The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NOS. A-1226-18T1
A-1490-18T1
LESLEY ETHERIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DIANA LOBOSCO,
Defendant-Respondent.
LESLEY ETHERIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALBERT BUGLIONE and
MAE REMER,
Defendants-Respondents.
Argued telephonically April 2, 2020 –
Decided April 30, 2020
Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Docket Nos. L-2074-18 and
L-2108-18.
Lesley Etheridge argued the cause pro se.
Alyssa K. Weinstein argued the cause for respondents
Diana Lobosco and Mae Remer (Scarinci &
Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys; Alyssa K. Weinstein, of
counsel and on the briefs).
Chryzanta K. Hentisz argued the cause for respondent
Albert Buglione (Buglione, Hutton & DeYoe, LLC,
attorneys; Chryzanta K. Hentisz, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Leslie Etheridge, a former computer teacher at the Passaic County
Technical Institute (the Institute), has filed two appeals regarding the dismissal
of her complaints against the named defendants. The appeals are consolidated
for decision.
Under Docket No. A-1226-18, Etheridge appeals the dismissal of her June
20, 2018 complaint against defendant Diana Lobosco, the Superintendent or
Chief School Administrator of the Institute. Etheridge1 alleged Lobosco
violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1
to -14, and, additionally, defamed her. Judge Bruno Mongiardo dismissed the
1
Etheridge did not include a copy of her complaint in the appendices. We glean
her causes of action from the judge's analysis.
A-1226-18T1
2
complaint, pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), because the events at issue occurred
between September 2013 and May 2015, and thus are time-barred by the relevant
statutes of limitations. 2 For the reasons Judge Mongiardo thoroughly and
cogently discussed in his September 14, 2018 decision, we affirm.
Under Docket No. A-1490-18, Etheridge appeals the dismissal of her June
21, 2018 complaint against defendants Albert Buglione, the Institute's counsel,
and Mae Remer, Secretary to the Institute's Board of Education, arising from
their allegedly defamatory conduct. Judge Thomas F. Brogan dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, also under Rule 4:6-2(e), because those claims were
again time barred as to defamation—the filing of the complaint exceeded the
one-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the judge held that the complaint
against both defendants should be dismissed because of the litigation privilege,
as when the relevant conduct occurred, Buglione was acting as counsel for the
Institute, and Remer, the Board Secretary. In the complaint, Etheridge anchored
her causes of action not only on events taking place between September 2013
and May 2015, but also on tenure charges filed against her and arbitrated from
2
N.J.S.A. 34:19-5 requires CEPA claims to be filed within a year; N.J.S.A.
2A:14-3 provides that actions for libel and slander must be filed within one year.
A-1226-18T1
3
2015 to 2016, and an April 2014 unemployment hearing. For the reasons
thoroughly and cogently explained by Judge Brogan, we affirm.
By way of context, the Institute filed serious disciplinary charges against
Etheridge in the spring of 2015. All the charges were upheld in a June 27, 2016
arbitration decision. Opinion and Award, In the Matter of Arbitration Between
Lesley Etheridge and Passaic County Vocational School District Passaic
County, https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/teachnj/2016/jun/245-16.pdf.
Although not entirely clear from Etheridge's submissions, Buglione appeared on
behalf of the Institute at a telephonic unemployment hearing conducted April
18, 2017. On March 18, 2018, the State Board of Examiners issued an order to
show cause seeking revocation or suspension of Etheridge's teaching certificate.
In order to avoid application of the statute of limitations, Etheridge
attempts to impose legal liability on the named defendants for events that fall
within the one year prior to the filing of her complaints. The defendants named
in both complaints, however, were not participants in decisions made by
independent agencies based on information regarding Etheridge's employment
history. The dismissals, as both judges held, were therefore mandated by the
statute of limitations, because the course of conduct engaged in by these persons
fell so substantially outside the one-year window. Furthermore, as Judge
A-1226-18T1
4
Brogan explained, an attorney acting on behalf of a client, or a secretary acting
on behalf of a school board, is legally entitled to immunity.
Etheridge's points on appeal in No. A-1226-18 are set forth below:
POINT I
STATUTE OF LIMITATION. "IN ORDER TO
PROTECT YOURSELF WITH THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION YOU HAVE TO DO MORE THAN
FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM." THE
CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT
ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION BEGINS
TO RUN FROM THE FINAL ACTION OF
RETALIATION.
POINT II
THE DISCOVERY RULE.
POINT III
AMENDED FRAUD (OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT).
POINT IV
WHEN DOES A CEPA CLAIM BEGIN?
POINT V
AMENDED THE COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE
FRAUD.
In No. A-1490-18, the points on appeal are as follows:
POINT I
STATUTE OF LIMITATION DEFAMATION V.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE "THE OTHER TWO
COUNTS (FRAUD) GO TO THE DAMAGES THAT
FLOW FROM DEFAMATION. AND IT IS
CLEARLY BEYOND THE ONE YEAR PERIOD.
(RAISED BELOW)
A-1226-18T1
5
POINT II
IMMUNITY EXEMPTION (RAISED PAGE 21 LINE
14 AND 15) DURING THE COURSE OF
LITIGATION. . ." "THEY BOTH HAVE LIABILITY
--- THEY BOTH HAVE IMMUNITY DURING THE
COURSE OF LITIGATION. . ." (RAISED BELOW).
POINT III
STATUTE OF LIMITATION TIME BARRED "THE
OTHER TWO COUNTS (FRAUD) GO TO THE
DAMAGES THAT FLOW FROM DEFAMATION.
AND IT IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE ONE YEAR
PERIOD. (RAISED BELOW)
POINT IV
IMMUNITY EXEMPTION "SO, THEY CAN
ZEALOUSLY PUT FORTH THEIR PARTICULAR
POSITION" (RAISED BELOW).
POINT V
FRAUD AND IMMUNITY EXEMPTION "I ASSUME
HE (BUGLIONE) REPRESENTS THE SCHOOL
SYSTEM (DISTRICT). PASSIAC COUNTY
TECHNICAL INSTITUTE? (RAISED BELOW)
We consider Etheridge's arguments to lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1).
Affirmed.
A-1226-18T1
6