Ex-Brick schools chief whistleblower suit tossed out by judge

Eight-minute read

FREEHOLD – A Superior Court judge last week threw out a 6-year-old whistleblower lawsuit brought by former Brick schools superintendent Walter Uszenski and his family against the Brick Board of Education stemming from his 2015 arrest and subsequent ouster.

In an oral opinion rendered on June 24, Superior Court Judge Owen C. McCarthy said the Brick school board’s suspension of Uszenski and its ultimate decision not to renew his employment contract was not in retaliation for any of his whistleblowing activities, which included complaining about an alleged no-show job held by a former state senator’s sister and exposing a $750,000 budget deficit.

Rather, the Brick school board had no choice but to take action against Uszenski, now 71 and living in Vero Beach, Florida, after it was notified by the state Board of Education that the superintendent’s arrest disqualified him from school employment, McCarthy said.

The judge further stated it was the decision of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office alone to charge Uszenski and his daughter in a misconduct case that alleged a conspiracy to obtain unlawful preferential treatment for Uszenski’s grandson.

Brick news: Two women plead guilty to animal cruelty for hoarding more than 170 dogs and cats

“Further, the temporal proximity demonstrates that there is at least a two-year gap between the alleged whistleblowing activities and the purported adverse employment action taken by the Brick Board of Education,” the judge said.

Neil Mullin, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Uszenski and Uszenski’s daughter and grandson, vowed to appeal.

“We will appeal to the Appellate Division and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of New Jersey,” Mullin said in a telephone interview Friday. “We believe that the judge made a legal error in his decision and we look forward to reversing that error and having a jury trial.”

Attempts to reach representatives of the school board for comment were not immediately successful.

Claims of a plot in a dark parking lot

The case has had a long and tortuous history since it was filed in 2018.

The lawsuit claimed criminal charges against Uzenski and his daughter, Jacqueline Halsey, were fabricated in a plot hatched in a dark parking lot after an Ocean County Republican Club meeting to retaliate for Uszenski’s whistleblowing activities.

The suit alleged Uszenski was retaliated against by Republican-leaning school board members for exposing what he claimed was a $140,000-a-year no-show job held by Darlene Ciesla, the sister of former Republican state senator Andrew Ciesla. Darlene Ciesla, a decades-long employee of the Brick school system who is now retired, and her brother both vehemently denied the allegation that she held a no-show job.

The lawsuit also claimed the criminal charges were payback for Uszenski’s demotion of another school official he blamed for a $750,000 budget shortfall.

Brick news: Crowd opposes plan to rent Sunday school to Liberty School Association

The suit originally named numerous defendants in addition to the Brick Board of Education, including individual school board members serving at the time in question, various school officials, former Brick Mayor John Ducey, who is now a Superior Court judge, and officials and staff serving in the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office during its prosecution of the Uszenski criminal case. They were all previously eliminated as defendants through a series of legal motions and rulings, leaving the Brick Board of Education as the only remaining defendant.

McCarthy, in his oral ruling, noted the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office had done nothing illegal, even though a judge in Ocean County threw out the criminal charges against Uszenski and his codefendants in 2017.

Then-Superior Court Judge Patricia B. Roe, now retired, dismissed the second indictment in the criminal case, saying the state intentionally withheld exculpatory information from the second grand jury that indicted the defendants. The exculpatory evidence showed Uszenski’s grandson had special needs that qualified him for some of the services prosecutors alleged he wasn’t entitled to, Roe said at the time.

McCarthy, however, noted that a third grand jury handed up a subsequent indictment against Uszenski and his codefendants.

“For the final indictment, the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office took testimony from numerous witnesses and presented the grand jury with multiple exhibits,” McCarthy said.

“While the defendants stress the comments of former Judge Roe regarding the conduct of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, another judge seated in Ocean County has determined that there was nothing illegal or illegal by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office’s handling of the case and that the conduct of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office and employees, as a matter of law, did not give rise to civil liability,” McCarthy said.

Brick news: Pickpockets plagued shoppers with distraction scheme, clothing changes, cops say

No guilt admitted

Uszenski, who formerly lived in Manasquan, resolved the criminal case against him in 2019 by entering the court’s pretrial intervention program, in which no guilt is admitted and charges are ultimately dismissed. At that time, the prosecutor’s office dropped the misconduct and theft charges against Halsey, who is now 45 and living in Pennsylvania.

The father and daughter had been accused of plotting to get taxpayer-funded full-time daycare and transportation for Halsey’s son, to which the child was not entitled.

McCarthy noted Uszenski was hired by the Brick school system as its superintendent in 2012 and given a four-year contract through June 30, 2016.

In October 2012, Uszenski raised concerns about a $750,000 shortfall in the special-education budget, for which he blamed Donna Stump, who had been the district’s director of special services, the judge noted. Uszenski later raised “non-compliance issues” within the special education department in 2012 through early 2013 and accused Darlene Ciesla of failing to perform her job, which led to her resignation in May 2013, McCarthy noted. He also demoted Stump in May of 2013, the judge said.

Brick news: Icarus Brewing to open new location with tasting room, outdoor beer garden and more

“In June 2013, after the alleged whistleblowing activity, the Brick Board of Education enters into a new contract for Uszenski to be a superintendent for a longer term — five years — from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2018,” McCarthy said.

“Uszenski was evaluated by (then-)Brick Board of Education President Sharon J. Contillo for the year 2013, given outstanding reviews and noted to be exceeding the expectation of the Brick Board of Education,” the judge noted.

Not until Uszenski’s arrest in 2015 did the board take any adverse action against him, McCarthy said.

“Uszenski’s arrest disqualified him from employment as the superintendent at any public school in New Jersey,” the judge said.

Uszenski remained under suspension while the criminal case against him was pending, and the school board didn’t renew his contract upon its expiration.

“At no time prior to being charged by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office and his arrest had the Brick Board of Education taken any adverse action against plaintiffs,” McCarthy said.

“The evidence demonstrates the Brick Board of Education did not in any way act or consort or engage in any conspiracy with the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office,” he added.

Brick news: TGI Fridays closes Brick restaurant. Why are casual-dining chains shrinking?

Nor can the school board be held responsible for actions by Stump, outside the scope of her employment and undertaken in her personal time, the judge ruled.

Uszenski’s lawsuit claimed that in a dark parking lot following an Ocean County Republican Club meeting, Stump’s husband circulated a slanderous dossier — created by his wife following her demotion — falsely claiming that Uszenski knowingly hired an ex-convict to work in the school system.

“The press release was created on Donna Stump’s personal computer and distributed on her own personal time, including at a local Republican club event,” McCarthy said.

“These actions were not taken at the request of the Brick Board of Education and did not afford any benefit to the Brick Board of Education,” he said.

“The court is concerned about the chilling effect (of) the potentially limitless liability of holding public entities liable for the conduct of their employees in their personal lives and while engaging in political activity,” McCarthy said.

Donna Stump was one of the previously named defendants who had been removed from the lawsuit.

The judge noted it was Ducey, while serving as mayor of Brick, and not any member or employee of the school board, who went to the prosecutor’s office with suspicions that Uszenski’s grandson was receiving special bussing services, which is what sparked the criminal case.

“There is no evidence that any Brick Board of Education member or employee went to the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office and complained about the plaintiffs and the busing of the grandchild,” McCarthy said.

Kathleen Hopkins, a reporter in New Jersey since 1985, covers crime, court cases, legal issues and just about every major murder trial to hit Monmouth and Ocean counties. Contact her at [email protected].