RAMP & PISANI, LLP

60 Westervelt Avenue

P.O. Box 249

Tenafly, New Jersey 07670

201-567-8877

fred@rampandpisani.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_________________________________________

DEBORAH EHLING,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2-11-CV-03305 (WJM)

v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

JURY DEMAND

MONMOUTH-OCEAN HOSPITAL SERVICE

CORP, d/b/a MONOC, VINCENT ROBBINS,

individually, AND STACY QUAGLIANA,

individually, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________

Plaintiff, Deborah Ehling (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Ehling”), residing at 1009 

Gap View Hollow, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, through her attorneys, Ramp & Pisani, LLP,

complaining of the defendants, says:

JURISDICTION

This action arises under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), 18 

U.S.C. 2701, et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq., 

together with various ancillary state law claims. The court has jurisdiction of this matter 

under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1332, as well as pendent jurisdiction over the state law 

claims.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 79
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. Defendant, Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (hereinafter referred to as 

“MONOC”), is a non- profit hospital service corporation dedicated to providing emergency 

medical services to the citizens of the State of New Jersey. MONOC is a non-profit member 

owned corporation authorized to transact business in the State of New Jersey. MONOC has 

facilities located throughout the State of New Jersey with administrative headquarters located 

at 4806 Megill Road, Wall, New Jersey.

2. Defendant, Vincent Robbins (“Robbins”), was at all relevant times herein, the 

President and CEO of MONOC. Plaintiff reports indirectly to Robbins. All of the improper, 

retaliatory, and illegal acts contained herein stem from the decisions of Robbins, many of 

which, upon information and belief, were authorized, approved and ratified by Robbins and 

MONOC.

3. Defendant, Stacy Quagliana (hereinafter referred to as “Quagliana”), was at all 

times relevant herein, an individual employed by MONOC, as Executive Director of 

Administration, and who acting within the course and scope of her employment with 

MONOC, directly engaged in and participated in the retaliatory and wrongful acts that 

resulted in damages being sustained by Ms. Ehling as referred to herein.

4. In 2004, MONOC hired Ms. Ehling as a registered nurse and paramedic. 

5. From 2004 until July 2008, Ms. Ehling had an exemplary employment record. Her 

work performance met or exceeded MONOC’s reasonable expectations of their employees.

6. In July of 2008, Ms. Ehling took over as acting president of the local union for

PEMSA-NJ. This union was chartered in June 2007. The union represents 540 EMT’s, 

paramedics and RN’s that work for MONOC.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 of 24 PageID: 80
7. MONOC maintains a written disciplinary policy and procedure. Pursuant to the 

policy, if an employee accumulates ten (10) or more active units their employment will be 

terminated. An employee accumulates units if they deviate from MONOC’s policies, 

procedures, applicable standards of care, and/or have employment performance issues.

8. As President, Ms. Ehling has been very proactive in attempting to protect the rights 

and safety of her union members. In her first year as president, she filed numerous 

complaints and charges against MONOC with various state and federal agencies, including 

but not limited to the US Department of Labor and OSHA. The charges involved serious 

safety, operational, and personnel issues, which she reasonably believed, were affecting the 

integrity and continuity of the emergency medical services provided to MONOC’s patients 

and the safety, health and welfare of the employees providing those services.

9. On May 18, 2009, the US Department of Labor cited MONOC for a variety of 

safety violations under federal law. The Department of Labor assessed MONOC thousands of 

dollars in fines and penalties. 

10. In the spring of 2009, some current and/or former MONOC employees filed a 

discrimination lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County: Law 

Division. The caption of that case is Sherrie Labarre, et al. v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital 

Service Corp., et al., bearing Docket Number L-1259-09. On or about June 5, 2009, Ms. 

Ehling testified at a deposition on behalf of one of the plaintiffs named in the discrimination

lawsuit.

