NJ Supreme Court: Fired Bridgewater dispatcher should get new trial

BRIDGEWATER - The state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a fired Bridgewater police dispatcher should get a new trial on her charge that she was unfairly terminated because a judge did not allow her doctors to testify fully on her medical condition.

In a unanimous opinion, the court agreed that a new jury should decide if Patricia Del Vecchio was the victim of disability discrimination and retaliation when she was dismissed from the police department in 2009.

"It's an excellent decision by the Supreme Court rejecting the Township of Bridgewater's appeal," said Somerville attorney Brian Cige, who represents Del Vecchio. "Ms. Del Vecchio is looking forward to her day in court and receiving vindication and compensation for her violated rights."

"We are obviously disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but are confident that the facts will once again prove there was no wrongdoing on the part of the township," said Township Administrator Jim Naples. "The township attorney is reviewing the decision and will be advising the elected officials."

READ: Fired Bridgewater police dispatcher gets new trial

READ: Bridgewater cop dispatcher suit headed to Supreme Court​

The key issue in Del Vecchio's case is whether now-retired Superior Court Judge John Coyle, who presided over the trial, improperly limited the trial testimony of Del Vecchio’s physicians about her medical condition.

After that 13-day trial, a Somerset County jury rejected Del Vecchio's case and ruled in favor of the township..

But in August 2014, a state appellate court reversed the verdict and ordered a new trial.

Bridgewater then appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court.

Del Vecchio, who began working for the department in 1999, was employed as a dispatcher until February 2008, when she was given the option of either termination or transfer because she refused to work the midnight shift, according to court records.

In February 2004, Del Vecchio had submitted a note to her supervisors from Dr. Gary Ciambotti, her gastroenterologist, saying that she was suffering from health issues and should “try to avoid working the midnight shift” for six months. In all, the doctor wrote 14 notes for Del Vecchio.

Additionally, according to court records, Del Vecchio submitted notes from her family physician, psychiatrist and cardiologist, saying she should be exempted from working the midnight shift.

As a result, she was not required to work the midnight shift in 2006, 2007 or 2008, a situation that the township claimed was causing overtime and morale problems.

She was then transferred to the records department  and was terminated in September 2009 for excessive absenteeism.

Cige argued that Coyle should not have limited Ciambotti’s testimony during the trial to the fact that he had treated DelVecchio for irritable bowel syndrome. After his brief testimony, the jury asked that Ciambotti be asked more questions about the nature of the condition and its treatment.

But Coyle refused the jury’s request, saying that Ciambotti had not been called as an “expert witness” and that his testimony would then be inadmissible.

In the appeal, Cige argued that the judge’s limitation made it impossible for him to show that Del Vecchio fell within the class of people protected by the state's Law Against Discrimination.

The appellate court agreed with Cige, saying that Ciambotti, if allowed to testify fully, would have been subject to cross-examination. The appellate judges wrote that Coyle “did not seem aware” about precedents that showed Cige was entitled to present more extensive testimony from the doctor.

“The judge should have permitted the doctor to testify about causation (of irritable bowel syndrome), diagnosis and progress, not to mention the basic definition of the disease,” the appellate panel ruled.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate panel, saying that Coyle's decision to limit the testimony was "not harmless error."

"(Del Vecchio) was not accorded a fair opportunity to prove she suffered from a disability within the meaning of the Law Against Discrimination," the state Supreme Court wrote, adding that the judge's action constitute a "miscarriage of justice under the law."

Staff Writer Mike Deak: 908-243-6607; mdeak@mycentraljersey.com