By Lev D. Zilbermints
In the previous parts of this article, “Local Talk” showed how Seton Hall University appeared not to follow its own rules, procedures, regulations and even state law, all in order to hide corruption. The reader has read about how one man, Joseph Nyre, President of SHU, tried to stand up for himself, his wife, his employees and the truth. Also, how the governing body of Seton Hall University, the Board of Governors, allegedly refused to investigate Nyre’s complaints. Finally, how Joseph Nyre eventually resigned as President.
This article will focus on important aspects of the lawsuit against Seton Hall University. Later on, this part will focus on the different counts that Joseph Nyre is alleging Seton Hall University has violated. Court papers are the source for this article.
Eight various counts
The lawsuit filed by ex-President Joseph Nyre and his wife contains eight different counts, each covering a separate legal violation. Count One covers “Retaliation In Violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) as it pertains to Plaintiff J. Nyre.
Count Two covers “Retaliation In Violation of Public Policy” as to Plaintiff J. Nyre.
Count Three covers NJLAD – Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment and Disparate Treatment Due to Gender And/Or Sex” as to Plaintiff K. Nyre against Defendant SHU.
Count Four covers “NJLAD Disparate Treatment and Hostile Environment Due to Gender And/Or Sex” as to Plaintiff K. Nyre.
Count Five covers “Violations of the NJLAD – Associational Discrimination” as to Plaintiff J. Nyre.
Count Six covers “NJLAD (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination) – Retaliation Improper Reprisal” as to Plaintiffs J. Nyre and K. Nyre.
Count Seven covers “Breach of Contract” as to Plaintiff J. Nyre.
Count Eight covers “Constructive Termination” as to Plaintiff J. Nyre.
Plaintiffs demand for discovery of insurance coverage. They also demand a trial by jury.
R. Armen McOmber is designated as trial counsel.
Having explained what the different counts in the lawsuit deal with, “Local Talk” will look at the various charges contained within the counts.
It is no exaggeration to say that Counts 1,3 and 5 use up the entire English alphabet to designate the various charges against the defendants. Counts 1, 3 and 5 have 26 charges each, while Count 4 has 22 charges. Count 2 has three charges. Count 7 states facts and demands judgment in the Plaintiff’s favor. All told, the number of alleged violations in the eight-count lawsuit exceeds one hundred.
Description of various charges
According to court papers, “Dr. Joseph Nyre is seeking reinstatement of employment and all benefits; back pay and benefits; front pay and benefits; compensatory damages; consequential damages; reinstatement; punitive damages; prejudgment interest and enhancements to offset negative tax consequences; any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and/or costs, including but not limited to court costs, expert fees and all attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in the prosecution of this suit (including enhancements thereof required to off-set negative tax consequences and/or enhancements under the law; such other relief as may be available pursuant to CEPA and which the Court deems just and equitable.”
Next, Plaintiff J. Nyre demands that the Court order Seton Hall University to completely revise its policies, rules and regulations so as to ensure that SHU is fully compliant with the laws and regulations.
According to court papers, “Plaintiff J. Nyre demands judgment against Defendants for harm suffered in violation of CEPA. These include ordering defendants to take appropriate corrective action to stop and prevent retaliation at the workplace; ordering defendants to take appropriate corrective action to stop and prevent harassment at the workplace; ordering defendants to undergo anti-discrimination training; ordering defendants to undergo workplace civility training; ordering defendants to undergo bystander intervention training; ordering defendants to engage a research organization to assess the effectiveness of their anti-retaliation training; …
“…ordering defendants to engage a research organization to assess the effectiveness of their anti-harassment training; ordering Defendants to engage a research organization to assess the effectiveness of their workplace civility training; ordering Defendants to engage a research organization to assess the effectiveness of their bystander intervention training; ordering defendants to identify an appropriate professional to investigate any further complaints of harassment; ordering Defendants to identify an appropriate professional to investigate any future complaints of retaliation; and such other relief as may be available and to which the Court deems just and equitable.”
Count Two alleges “retaliation in violation of public policy.”