11. During this timeframe, and during her private time off from work, Ms. Ehling 

maintained an account on Facebook. Facebook is a social networking site. In order to view 

Ms. Ehling’s Facebook postings, she must invite you as a friend. If you are not invited as a 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 3 of 24 PageID: 81
friend, you cannot access and view her Facebook postings. Many of her coworkers were 

invited as friends to participate with Ms. Ehling on Facebook. She did not invite any 

members of management as friends.

12. As of June 2009, Ms. Ehling had made many Facebook postings. Those postings

involved protected communications regarding the terms and conditions of employment and 

ongoing labor disputes with MONOC. She also posted her opinion regarding the unfortunate 

and tragic shooting, which took place at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.

13. On or about June 15, 2009, Ms. Ehling was suspended with pay due to her 

Facebook postings. The suspension with pay has become part of her permanent employment 

record. She allegedly violated the MONOC employee behavior policy. 

14. Other similarly situated employees, who have allegedly violated MONOC’s

employee behavior policy, however, have not been suspended with pay. In fact, no adverse 

employment action has been taken against them. 

15. She was suspended with pay pending a psychiatric evaluation. She had to travel 

for the psychiatric evaluation.

16. Other similarly situated employees, who allegedly violated MONOC’s employee 

behavior policy, were not subject to the invasiveness of a psychiatric evaluation.

17. Having to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, emotionally devastated, embarrassed

and humiliated Ms. Ehling. It caused her great severe stress and anxiety.

18. MONOC prepared and placed not one, but two memos in Ms. Ehling’s personnel 

file regarding the Facebook suspension. The first memo to file specifically stated 

“...management received copies of postings from a social networking site. When asked about 

these comments, you admitted that the statements that were in MONOC’s possession were, in 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 4 of 24 PageID: 82
fact, made by you.” The second and edited memo to file on the same subject removed 

reference that management was in possession of copies of the postings from the social 

networking site and instead said “...you made a posting on a social networking site that was 

considered inappropriate.”

19. A couple of days after going through the psychiatric evaluation, Ms. Ehling was 

“cleared” to return to work. She returned to work on or about July 3, 2009.

20. Subsequently, Ms. Ehling learned how MONOC gained access to her Facebook 

account. A member of upper management summoned a MONOC employee, who was also 

one of Ms. Ehling’s Facebook friends, into his office at the workplace. He was the 

employee’s supervisor. The supervisor coerced, strong-armed and/or threatened this 

employee into accessing his Facebook account on the work computer in the supervisor’s 

presence. The supervisor proceeded to view the postings on this employee’s Facebook 

account, as well as others, including Ms. Ehling’s. He made copies of the postings. The 

employee, who was already on probation, provided access to his Facebook account because 

he reasonably believed that further adverse employment action, would be taken against him if 

he did not.

21. In early August 2009, MONOC filed a complaint against Ms. Ehling with the 

New Jersey Board of Nursing. MONOC knew that the filing of this complaint was frivolous 

and without merit. It was done maliciously and solely to attack Ms. Ehling in an attempt to 

damage her reputation, employment opportunities, and to potentially risk her losing her 

nursing license. Defendants filed this complaint after they were in receipt of the written 

psychiatric evaluation report of Ms. Ehling, which cleared her to return to work.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 5 of 24 PageID: 83
22. During the same timeframe, MONOC also filed a complaint against Ms. Ehling 

with the New Jersey Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, 

attempting to affect her paramedic certification status. This complaint was filed with the 

same intent that they filed the Board of Nursing complaint referenced above.

23. These complaints are now a matter of public record. Based upon information and 

belief, the Office of Emergency Medical Services complaint is still unresolved and pending 

against Ms. Ehling, although there is no basis in law or fact, for them.

 On August 16, 2011, Ms. Ehling was served with a subpoena by the State of New 

Jersey to appear before a committee of the New Jersey State Board of Nursing on September 

19, 2011, to give testimony relating to her nursing practice, including her present and past 

employment, and including events that led to her suspension with pay from MONOC in June 

of 2009. This subpoena was issued more than two years after the suspension, but only weeks 

after MONOC was served with the original complaint.

