1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

DONNA LLOYD, 

Plaintiff, 

-againstAUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. _________ 

July Trial Demanded 

Plaintiff Donna Lloyd, by and through her attorneys, upon personal knowledge as to 

herself and upon information and belief as to other matters, brings this Complaint against 

Defendant Augme Technologies, Inc. (“Augme Technologies”) and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking recovery against Defendant for Defendant’s 

violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to 

N.J.S.A. 34:19-8 (“CEPA”) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et 

seq. (“NJLAD”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity of citizenship). 

3. Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a)(2) 

and (c).

4. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1
2

§§ 2201 and 2202. 

PARTIES 

Defendant

Defendant Augme Technologies 

5. Defendant Augme Technologies is a publicly-traded corporation organized under 

the laws of Delaware and doing business in the State of New Jersey. Defendant Augme 

Technologies has corporate headquarters at 43 West 24th Street, 11th Floor, New York, New 

York 10010. 

6. Defendant Augme Technologies has designated the following agent to the New 

York State Department of State to receive service of process: C/O Business Filings 

Incorporated, 187 Wolf Road, Suite 101, Albany, New York 12205. 

7. Defendant Augme Technologies is a leading provider of mobile and multi-media 

marketing services whose customers have included a number of national companies. Defendant 

Augme Technologies provides interactive media marketing platforms, applications, services, 

systems, and methods that enable marketers to integrate video and other digital content to deliver 

promotions that are personalized based upon characteristics of the user. 

8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Augme Technologies was and 

is an “employer” as defined under CEPA, N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(a).

9. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Augme Technologies was and 

is an “employer” as that term is defined by NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(e). 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2
3

Plaintiff

10. Plaintiff Donna Lloyd is an adult individual who is a resident of Monmouth 

County, New Jersey. 

11. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff worked from her home office. 

12. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Augme Technologies as a manager from 

March 1, 2010 to July 14, 2010, when she was wrongfully terminated in violation of CEPA and 

NJLAP. 

FACTS 

13. During the period that Plaintiff Donna Lloyd was employed by Defendants, she 

was an exemplary employee. Ms. Lloyd was promoted to Managing Director, Vice President of 

Augme Mobile Health approximately one month before she was wrongfully terminated. 

14. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants willfully and knowingly 

shared patient healthcare information with pharmaceutical companies in violation of law, 

including in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 

(“HIPAA”), and in contradiction to a clear mandates of public policy concerning public health, 

including the mandate to safeguard patient privacy. 

15. Defendants’ mobile health platform allowed pharmaceutical companies to access 

consumers’ confidential healthcare information in violation of law, including in violation of 

HIPAA, and in contradiction to a clear mandates of public policy concerning public health, 

including the mandate to safeguard patient privacy. 

16. Augme willfully and knowingly shared patient healthcare information with 

pharmaceutical companies and other third party vendors without disclosing to the consumer how 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3
4

the patient information received would be treated for all or individual mobile health programs in 

which a patient participated. 

17. Augme did not add a component to their mobile programs where a 

consumer/patient could click to access Augme’s HIPAA privacy. In addition, Augme did not 

have a privacy policy posted on their website so that a consumer could view how their data was 

being treated, stored, shared, sold or destroyed or how a consumer could opt out of any current or 

future Augme sponsored programs. 

18. Augme circulated a HIPAA Compliance Statement which does not include a 

provision for how it treats patient data. The HIPPA Compliance Statement did not specify 

Augme's opt-in and opt-out policy at the consumer/patient level. It did not identify Augme's 

Chief Compliance Officer. In addition, Augme asserted in presentations and in collateral that it 

was the only HIPAA compliant mobile platform, which was false and misleading. Plaintiff 

brought these violations to the attention of Defendant. 

19. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Augme Technologies’ manager Jeannette 

Brandofino about the violation of privacy and contravention of HIPAA requirements connected 

with the mobile health platform. In response to the complaints made to Ms. Brandofino, 

Defendant failed to take any remedial actions reasonably calculated to protect consumer privacy 

and instead retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of CEPA. 

