NANCE, et al v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al
Filing
326
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/7/16. (DD, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DARREN NANCE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: 97-6184 (JLL)
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?