24. Since she became president of the union and/or testified in the discrimination 

lawsuit, Ms. Ehling has allegedly accumulated seven (7) disciplinary units under MONOC’s

disciplinary procedure and policy. These alleged violations had no basis in fact. Similarly 

situated employees who engaged in the same conduct were not issued any units under the 

MONOC disciplinary policy. 

25. On May 28, 2010, at approximately 5:30 a.m., near the completion of a long, 

double shift, Ms. Ehling developed a crushing migraine headache, accompanied with nausea 

and light-headedness. 

26. MONOC already had FMLA paperwork on file covering this condition. Ms. 

Ehling also had available PTO (Paid Time Off) in her bank, which could be applied to this

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 6 of 24 PageID: 84
situation. Due to her sudden illness while on the job, Ms. Ehling intended to go out-ofservice. She did not want to risk any harm or injury to patients, her coworkers or herself. 

27. Defendant, Quagliana, the Executive Director of Administration, had this incident 

investigated by upper management. On June 8, 2010, she issued a written reprimand to Ms. 

Ehling claiming that Ms. Ehling “refused a 9-1-1 assignment in Irvington”, that she did not 

have the required FMLA paperwork for this condition on file, that her paperwork expired and 

needed to be renewed, that Ms. Ehling was allegedly lethargic and/or suffering from a 

medical condition which made it unable for her to perform one or more of her essential 

functions, that she should go to her healthcare provider to determine if she would be able to 

perform her job safely, that this information should be clarified in a medical certificate, and 

that if it was not provided, she would not be scheduled for a double shift until MONOC 

received a medical clearance certificate.

28. Other similarly situated employees, who became ill during a 12 hour or more 

shift, were not subjected to a written reprimand, were not threatened with an interference of

their FMLA rights, or an attempt to deny the exercise of those rights, were not required to pay 

to be seen by a healthcare provider, were not required to secure a medical clearance certificate 

or threatened with a loss of work hours. Rather, pursuant to MONOC policy, they were 

permitted to and did, in fact, apply their available PTO to the illness, which caused them to 

leave work early.

29. Almost a year later, on May 8, 2011, Ms. Ehling became ill near the end of her 

shift. Due to her illness, she was required to go out-of-service. Based upon what Ms. 

Quagliana had recommended to her in writing a year before, she indicated to the Control 

Center that she was going out-of-service for FMLA reasons. 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 7 of 24 PageID: 85
30. In a letter, dated May 20, 2011, Quagliana challenged the veracity of Ms. Ehling’s 

illness, even though it had been over a year since the last time she became ill during a work 

shift. Quagliana demanded clarification of her FMLA condition, demanded that Ms. Ehling’s 

healthcare provider review her job description and complete a medical certification as it 

pertained to her current condition, gave her a certain period of time to have the information 

supplied, and threatened her that if she did not get the information in, that she would be 

subject to disciplinary process and/or termination for allegedly abandoning her position by 

virtue of her failure to appear for work or haven taken unauthorized days off.

31. Ms. Ehling had available PTO for this situation. Other similarly situated 

employees are permitted to apply their available PTO and not have their FMLA status 

questioned and threatened by Quagliana.

32. Since the Quagliana memo, Ms. Ehling has received two additional “memos to 

file” regarding becoming ill on the job on May 8, 2011.

33. In the summer of 2010, Ms. Ehling, on behalf of the union, filed complaints 

against MONOC alleging that their paramedics were becoming sick on the job because they 

were exposed to misted pesticides MONOC was using to clean their ambulances.

34. Between July and October 2010, the NJDEP warned MONOC about the use of the 

misted pesticides.

