EIBELER,Esq.isdesignatedastrialcounselfor

theabove-captionedmatter.

SMITHEIBELER,LLC By: _____________________ CHRISTOPHERJ.EIBELERDated:June16,2020 AttorneysforPlaintiff


iAnnotate User

Pencil

iAnnotate User

Pencil

Civil Case Information Statement

Case Details: MERCER | Civil Part Docket# L-001083-20

Case Caption: NEUWIRTH CHRIS VS STATE OF NEW

JERSEY

Case Initiation Date: 06/16/2020

Attorney Name: CHRISTOPHER J EIBELER

Firm Name: SMITH EIBELER LLC

Address: 101 CRAWFORDS CORNER RD STE 1-105R

HOLMDEL NJ 07733

Phone: 7324441300

Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : NEUWIRTH, CHRIS

Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company (if known): Unknown

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCECASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION

Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? YES

If yes, is that relationship: Employer/Employee

Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? YES

Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition:

Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NOIf yes, please identify the requested accommodation:

Will an interpreter be needed? NOIf yes, for what language:

Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO

I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)

06/16/2020Dated

/s/ CHRISTOPHER J EIBELERSigned

Case Type: WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE

PROTECTION ACT (CEPA)

Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand

Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS

Is this a professional malpractice case? NO

Related cases pending: NO

If yes, list docket numbers: Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? NO

Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: CHRIS NEUWIRTH? NO


Documents

SMITH EIBELER, LLC Christopher J. Eibeler, Esq. ID ... · In fact, Plaintiff listed his work with MHA on his resume, Linkedin page and openly MER-L-001083-20 06/16/2020 12:26:30 PM