MICHAEL TOMPKINS VS. JOHN SCOTT THOMSONÂ (L-6194-09, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3676-14T1

Background

In 2003 the NJ Attorney General ordered the Camden County Prosecutor to supersede daily management of the Camden City Police Department; the Camden Freeholders contracted Venco to hire Arturo Venegas as Supersession Executive to oversee department operations.
Michael Tompkins, a long‑time Camden deputy chief, alleged from 2006–2008 he was subject to race‑favoring conduct and a hostile work environment primarily attributable to Venegas and City officials; he claimed retaliation when he complained.
Tompkins sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) naming Venegas, the City, Chief Thomson, Business Administrator Jones‑Tucker, and the Camden County Prosecutor; claims against the State were earlier dismissed.
Before trial the Law Division granted summary judgment dismissing the Prosecutor, finding no employer relationship between the Prosecutor and Tompkins; Tompkins voluntarily dismissed claims against Venegas and proceeded to trial against the City and officials, where the jury returned a no‑cause verdict.
On appeal Tompkins argued the Prosecutor was a de facto or joint employer (liability for Venegas’ acts) and challenged several trial evidentiary rulings excluding certain Venegas‑related evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Camden County Prosecutor was Tompkins’ employer (de facto/joint) under the LAD	Prosecutor assumed control of the Dept. via Attorney General order and thus became Tompkins’ employer or joint employer, liable for Venegas’ actions	Prosecutor exercised no control over pay, hirings, discipline, day‑to‑day assignments; Venegas and City retained operational control	Affirmed summary judgment for Prosecutor: no employer relationship shown; Prosecutor not liable under LAD
Standard and application for de facto employer analysis	Tompkins urged control/supporting facts show de facto employer status	Defendants relied on control factors and the Thomas/Pukowsky framework to show absence of control	Court applied the multi‑factor/control test (focus on right to control) and found evidence insufficient to treat Prosecutor as de facto employer
Admissibility of evidence about Venegas’ conduct after Tompkins dismissed Venegas	Tompkins said evidence of Venegas’ discriminatory acts was relevant to show City knew/failed to act (retaliation and hostile environment)	City argued Venco/Venegas was an independent contractor; evidence of contractor’s acts should be limited and not impute liability absent employer control	Trial judge did not preclude testimony about complaints/retaliatory acts; exclusion of some evidence was not an abuse of discretion; no reversible error
Whether Woods‑Pirozzi (employer liability for nonemployee harasser) required a different result	Tompkins relied on Woods‑Pirozzi to impute liability to City/Prosecutor for nonemployee harasser	Defendants distinguished Woods‑Pirozzi: that case turns on employer control/knowledge and employer’s legal responsibility for nonemployees; here Prosecutor/City lacked control over Venegas	Court distinguished Woods‑Pirozzi and held it did not mandate finding Prosecutor liable given absence of control

Key Cases Cited

Qian v. Toll Bros. Inc., 223 N.J. 124 (discussing summary judgment standard)
Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (summary judgment review and evidentiary materials)
Thomas v. County of Camden, 386 N.J. Super. 582 (devised multi‑factor test for employee status under LAD)
Pukowsky v. Caruso, 312 N.J. Super. 171 (LAD employer/employee context and factors)
Woods‑Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods, 290 N.J. Super. 252 (employer liability where nonemployee harasser known to employer)
Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., 214 N.J. 518 (elements of LAD retaliation)
Cashin v. Bello, 223 N.J. 328 (statutory interpretation principles)
El‑Sioufi v. St. Peter's Univ. Hosp., 382 N.J. Super. 145 (intent to discriminate principles)