35. On January 4, 2011, the Federal EPA ordered MONOC to stop using the micro 

mist system that sprays a sub-micron fog of anti-microbial chemicals inside ambulances. The 

EPA validated the union and Ms. Ehling’s complaints that MONOC EMT’s, paramedics and 

RNs were being sickened on the job by exposure to unlawfully applied pesticides. 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 8 of 24 PageID: 86
36. A month later, Ms. Ehling was assessed two units under the disciplinary policy 

and procedure for allegedly being late to start a shift. A dangerous snowstorm caused her and 

others to be late for the start of their shift. Other situated similar employees did not receive 

any type of disciplinary action for starting a shift late, especially if the weather conditions 

were hazardous.

37. In April 2011, Ms. Ehling, on behalf of the union, filed charges against MONOC

with the NLRB claiming that MONOC is prohibiting the employees from engaging in union 

activities and that they are refusing to bargain for a new collective bargaining agreement in 

good faith. 

38. On or about May 4, 2011, a memo to file was issued against Ms. Ehling for 

allegedly violating MONOC policy for failing to submit a vehicle check sheet. When Ms. 

Ehling objected to this memo to file, MONOC’s Senior Vice President, COO, queried what 

vehicle check sheet requirement? In an email, dated May 23, 2011, however, this same 

Senior Vice President, COO, wrote to Ms. Ehling advising her that the vehicle check sheets 

had been located and that the memo to file in her personnel file had been removed.

39. Ever since Ms. Ehling became president and since she testified under oath at a 

deposition regarding a co-employee’s discrimination claim, the defendants have engaged in a 

systematic pattern of retaliatory actions against Ms. Ehling which have created a hostile and 

intimidating work environment which have drastically altered the terms and conditions of Ms. 

Ehling’s employment.

40. In addition to the actions specified above, Ms. Ehling has requested and been 

improperly denied a work shift schedule change. Other similarly situated employees are 

readily allowed to request and receive work shift schedule changes. Even other employees 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 9 of 24 PageID: 87
who deal with more emergent care than Ms. Ehling have requested and have received work 

shift scheduling changes.

41. On June 8, 2011, Ms. Ehling filed a multi-count complaint against the defendants 

alleging a violation of various federal and state statutes.

42. On July 7, 2011, defendants threatened to take disciplinary action against Ms. 

Ehling because she was performing her required and mandated duties as union president.

43. Defendants willfully and improperly denied Ms. Ehling’s two requests for PTO, 

which included a prepaid seminar and hotel reservation made months before. 

44. On July 15, 2011, Defendants issued Ms. Ehling another Notice of Employee 

Action for allegedly losing and not reporting a misplaced unit BLS bag. She was assessed two 

(2) additional disciplinary units and a two (2) day suspension was imposed and then stayed. 

She explained in writing that the bag was not lost and that it had been reported, but defendants 

have not vacated the suspension and/or removed the disciplinary notice from her record.

45. In July 2011, defendants have willfully failed to pay Ms.Ehling all of the wages 

she is owed. The shortfall includes both her standard and overtime wages.

46. On July 28, 2011, Ms. Ehling was summoned into a meeting with defendants’ 

North Director. The Director advised her that her employment was being terminated effective 

immediately allegedly because she had accumulated too many disciplinary units. 

47. At the time of this conversation, Ms. Ehling’s “accumulated” disciplinary units 

had not exceeded the amount, which could result in termination under defendants’ written 

disciplinary policy. The Director advised her that she was being written up and would receive 

another Notice of Employee Action for alleged lateness and that this latest notice would 

subject her to termination for the accumulation of too many disciplinary units. 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 10 of 24 PageID: 88
48. The Director told her that she would subsequently be receiving the written 

termination notice and that the termination was stayed because of defendants’ nurse shortage.