20. Plaintiff complained to both Jeannette Brandofino and Anthony Iacovone about 

the violation of privacy and contravention of HIPAA requirements connected with the mobile 

health platform. In response to the complaints made to Defendant, Defendant failed to take any 

remedial actions reasonably calculated to protect consumer privacy and instead retaliated against 

Plaintiff in violation of CEPA. 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4
5

21. Plaintiff’s complaints to Defendant regarding the violation of privacy and HIPAA 

requirements connected with the mobile health platform were reasonable and were an activity 

protected by the CEPA. Defendants violated the CEPA when they retaliated against Plaintiff for 

engaging in a protected activity by, among other things, terminating her employment on July 14, 

2010. 

22. Plaintiff was subject to other acts of retaliation that would deter a reasonable 

person from voicing such complaints, such as not being paid for accrued vacation days, not being 

reimbursed for expenses, and not being paid owed commissions. In addition, Brandofino 

defamed Plaintiff by publishing malicious and untrue statements about her. 

23. After Plaintiff’s termination, Augme revamped its website and added a link to a 

new whistleblower policy. 

24. On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff informed Defendants that she was pregnant. 

25. On July 8, 2010 Plaintiff presented Iacovone with a doctor’s note regarding 

medical complications associated with her pregnancy. Defendant Iacovone flatly refused to 

accept the note. 

26. Immediately after learning of Plaintiff’s pregnancy, Defendants summarily fired 

Plaintiff. 

27. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff’s employment was motivated by 

discriminatory animus. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CEPA, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to N.J.S.A. 34:19-8

28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 

27 and incorporates by reference the same as fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5
6

29. Defendant Augme Technologies is an “employer” within the meaning of the New 

Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to N.J.S.A. 34:19-8. 

30. Plaintiff was terminated as a consequence of complaining about and/or refusing to 

be party to Defendant’s illegal actions. 

31. Defendant’s retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the provisions of CEPA, an 

such retaliation included, but is not limited to, termination, not being paid for accrued vacation 

days, not being reimbursed for expenses, and not being paid owed commissions 

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff, in 

violation of CEPA, Plaintiff has experienced and will continue to experience pain and suffering, 

and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of 

earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to 

general and compensatory damages. 

33. Plaintiff alleges that the outrageous conduct of Defendants described above was 

done with malice, fraud, and oppression; with conscious disregard for her rights; and with the 

intent, design, and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants, through their officers, managing 

agents, and/or supervisors authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct named in 

this action. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages, pursuant to 

N.J.S.A. 34:19-5(f), from Defendants in a sum according to proof at trial. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.

34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 

33 and incorporates by reference the same as fully set forth herein. 

35. Defendant Augme Technologies is an “employer” within the meaning of the New 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6
7

Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 

36. By the foregoing conduct, Defendants created and maintained a hostile work 

environment on the basis of Plaintiff’s gender and/or pregnancy in violation of the New Jersey 

Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 

37. By the foregoing conduct, including but not limited to the harassment, disparate 

treatment, and termination of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants have treated Plaintiff 

adversely with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment on account of 

her gender and/or pregnancy, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, 

N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 

38. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, and any such further relief that the Court deems just and proper. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: 

a. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, bonuses, 

incentive pay, stock options and all other benefits to which Plaintiff is entitles, including pension 

and profit-sharing benefits; 

b. Damages for all economic loss, physical and emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, 

emotional harm, pain and suffering, career, family and social disruption and other grievous harm; 

c. Punitive and exemplary damages; 

d. Costs and disbursements of this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

e. Pre-judgment interest; and 

f. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7
8

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all actions triable to a jury. 

Date: July 14, 2011 Respectfully submitted: 

 DICHIARA LAW FIRM LLC 

 

 ______/s____________________ 

 Michael R. DiChiara 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/14/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8