The jist of the suit is in the facts of the allegations. It shows the power of corruption when we have a dominate party in control of the taxpayers money.
This is a wrongfull termination and whistleblower lawsuit. The pdf of the entire lawsuit is here.
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS
7. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
through 6 of the Complaint as if set forth herein verbatim and at length.
8. Plaintiff, Omid Bayati worked for Defendants for many years in several different
roles and titles.
9. In approximately June of 2017 Plaintiff became the Director of Finance for the
Bergen County Sheriff’s Office.
10. In or around the second half of 2017, Plaintiff noticed some suspicious financial
activity in the IT (Information Technology) Department.
11. Plaintiff brought his concerns to the attention of one of the Undersheriffs,
Hornyak, and the general counsel for the Bergen County Sheriff’s office, attorney John McCann.
12. Plaintiff started to investigate the issue and discovered that the IT Director, Phil
Lisk, appeared to be involved in inappropriate dealings with vendors.
13. For instance, it appeared that Mr. Lisk was arranging for and receiving personal
payments for preferential contracts with vendors.
14. Also, it appeared that Mr. Lisk was receiving compensation personally for
arranging for and permitting a company to use Defendant’s offices for its own business.
15. It also appeared that the IT Director was making improper purchases with
Sheriff’s Office funds.
16. Plaintiff therefore disclosed what Plaintiff believed to be fraudulent, illegal,
and/or otherwise improper conduct by Mr. Lisk to an attorney for the Bergen County Sheriff’s
Office, John McCann, Defendant Sheriff Saudino, outside counsel Christopher Martin, and
outside counsel Catherine Elston, Esq.
17. Upon information and belief, following this disclosure, Executive Undersheriff
George Buono began making comments that Plaintiff’s concerns were not warranted.
18. It also appeared that Executive Undersheriff Buono was attempting to downplay
Mr. Lisk’s actions and discourage any further investigation related thereto.
19. Plaintiff brought his concerns of Executive Undersheriff Buono’s hostilities
towards him to the attention of the Sheriff’s Office attorney, Mr. McCann.
20. Mr. McCann agreed that it appeared that Executive Undersheriff Buono originally
supported the investigation, but appeared to have unexpectedly reversed himself and later
appeared to strongly disagree with investigating the matter.
21. Mr. McCann agreed that Executive Undersheriff Buono’s behavior was odd and
concerning.
22. Nevertheless, Mr. Lisk was suspended pending a hearing.
23. Towards the end of 2017, a meeting was called by the County for all Department
heads in relation to the budget.
24. At that meeting, the County CFO noted that it was an election year for the County
Executive and therefore there needed to be a zero percent increase in the budget.
25. In order to accomplish this, they decided to rely upon funding from ICE
(Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to partially fund the Sheriff’s Office.
26. At times ICE may request that the Sheriff’s Office house ICE detainees. In return
for doing so, ICE will compensate the Sheriff’s Office.
27. However, there is no guaranteed funding from ICE, and compensation from them
is uncertain at best based upon their needs.
28. Nevertheless, the County wanted to rely upon $7.5 million to be received from
ICE funding.
29. Plaintiff therefore objected to this decision because this caused a serious public
safety and legal concern.
30. Indeed, if the funding (which was entirely dependent upon ICE policy changes,
discretion, number of detainees, and in no way guaranteed by ICE), was eliminated or reduced,
then the Sheriff’s Office’s law enforcement and public safety operations would be underfunded
by approximately 10 percent.
31. Further, historically, the Sheriff’s Office did not use ICE funding for its budget.
All ICE revenue was turned over to the County.
32. Plaintiff therefore reasonably believed that this decision by the County would fail
to comply with the New Jersey Local Budget Law, N.J.S.A. §40A:4-1 et seq. and the standards,
protocols, and promulgations of the Division of Local Government Services.
33. This also did not comply with general accounting standards and principles.
34. Plaintiff made his concerns known to the County Administration on multiple
occasions in an effort to resolve this problem.