49. Notwithstanding the notice of termination, Ms. Ehling worked her previously 

scheduled weekend hours. On August 2, 2011, the North Director emailed Ms. Ehling a 

Notice of Employee Action, which assessed Ms. Ehling 4 disciplinary units for alleged 

lateness, allegedly bringing her total of disciplinary units to 12. Action taken: Termination 

(stayed). The Notice was dated July 22, 2011. Ms. Ehling disputes the lateness charge.

50. Other situated similar employees did not receive any type of disciplinary action for 

alleged lateness and/or loss of equipment.

51. Other situated similar employees were not terminated prior to receiving a written 

Notice of Employee Action, which if upheld, would provide defendants grounds for 

termination under their written policy for an over accumulation of disciplinary units.

52. Defendants’ actions have resulted in Ms. Ehling sustaining a loss of status, a 

clouding of her job responsibilities and duty, a diminution in her authority, and have limited, 

segregated, or classified her in a way to deprive her of employment opportunities.

53. Defendants’ actions have caused Ms. Ehling to suffer physical and emotional 

distress. The distress has manifested itself with headaches, loss of sleep, depression, stress, 

anxiety, physical injury, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and a loss of personal 

dignity, as well as economic loss, including but not limited to back and future lost wages.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 11 of 24 PageID: 89
FIRST COUNT

(VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 2701, et. seq.)

54. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts as if same were set forth at length herein.

55. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, defendants violated the 

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 2701, et. seq., by accessing without permission, and/or improperly 

monitoring the electronic communications being stored on the plaintiff’s Facebook account.

56. Defendants used the improperly accessed and monitored electronic 

communications to take adverse employment action(s) against plaintiff.

57. As a result, plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2707.

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees.

E. For an order requiring defendants to remove and/or expunge the two memos to file 

regarding the Facebook matter from plaintiff’s permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 12 of 24 PageID: 90
SECOND COUNT

(VIOLATION OF NJSA 156A-27, et. seq.)

58. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts and the First Count as if same were set forth at length 

herein.

59. As a result of defendants conduct described above, defendants have violated the 

provisions of NJSA 2A:156A-27, et. seq. by accessing without permission and improperly 

monitoring the electronic communications being stored on the plaintiff’s Facebook account.

60. Defendants used the improperly accessed and monitored electronic 

communications to take adverse employment action(s) against the plaintiff.

61. As a result, the plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages pursuant to NJSA 2A:156A-32.

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees.

E. For an order requiring defendants to remove and/or expunge the two memos to file 

regarding the Facebook matter from plaintiff’s permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 13 of 24 PageID: 91
THIRD COUNT

(VIOLATION OF FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et. seq.)

62. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count and Second Count as if same were set 

forth at length herein.

63. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, defendants have violated the 

provisions of 26 U.S.C. 2601 et. seq., by interfering with, restraining or denying the exercise 

or attempts to exercise plaintiff’s rights under the Act.

64. Defendants have retaliated against plaintiff for taking leave or engaging in activity 

protected by the Act. Defendants have engaged in a pattern of retaliatory actions in violation 

of this Act culminating in plaintiff’s termination on July 28, 2011.

65. As a result, plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages, including any and all damages, attorney fees and costs 

available under 29 U.S.C. 2617.

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees.

E. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 14 of 24 PageID: 92
FOURTH COUNT

(VIOLATION OF LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION NJSA 10:5-12, et seq.)

66. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count, Second Count and Third Count, as if 

same were set forth at length herein.

67. As a result of defendants conduct described above, defendants have violated the 

provisions of NJSA 10:5-12d which prohibit reprisals against individuals who engage in 

protected activity under the Act and, specifically in this case, protect the plaintiff against 

reprisals because she has opposed any practices or acts forbidden under the Act and testified 

or assisted in any proceeding under the Act. Plaintiff gave a deposition on behalf of a former 

co-worker who had filed a discrimination lawsuit against MONOC.

68. As a result, defendants engage in a pattern of retaliatory actions against the 

plaintiff in violation of the Act.

69. As a result, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain adverse employment 

action(s).

