Town of Dover v. Richard Gonzalez

── Town of Dover v. Richard Gonzalez ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0047-25 TOWN OF DOVER, Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION May 21, 2026 v. APPELLATE DIVISION RICHARD GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued January 21, 2026 – Decided May 21, 2026 Before Judges Gooden Brown, DeAlmeida and Torregrossa-O'Connor. On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-0330-25. Richard P. Flaum argued the cause for appellant (Di Francesco Bateman, attorneys; Richard P. Flaum, on the brief). Jonathan F. Cohen argued the cause for respondent (Plosia Cohen LLC, attorneys; Jonathan F. Cohen, of counsel and on the brief; Veronica A. Acevedo, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by DeALMEIDA, J.A.D.  On leave granted, defendant Richard Gonzalez appeals from the July 18, 2025 Law Division order dismissing with prejudice his counterclaim seeking relief under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61. We vacate the July 18, 2025 order and remand for further proceedings. I. On August 15, 2014, defendant filed a complaint in the United States District Court against plaintiff Town of Dover. Defendant, then a sergeant with the Dover Police Department (DPD), alleged violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, and the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. He alleged he suffered harassment and retaliation at work in response to, among other things, his: (1) supporting a Dover mayoral candidate challenging the then-incumbent mayor; (2) posting a comment on social media critical of the then-incumbent mayor; (3) reporting to the Morris County Prosecutor's Office that the then -mayor and town administrator were involved in the systematic dismissal of traffic tickets issued to their friends and associates; (4) complaining to superiors about interference with DPD internal affairs investigations; and (5) investigating the theft of time by DPD detectives. A-0047-25 2  On December 10, 2015, plaintiff and defendant executed a settlement agreement resolving the federal litigation. In exchange for $175,000, defendant agreed to retire from his position at the DPD, and release plaintiff and the DPD from all claims he alleged in the complaint and may otherwise have had against them. The parties also agreed on the terms of defendant's retirement, including permitting him to remain on administrative leave with full pay for approximately nine months before retiring. The settlement agreement included a non-disparagement provision, which referred to defendant as "Employee[,]" and plaintiff and the DPD as "Employer[,]" and provided: The Employee agrees that he will not make any negative comments or disparaging remarks, in writing, orally or electronically, about the Employer or any other Releasee, including their respective officers, directors, and employees. Nothing in this paragraph or this Agreement shall be interpreted to restrict or inhibit the Employee's right and obligation (i) to testify truthfully in any forum or (ii) to cooperate fully in any investigation by a governmental agency. Similarly, th