35. Plaintiff also wrote a detailed memorandum on December 24, 2017 outlining his
concerns to the Acting Bergen County Administrator and Bergen County counsel, Julien Neals.
36. A copy of Plaintiff’s memorandum is attached hereto and incorporated into this
Complaint.
37. However, Plaintiff’s objections were met with hostility.
38. Indeed Undersheriff Hornyak advised Plaintiff that the County was not happy
with Plaintiff and did not want to see Plaintiff’s name on anything else anytime soon.
39. Upon information and belief, the County’s plan to rely upon the ICE money for
the Sheriff’s Office’s budget went forward.
40. However, no one ever responded to Plaintiff’s objections and Plaintiff was not
included in any further meetings or communications regarding the budget.
41. Meanwhile, given that Mr. Lisk was no longer working at the Sheriff’s Office as
the IT Director, the Sheriff’s Office decided to have the Plaintiff step in for Mr. Lisk and
become the Sheriff’s Office’s Director of Finance and IT.
42. As a result, Defendants would benefit from the reduction of having two salaries
for the two positions (totaling approximately $250,000) and reduce it to one salary of
approximately $140,000, and Plaintiff’s base salary would increase to the $140,000 amount for
taking on additional responsibilities with the IT Department.
43. In November and December of 2017 and into January of 2018, the parties
(specifically including Plaintiff and Defendant’s representative and in-house attorney, Patrick
O’Dea, Esq.) negotiated the terms for the employment contract between the parties.
44. Mr. O’Dea sent Plaintiff the initial draft of the contract and the parties went back
and forth on multiple occasions making suggested revisions to the contract.
45. Mr. O’Dea sent a final version to Plaintiff for review, which Plaintiff agreed to;
and Mr. O’Dea confirmed that that contract was in final version subject to the Sheriff’s
signature.
46. Mr. O’Dea then brought that final version of the contract to the Sheriff for his
review.
47. The parties ultimately agreed to all terms and signed the Employment Contract
(the “Contract”) (with Sheriff Saudino signing on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office) on January 12,
2018.
48. A copy of that contract is attached hereto and is incorporated into this Complaint.
49. Plaintiff thus took over the responsibilities and duties of both Director of Finance
and Director of IT and began working in that capacity beginning in January of 2018.
50. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff went into the Sheriff’s Office (on his day off) in
order to complete some work.
51. Undersheriff Hornyak advised Plaintiff that Executive Undersheriff Buono was
reviewing Plaintiff’s Contract and appeared to be highlighting sections.
52. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff went into Sheriff Saudino’s office to review
paperwork and the Sheriff began yelling at Plaintiff about the Contract.
53. Plaintiff noticed a highlighted version of the contract on the Sheriff’s desk.
54. Sheriff Saudino asserted that he did not like the terms of the Contract (which had
already been in effect for a month at that point).
55. Sheriff Saudino also stated that the County did not like the terms of the Contract.
56. Sheriff Saudino told Plaintiff that he had a decision to make: either they would rip
up the contract and come to new terms, or Plaintiff was fired.
57. Plaintiff was taken aback by the Sheriff’s outburst and responded that the contract
had already been agreed to and signed.
58. The Sheriff responded “then you’re out of a job; understand that – you’re out of a
job and I have the right to fire you. I will not live with this contract.”
59. Plaintiff then confirmed with the Sheriff via email that Plaintiff would not waive
his contractual rights or agree to “rip up” the contract as the Sheriff had suggested and that he
would turn in his keys, ID card, cell phone and laptop the following day based on the Sheriff’s
decision to terminate him.
60. Defendants later asked Plaintiff (through counsel, Mr. O’Dea) again if Plaintiff
would agree to modify the terms of the Contract.
61. However, Plaintiff did not waive any rights under his Contract and subsequently,
Plaintiff was terminated.
62. Plaintiff has requested that Defendants honor the terms of the Contract.
63. However, Defendants have failed and refused to do so.
64. Indeed, Plaintiff has not been paid at the contractually-agreed upon rate at all.
65. As a result Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.
Replies