70. As a result, the plaintiff has been damaged.

71. Defendants retaliatory and discriminatory acts perpetuated against plaintiff were 

malicious, willful and wanton and justify any award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 15 of 24 PageID: 93
C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant to the fee shifting 

provisions of the LAD NJSA 10:5-12, et seq.

E. For an order requiring defendants to purge all of plaintiff’s accumulated 

disciplinary units from her permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

FIFTH COUNT

(VIOLATION OF CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT, “CEPA” 

NJSA 34:19-1 et. seq.)

72. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count, Second Count, Third Count and Fourth 

Count, as if same were set forth at length herein.

73. The complaint filed by the plaintiff, on behalf of the union, with regard to the 

defendants’ use of pesticides in the cleaning of their ambulances, which resulted in the EPA 

ordering the defendants to stop using these pesticides, is protected by the New Jersey 

Conscientious Employee Protection Act (NJSA 34:19-1 et. seq.)

74. Defendants, with malice or willful or wanton disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, 

have taken the aforementioned retaliatory action(s) against the plaintiff in violation of NJSA 

34:19-3 et. seq.

75. As a direct and proximate result of defendants knowing violation of plaintiff’s 

rights under CEPA, plaintiff has sustained severe emotional distress, physical injury, 

humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, loss of personal dignity, and economic loss.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 16 of 24 PageID: 94
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages pursuant to NJSA 34:19-1, et. seq.

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant to the fee shifting 

provisions of CEPA NJSA 34:19-1, et seq.

E. For an order requiring defendants to purge all of plaintiff’s accumulated 

disciplinary units from her permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

SIXTH COUNT

(INVASION OF PRIVACY)

76. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count, Second Count, Third Count, Fourth 

Count, and Fifth Count, as if same were set forth at length herein.

77. Based upon defendants’ actions as outlined above, defendants violated plaintiff’s 

right to privacy.

78. Defendants intentionally and without plaintiff’s knowledge infringed upon her 

seclusion, solitude or private affairs by accessing her private Face book postings without 

authorization. 

79. Defendants’ actions constituted an impermissible intrusion upon plaintiff’s 

seclusion or solitude and/or her private affairs. Defendants invaded upon something secret, 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 17 of 24 PageID: 95
secluded or private pertaining to the plaintiff. Defendants’ invasion would be highly invasive 

to a reasonable person.

80. Plaintiff was damaged by such unauthorized actions, including being subjected to 

a psychiatric evaluation. This psychiatric examination would be highly offensive to a 

reasonable person. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For punitive damages.

C. For reasonable attorney fees.

D. For an order requiring defendants to remove and/or expunge the two memos to file 

regarding the Facebook matter from plaintiff’s permanent employment file.

E. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

SEVENTH COUNT

(VIOLATION OF LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION NJSA 10:5-12, et seq.)

81. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count, Second Count, Third Count, Fourth 

Count, Fifth Count, and Sixth Count, as if same were set forth at length herein.

82. As a result of defendants conduct described above, defendants have violated 

the provisions of NJSA 10:5-12d which prohibit reprisals against individuals who engage in 

protected activity under the Act and, specifically in this case, protect the plaintiff against

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 18 of 24 PageID: 96
reprisals because she has opposed any practices or acts forbidden under the Act and testified 

or assisted in any proceeding under the Act. 

83. Plaintiff filed a multi-count lawsuit against the defendants on June 13, 2011, which 

included a claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, NJSA 10:5-12 et. seq.

84. Since the filing, defendants have engaged in a pattern of retaliatory actions against 

the plaintiff in violation of the Act as outlined in the above referenced Factual Allegations 

Common to All Counts, which resulted in her termination on July 28, 2011.

 85. As a result, the plaintiff has been damaged.

 86. Defendants retaliatory and discriminatory acts perpetuated against plaintiff 

were malicious, willful and wanton and justify any award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant to the fee shifting 

provisions of the LAD NJSA 10:5-12, et seq.