According to court papers, “…Plaintiff J. Nyre reported and complained about Defendants’ unethical, unlawful, and otherwise improper behavior. Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff J. Nyre’s protests and subjected him to retaliation as a result thereof. As a result of Plaintiff J. Nyre’s reports and complaints about the unlawful activities of Defendants, Plaintiff J. Nyre was constructively discharged in violation of the law and public policy.
Whereas, Plaintiff J. Nyre demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants on this Count, together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under the law, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and cost of suit and for such other relief that the Court deems equitable and just.”
Count Three focuses on violations of the NJLAD, or New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Specifically, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and disparaging treatment discrimination due to gender and/or sex. Here, the wife of J. Nyre, Kelli L. Nyre, demands relief and remedy from the Court against Seton Hall University (SHU).
According to court papers, “Plaintiff K. Nyre was subjected to repeated, pervasive, severe and continuing instances of disparate treatment and harassment based on gender/sex. The above described conduct would not have occurred but for Plaintiff K. Nyre’s gender/sex. The harassing and discriminatory conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person and employee believe that the conditions of employment were altered and the working environment was hostile and discriminatory.
As the employer and/or supervisor of Plaintiff K. Nyre , Defendants are vicariously, strictly and/or directly liable to Plaintiff K. Nyre pursuant to the NJLAD, in that the affirmative acts of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation committed by individual Defendants occurred within the scope of their employment; the creation of the hostile work environment was aided by Corporate Defendants in delegating power to Individual Defendants to control the day-to-day working environment; and/or Corporate Defendants were deliberately indifferent, reckless, negligent and/or tacitly approved the discrimination, hostile work environment, and/or retaliation;…
“…and/or Corporate Defendants and Individual Defendants failed to create and/or have in place well-publicized and enforced anti-harassment policies, effective formal and informal complaint structures, training, and/or mechanisms for the same, despite the foreseeability of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation of Plaintiff K. Nyre and by failing to promptly and effectively to stop it.
Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced, and/or attempted to aid, abet, incite, compel and/or coerce Individual Defendants to commit acts and omissions that were in violation of the NJLAD by committing affirmatively harassing, discriminatory, and retaliatory acts towards Plaintiff K. Nyre in violation of the supervisory duty to halt or prevent harassment, retaliation and discrimination rendering Defendant SHU and individual Defendants individually and collectively liable to Plaintiff pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5 – 12(e).
The Individual Defendants and the managers and/or supervisors of Plaintiff K. Nyre aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced, and/or attempted to aid, abet, incite, compel and/or coerce Defendants to commit acts and omissions that were in violation of the NJLAD by committing affirmatively harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory acts toward Plaintiff K. Nyre in violation of their supervisory duty to prevent harassment, retaliation and/or discrimination rendering Defendants individually and collectively liable to Plaintiff K. Nyre pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5 – 12(e).
As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions set forth herein, Plaintiff K. Nyre has sustained damages.
Wherefore, Plaintiff K. Nyre demands judgment in her favor and against Defendants on this Count, together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under the law, punitive damages, emotional distress damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and cost of suit.”
There follows a list of 26 charges of Count Three that are identical to those in Count One.
“Local Talk” found a 2019 article on Seton Hall University’s website, https://www.shu.edu/president/new-president.html. This article spoke in glowing terms about Joseph Nyre, then – President of Iona College. At the time SHU leaders were enthusiastic about having Joseph Nyre become the 21st president of Seton Hall University.
“The Board is overwhelmingly enthusiastic in its selection of Dr. Nyre as Seton Hall’s next president. He is an experienced leader, a bold visionary and possesses an unwavering commitment to our Catholic mission,” said Patrick Murray, Chair of the University’s Board of Regents. “As a highly regarded educator, psychologist and healthcare innovator, Dr. Nyre is the perfect choice to lead Seton Hall into the highest echelon of American Catholic universities.”
The same article stated that Kelli Nyre was married to Joseph Nyre, and had four children. At the time, the Nyres lived in New Rochelle, New York.
Here is what Seton Hall University leaders said about Joseph Nyre when they picked him to be president in mid-2019.
According to SHU website, Dr. Nyre was selected as Seton Hall’s next leader following a national search led by University Regents Kevin Marino, who served as the Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, and Mark Ganton, who served as Vice Chair. The committee included representatives from the University’s Board of Trustees, Board of Regents, priest community, administration and faculty. The committee was assisted by Storbeck/Pimentel Associates, a national search firm that specializes in executive searches in the higher education and nonprofit sectors.
