Mr. Savage alleges that, his direct supervisor, David Swerdloff, learned about the hidden camera, seized the device, and instructed Mr. Savage he would “handle” the situation. Instead, Swerdloff later told coworkers he “accidentally smashed the camera and, in a state of panic, hurled the device from his car off the Garden State Parkway overpass” Subsequently, Mr. Savage reported the matter via TriNet’s internal hotlines. This suit alleges that, rather than fully investigate the matter to prevent additional irreparable harm, the company was more concerned about “keeping the matter quiet.” Mr. Savage further claims Defendant TriNet failed to notify the authorities; failed to alert or warn employees of what occurred; failed to take steps to preserve data and documents relating to the incident; failed to conduct a proper investigation; and failed to implement at remedial plan actually designed to bring justice to those harmed or to ensure such conduct would not be tolerated.
In addition, the lawsuit explains that the company quietly terminated Defendant Swerdloff and lied to employees about the true reason for doing so and leaving employees in the dark about the hidden camera. Furthermore, Mr. Savage claims he was instructed to keep the incident confidential and that the company failed to prevent Defendant Swerdloff and his cohorts from retaliating, despite his complaints of retaliation. Mr. Savage alleges the company instead turned the tables on him, subjecting him to a sham investigation into his conduct and engaging in an orchestrated, retaliatory effort to force his resignation or set up an otherwise unlawful termination of his employment.
The lawsuit, which was filed in Monmouth County Superior Court on behalf of Plaintiff, Jayson Savage, alleges violations of, among other things, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Conscientious Employee Protection act. Mr. Savage seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Quote From Matthew A. Luber, Esq. and Meghan A. Clearie, Esq.
“This matter involves an egregious and shocking invasion of privacy. Public exposure of this case is critical because, as alleged in the complaint, the company was more concerned with muzzling its employees than learning the truth.” – Matthew A. Luber, Esq. and Meghan A. Clearie, Esq.