9
   

Tortious interferance with regard to employment.

 
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 07:39 am
I am currently an elected official in my community, ( councilmember)
I am also employed by the Board of Education as an administrator. I have held these positions in common for 8 0f the last 14 years. The board attorney, the municipal attorney have opined that no conflict exists. NJ supreme Court case law supports their opinions. There has never been a nconflict of interest complaint nor any ethics issues.
I am the subject of a re-call petition as a council member. The recall "committee has accused me of having a cinflict of interest in print but has taken no action to formalize their accusations.
Secondly, this committee has visited my direct superior and the superintendent of schools and charged that I use school printing facilitys to provide free printing to local community groups so as to curry political support. They have also accused me of making donations of public funds to again curry political favor. I have been accused, to the superintendent, of running my own printing business for personal gain.
Over the past several monthes I have used many hours of mine and employee time to explain our procedures and produce work orders, invoices, copies of checks and memos . The Superintendent, the Board of Education and even the County Superintendent's office have found no wrong doing at any level.

These people have deliberetley set out to destroy my reputation, with my employer, the community and the organizations with whom we work for the
good og the community.
Most importantly they through their false allegations, printed statements and other actions have tried to have me terminated at my place of employment. They have affected my working relationships, my health, the commity of my family.
My question is based on my comments above do the above actions of the "re-call committee constitute tortious interferance with my ability to earn a living at my place of employment?
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 07:48 am
@Joseph Tedeschi,
probably not.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 07:57 am
@Joseph Tedeschi,
I'd be interested in hearing their side of the story as well. Are you leaving anything out?

You've said 2 lawyers have determined your actions posed no conflict of interest, why not ask them if you have a case for damages as you've asked here?
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 08:10 am
@Joseph Tedeschi,
Not to be smug, but it sounds like politics as usual where I'm from. Someone has an axe to grind. It may be politically motivated or personally motivated, but my guess is there's something else triggering this attempt to get at you in any way possible.

Public officials and public employees (you are both) are always under special scrutiny and should expect these kinds of investigations -- particularly when they've ruffled some feathers. You say that the investigations have come up empty in terms of finding any wrong-doings. Good. Hang your hat on that and don't take it personally.

Quote:
These people have deliberetley set out to destroy my reputation, with my employer, the community and the organizations with whom we work for the good og the community.


You seem to have forgotten that your employer and your community represent the same people -- the taxpayers. Anyone double-dipping into both taxpayer pockets should expect (and welcome) extra scrutiny. The members of the "recall committee" are also taxpayers exercising their rights to waste other taxpayer's money. Again, they've found nothing. Hold your head high and move on.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:25 am
@Joseph Tedeschi,
Joseph Tedeschi wrote:
My question is based on my comments above do the above actions of the "re-call committee constitute tortious interferance with my ability to earn a living at my place of employment?

I've never run into this type of situation before, but I believe that an elected politician can never allege tortious interference with an employment contract, primarily because, as a public official, you're not an employee. You may, however, have a cause of action for the alleged interference in your job as an administrator with the board of education.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:33 am
@Gala,
Gala wrote:

I'd be interested in hearing their side of the story as well.


http://www.joemustgo.net/Documents.htm
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:37 am
@ehBeth,
Looks like the citizens of Fair Lawn, NJ have a lot of free time on their hands.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:38 am
@ehBeth,
good work super-sleuth.

What an interesting web of disputes.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:41 am
@ehBeth,
Say what? Is this parody? satire?
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:55 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Looks like the citizens of Fair Lawn, NJ have a lot of free time on their hands.


Yup. And someone there has a lot of e-savvy in setting up a site like theirs.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:58 am
@Gala,
Gala wrote:

Say what? Is this parody? satire?


nope. an easy google
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 12:22 pm
@ehBeth,
I don't understand why these people don't just elect someone else next time around. I don't see anything that warrants a recall. Apparently, the Borough Manager was fired after some allegations of wrong doing and his supporters are not happy with those doing the firing.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 12:23 pm
@Joseph Tedeschi,
Joseph-- The links they've provided have some straight forward information. How do you dispute using John Corzine's name without his authority? That's just to start...
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 12:40 pm
@Gala,
If the matter(s) at issue are sub judice, Joseph is doing himself no favor by arguing points on the internet instead of in the courts. But the item mentioned by Gala >
http://www.joemustgo.net/Assets/Ganz%20&%20Caan%20Suit%20doc.pdf
> is dated 6/29/2005. Even if it constituted tortious interference then, is it still construed as such - or do the New Jersey courts have such backlogs the case is still unresolved? What does Joseph's counsel say? Note to Joseph: twice you wrote "interference" with "a", it just won't look good on legal documents; and you want to check your usage of "comity". Good luck, I gather you're really a fellow Republican - can't be easy in NJ Smile
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:16 pm
@High Seas,
If this 2005 incident mattered to voters, wouldn't they have tossed him at the ballot box by now? I wonder what the term of office is there.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:20 pm
@engineer,
Answered my own question.

Quote:
Fair Lawn operates under a Council-Manager (Plan E of the Faulkner Act) form of New Jersey municipal government by a five-member Borough Council. Members of the Borough Council serve four-year terms in office, and are elected in partisan elections in odd-numbered years on a staggered basis, with two or three seats coming up for election every other year. All policy making power is concentrated in the council. The mayor is selected at a reorganization meeting held after each election by the council from among its members, and presides over its meetings with no separate policy-making power. The manager is appointed by the council to serve as the municipal chief executive and administrative official.[1]


Our new A2K friend is up for re-election in 2011, so the voters in 2007 must have been ok with his 2005 infractions.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:21 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Q. - Why recall Councilman Joseph Tedeschi NOW instead of waiting until 2011 when he’s up for re-election?
A. " Fair Lawn cannot afford two more years of Joe Tedeschi. The committee has moved forward with a recall at this time so that petitions can be signed and certified in time for the 2009 General Election. Having the recall as part of the general election will save Fair Lawn residents the extra cost of a special election.


http://www.joemustgo.net/Q&A.htm

http://www.joemustgo.net/index.htm

engineer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:43 pm
@ehBeth,
Sounds weak to me. Just about any politician will find a significant part of his constituency doesn't approve of the job he is doing. That is what re-elections are for. I'm surprised this group isn't after the mayor as well since this was all instigated by the firing of the borough manager.
0 Replies
 
czar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:44 am
@Joseph Tedeschi,
wow this almost seems surreal. what does this petition they are making do exactly? When your council job requires you to deal with your regular job do you excuse yourself from the conversation and vice versa. I would almost give up one or the other just for your own sanity. Is it worth it. I say that since I have never wanted to be in the public eye and have people talk about me. I do my job and then enjoy my family. Good luck, sounds like you need it
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Tortious interferance with regard to employment.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 08:55:18