E. For an order requiring defendants to purge all of plaintiff’s accumulated

disciplinary units from her permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 19 of 24 PageID: 97
EIGHTH COUNT

(VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 USC 201, et seq.)

87. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count, Second Count, Third Count, Fourth 

Count, Fifth Count, Sixth Count, and Seventh Count, as if same were set forth at length 

herein.

88. As a result of defendants conduct described above, defendants have violated

the provisions of 29 USC 201, et. seq. by willfully failing to pay plaintiff all of the wages she 

is owed, The shortfall includes both standard and overtime wages. 

 89. As a result, the plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant 29 USC 201, et. seq.

E. For an order requiring defendants to purge all of plaintiff’s accumulated 

disciplinary units from her permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 20 of 24 PageID: 98
NINTH COUNT

(VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY WAGE AND HOUR LAW, NJSA 34:11-4.1,et 

seq.)

 90. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in the Factual 

Allegations Common to All Counts, the First Count, Second Count, Third Count, Fourth 

Count, Fifth Count, Sixth Count, Seventh Count, and Eighth Count, as if same were set forth 

at length herein.

 91. As a result of defendants conduct described above, defendants have violated

the provisions of NJSA 34:11-4.1, et. seq., by willfully failing to pay plaintiff all of the 

wages she is owed, The shortfall includes both standard and overtime wages. 

 92. As a result, the plaintiff has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands judgment against defendants, 

jointly, severally, and individually, for the following:

A. For compensatory damages.

B. For statutory damages

C. For punitive damages.

D. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant NJSA 34:11-4.1, et. seq.

E. For an order requiring defendants to purge all of plaintiff’s accumulated 

disciplinary units from her permanent employment file.

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 21 of 24 PageID: 99
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, demands trial of her causes of action herein before a jury.

RAMP & PISANI, LLP

60 Westervelt Avenue

P.O. Box 249

Tenafly, New Jersey 07670

fred@rampandpisani.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Deborah Ehling

Dated: August 18, 2011 s/ Fred J. Pisani____________________

By: Fred J. Pisani, Esq.

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 22 of 24 PageID: 100
RAMP & PISANI, LLP

60 Westervelt Avenue

P.O. Box 249

Tenafly, New Jersey 07670

(201)567-8877

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Deborah Ehling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

___________________________________

DEBORAH EHLING, Hon. William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.

Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J.

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF

-vCERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

MONMOUTH-OCEAN HOSPITAL

SERVICE CORP., d/b/a MONOC,

VINCENT ROBBINS, individually,

And STACY QUAGLIANA, individually

Defendants.

____________________________________

I, Fred J. Pisani, Esq., of full age, do hereby certify as follows:

1. I am an attorney law of the state of New Jersey and a member of the law firm of 

Ramp & Pisani, LLP, attorneys for plaintiff, Deborah Ehling, in connection with the above 

referenced matter. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case. 

2. Pursuant to Rule 15 (a) (1) (B), plaintiff hereby files her First Amended Complaint 

and Jury Demand.

3. On August 18, 2011, the within First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand was 

electronically filed. 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 23 of 24 PageID: 101
4. A copy of the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand was served 

on defendants’ counsel, M. Elizabeth Duffy, Esq., of Daly, Lamastra & Cunningham, by 

electronic means, in accordance with Rule 5(b) (2) (D).

I certify that foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the 

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment for contempt 

of court. 

RAMP & PISANI, LLP

60 Westervelt Avenue

P.O. Box 249

Tenafly, New Jersey 07670

(201)567-8877

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Date: August 18 , 2011 BY: /s/ Fred J Pisani__________

 FRED J. PISANI, ESQ. 

Case 2:11-cv-03305-WJM-MF Document 7 Filed 08/18/11 Page 24 of 24 PageID: 102