“Dr. Nyre’s distinguished service in academia and health care and his experience in transformational higher education leadership along with his deep Catholic faith will help guide and propel Seton Hall to even greater national prominence,” said Marino.
So, everything was just fine until President Nyre decided to address complaints coming from his wife and additional employees. Apparently, at that point SHU decided Joseph Nyre did not suit them because he did not ignore what powerful people were doing. In other words, Nyre stood up against harassment of female employees by Mr. Marino.
Back to analyzing what the various Counts say about SHU violations of the law, rules, regulations and procedures.
Count 4 has 22 charges, which are mostly identical to those found in Counts 1 and 3. The title of Count 4 is “NJLAD (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination) Disparate And Hostile Environment Discrimination Due to Gender And/Or Sex (as to Plaintiff K. Nyre).
According to court papers, “The NJLAD protects against unlawful discrimination based on gender/sex. Defendants’ actions were in violation of the NJLAD. Plaintiff K. Nyre was subjected to harassment and discrimination by Defendants because of her gender/sex. The harassing and discriminatory conduct by Defendant was severe and Defendants took zero action to address and/or remediate same.
“The Individual Defendants were acting within the scope of their employment with Defendant SHU when they took their aforementioned harassing and discriminatory actions against Plaintiff K. Nyre. Defendants had knowledge or should have had knowledge about the discriminatory treatment and failed to take action reasonably calculated to end such discrimination, creating a hostile environment for Plaintiff Nyre, which had the effect of denying Plaintiff K. Nyre’s accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges.
“Defendants failed to implement effective preventative and remedial measures with respect to the severe harassment and discrimination of Plaintiff K. Nyre.
“Defendants failed to implement effective preventative and remedial measures with respect to the severe harassment and discrimination of Plaintiff K. Nyre.
“Defendants systematically failed to train its employees to such a degree that it amounts to a policy or custom of deliberate indifference.
“The discriminatory conduct would not have occurred but for Plaintiff K. Nyre’s gender/sex, which is a protected characteristic, and was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, which defendants failed to reasonably address.
“As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff K. Nyre continues to suffer from severe emotional distress.”
Marino’s response as published in February 16 issue of the Setonian online newsletter
“Dr. Nyre’s lawsuit, in which I am not a defendant, is rife with false and defamatory statements. I recruited Dr. Nyre to serve as Seton Hall’s President in 2018 and he recruited me to serve as Chairman of the Board of Regents. He and I then worked effectively together for several years before I objected to his gross mishandling of the investigation of an embezzlement scandal at Seton Hall Law School.
“He hired a friend of his to conduct that investigation – a lawyer fired by the Iona University Board of Trustees – and together they made former Law School Dean Boozang a scapegoat of that scandal although she had nothing whatsoever to do with it. When I lodged my objection, Dr. Nyre vowed to have me removed as Chair and proceeded to make a host of false allegations about me to a group of six Regents, centered around the entirely bogus claim that I had a conflict of interest based on my professional relationship with the Dean.”
“In making that claim, Dr. Nyre concealed from those Regents an opinion letter written by the Connell Foley law firm stating, in no uncertain terms, that I had no such conflict. I completed my term as Chair on June 30, 2023, and resigned from the Board in December.
“Dr. Nyre’s wife’s disgraceful claim that I harassed her on two occasions is false in every respect. That never happened, and she knows it. I have provided ample evidence to the EEO Office refuting her baseless accusations, and expect to be fully exonerated when the pending investigation of that claim is resolved.
“Dr. Nyre’s lawsuit is a direct violation of his separation agreement with the University, to which I was not a party, and flatly undermines the statements he made when he left his position. Stated simply, he is attempting to rehabilitate his tarnished reputation and secure another undeserved payout from the University. I am confident that desperate and pathetic attempt will fail.
“I have loved and served Seton Hall for more than forty years, and will love and serve Seton Hall long after Dr. Nyre’s tenure is just a bad memory.”
What happens next is a long lawsuit that might last years. The Boland Hall Fire lawsuits lasted from 2002 to 2007.
