PATTI v. IBARRONDO, 1:22-cv-06365

Background

Patti is a New Jersey Army National Guard First Sergeant and a long‑time Camden County Police Department (CCPD) officer who advanced from patrol officer to sergeant and later to lieutenant and captain.
Patti alleges CCPD supervisors and administrators discriminated and retaliated against him because of military service (USERRA) and as a protected class (NJLAD), and later added a CEPA claim for retaliation related to whistleblowing/activity.
Key alleged acts: a March 2020 quid‑pro‑quo offer to return early from military orders for a promotion and a subsequent delayed promotion; assignment to night shifts and denial of schedule adjustments while on military orders; reduction in pay following a transfer while on orders; burdensome dual duties after promotion to captain; and several Internal Affairs interviews claimed to be pretextual.
Procedural posture: Patti filed an amended complaint asserting USERRA (Counts I–II), NJLAD (Counts III–IV), and CEPA (Count V). Defendants moved to partially dismiss; Patti conceded dismissal as to Defendant Simpson.
The court (Kugler, D.N.J.) granted dismissal of USERRA claims against all individual defendants, dismissed NJLAD claims against most individual defendants but permitted NJLAD aiding/abetting claims to proceed against Capt. Moffa and Capt. Lutz, and dismissed the CEPA claim in full.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Individual liability under USERRA	Patti: individual supervisors in chain of command are "employers" or otherwise liable for discriminatory/retaliatory acts	Defendants: USERRA individual liability limited to persons who can hire/fire; most defendants lack that power; Rodriguez did not take adverse action	USERRA claims dismissed as to all individual defendants (no pleaded hire/fire authority or actionable conduct by Rodriguez)
NJLAD individual liability / aiding & abetting	Patti: multiple supervisors engaged in discriminatory acts or investigations that, singly or in pattern, support aiding/abetting liability	Defendants: plaintiffs fail to plead active, knowing, substantial assistance or discriminatory intent by most individuals; investigations alone are not actionable without attendant adverse action	NJLAD aiding/abetting claims allowed against Moffa and Lutz (alleged quid‑pro‑quo/delayed promotion and denial forcing use of personal time); dismissed as to Rodriguez, Ibarrondo, Shomo, May, Diaz, Burns
Whether Internal Affairs investigations and related acts constitute adverse action under CEPA	Patti: IA interviews and alleged pretextual investigations were retaliatory after he filed this suit	Defendants: IA contacts and investigations do not qualify as CEPA adverse employment actions	CEPA claim dismissed in full (investigations alone do not meet CEPA’s adverse‑action standard)
Dismissal of claims against Defendant Simpson	Patti conceded Simpson should be dismissed	Defendants moved to dismiss Simpson	All claims against Simpson dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading and plausibility at Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (agent’s discriminatory animus can be imputed to employer under cat’s‑paw theory)
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, 842 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2016) (CEPA adverse‑action standard—investigation alone insufficient)
Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (definition of adverse employment action)
Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (N.J. 2004) (elements for aiding/abetting liability under NJ law)
Aguas v. State, 220 N.J. 494 (N.J. 2015) (definition of "supervisor" for individual liability under NJ law)
Gordon v. Wawa, Inc., 388 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2004) (USERRA construed liberally in favor of service members)