Opinion ID: 3010491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Defendant New Jersey Racing Commission is a body created by N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:5-22 (West 1996) with jurisdiction, powers and duties overseeing horse racing conducted in the State of New Jersey. Defendant Francesco Zanzuccki is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission, and defendant Michael Vukcevich is the Deputy Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. In 1985, Mr. Latessa was licensed by the United States Trotting Association as an Associate Judge with powers to officiate as a judge at harness horse meets. In the latter part of 1985, he began working at various race tracks in New Jersey as either a Patrol Judge or an Associate Judge. Mr. Latessa was first appointed by the Commission as Presiding Judge at Garden State Park in 1988 and was also appointed to that position at the Meadowlands Race Track (The Meadowlands) in 1992. In New Jersey, racing judges are appointed on a meet-by- meet basis. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:5-37(a) (West 1996). They are paid on a weekly basis and do not receive fringe benefits. See id. They serve at the pleasure of the Commission. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:5-37(a). _________________________________________________________________ 1. To the extent Latessa pursues a common law wrongful discharge claim on appeal, Latessa may not pursue that claim on remand because he failed to raise it before the district court in the first instance. 3 Penalty decisions are made in the first instance by certain officials employed by the Commission, including panels of judges. N.J. Admin. Code tit. 13, § 71-1.20(b) (1990). The Commission itself may modify a penalty decision. Id. § 71-1.23. Thereafter, appeal may be filed with the Commission, but the Commission may reject or modify on its own motion any imposed penalty or decision. Id. § 71-3.3 (1995). Sometime in early 1993, Mr. Zanzuccki and Mr. Vukcevich began making penalty recommendations in horse drugging cases prior to the formal action of the three judge panel authorized to take initial action in such matters. In July of 1993, Mr. Zanzuccki told Mr. Latessa that a 120-day penalty should be imposed on Thomas Milici, a horse trainer accused of administering an illegal drug, by the panel of judges which included Mr. Latessa. Mr. Latessa did not demur, but rather advised the panel of Mr. Zanzuccki's statement. The other judges disagreed, believing that the penalty would be inconsistent with penalties imposed in like circumstances previously and imposed a 90-day sentence. Mr. Latessa did not register a contrary vote. Mr. Zanzuccki was not pleased with the outcome of the Milici matter and demanded reports from the three judges as to what had occurred. The other two judges did not discuss what had occurred procedurally, but reported on the substance of their reasoning. Mr Latessa described similar reasoning, but also indicated that while he had advocated Mr. Zanzuccki's preferred penalty, he had been outvoted. Follow-up questioning of the other judges indicated to Mr. Zanzuccki that Mr. Latessa's advocacy did not go beyond reporting Mr. Zanzuccki's statement and that Mr. Latessa registered no formal dissenting vote. During the summer of 1993, Mr. Zanzuccki continued to either recommend or direct drug violation penalties prior to the completion of proceedings before the panel of racing judges. It was in connection with one of these cases that Mr. Latessa later gave testimony before the Office of Administrative Law about the early intervention of Mr. Zanzuccki in the proceedings. 4 At the end of the summer Mr. Latessa was reappointed as the Presiding Judge for the upcoming harness racing meet at Garden State Park. During the early fall Mr. Latessa, Mr. Vukcevich, and Mr. Zanzuccki continued to disagree about the manner in which the Milici matter was handled. In the first week of November, during a racing meet in California, Santo Lalomia, Chairman of the New Jersey Racing Commission, interviewed Michael Corley for the position of Presiding Judge. On November 16, 1993, Mr. Zanzuccki requested a meeting with Mr. Latessa scheduled for November 30, 1993. On November 19, 1993, Mr. Vukcevich sent Mr. Latessa a memorandum noting the inconsistent accounts of the Milici deliberations, as well as other points of disagreement. On November 22, 1993, Mr. Latessa testified before the Office of Administrative Law and one day later Mr. Zanzuccki sent a memorandum to Mr. Lalomia indicating he had decided not to reappoint Mr. Latessa. The administrative law judge credited Mr. Latessa's testimony and issued an opinion on November 29, 1993, critical of the actions of Mr. Zanzuccki and his