OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 1 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

Matthew A. Luber, Esq. - NJ ID # 017302010

mal@njlegal.com
R. Armen McOmber, Esq. – NJ ID # 018251998
ram@njlegal.com
Christian V. McOmber, Esq. - NJ ID # 012292010
cvm@njlegal.com
Kelly E. Adler, Esq. - NJ ID # 019242008
kea@njlegal.com
Charles J. Kocher, Esq. – NJ ID # 016952004
cjk@njlegal.com
Meghan A. Clearie, Esq. – NJ ID #306642019
mac@njlegal.com
Jeffrey D. Ragone, Esq. – NJ ID # 276772018
jdr@njlegal.com
McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
39 East Main Street
Marlton, New Jersey 08053
(856) 985-9800 Phone
(856) 263-2450 Fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Keith Vanderbrooke, Hanna Arostegui, & Andrea Alphonsus
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
KEITH VANDERBROOKE, HANNA LAW DIVISION
AROSTEGUI, AND ANDREA OCEAN COUNTY
ALPHONSUS,

Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO.:

v. Civil Action

LUV2HOWL ANIMAL RESCUE A NJ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND

NONPROFIT CORPORATION, FOR JURY TRIAL
MICHAEL HODANISH,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Keith Vanderbrooke (“Plaintiff Vanderbrooke”), Hanna Arostegui (“Plaintiff

Arostegui”), and Andrea Alphonsus (“Plaintiff Alphonsus”), by way of Complaint against

Defendant Luv2Howl Animal Rescue A NJ Nonprofit Corporation, associated name Howling

Woods Farm (“Corporate Defendant”; “Defendant Howling Woods Farm”; “Defendant HWF”)

1
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 2 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

and Defendant Michael Hodanish (“Defendant Hodanish”) (collectively “Defendants”), allege as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

This is matter concerns Defendant Hodanish – New Jersey’s proverbial “Wolf King.”

Defendant Hodanish owns and operates Defendant Howling Woods Farm, which is supposed to

be, and is portrayed to the public as, a sanctuary for Wolves and other animals. Behind closed

doors, however, Defendant Hodanish subjects the Wolves to horrid treatment and openly retaliates

against employees who dare challenge his conduct – not unlike Joseph Maldonado-Passage, also

known as “Joe Exotic,” in the film, “Tiger King.”[1] In fact, for years, the employees of Defendant

HWF circumvented Defendant Hodanish in an attempt to provide proper care and nutrition to the

animals. They also were forced to endure Defendant Hodanish’s hostile nature as an employer,

and even had to frequently work for free, in order to satisfy this goal. This inevitably reached a

breaking point, leading to their unlawful termination and this lawsuit, where Plaintiffs seek redress

for violations of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and Wage and

Hour Law (“NJWHL”).

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Vanderbrooke is an individual residing in Newton, Pennsylvania and, at

all times relevant hereto, was employed by Defendant HWF at its location in Jackson, New Jersey.

2. Plaintiff Arostegui is an individual residing in Manalapan Township, New Jersey

and, at all times relevant hereto, was employed by Defendant HWF at its location in Jackson, New

[1]
See Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness (Netflix 2020); see also, e.g., How ‘Tiger
King’ became a tale more about people than big cats, WASHINGTONPOST.COM, Apr. 6, 2020,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/04/06/tiger-king-joe-exotic/.

2
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 3 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

Jersey.

3. Plaintiff Alphonsus is an individual residing in Holmdel, New Jersey and, at all

times relevant hereto, was employed by Defendant HWF at its location in Jackson, New Jersey.

4. Defendant HWF is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws

of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 1371 W Veterans

Highway, Jackson, New Jersey 08527. Defendant HWF operates a sanctuary for wolves and

wolfdogs. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HWF is an “employer” as defined under CEPA,

N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq.

5. Defendant Hodanish is an individual and, at all times relevant hereto, the owner of

Defendant HWF. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hodanish is a New Jersey resident.

This claim is brought against Defendant Hodanish in his individual capacity and as the owner of

Defendant HWF.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

6. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

7. Plaintiff Vanderbrooke commenced employment with Defendant HWF in or about

October 2019 as a volunteer. Plaintiff Vanderbrooke was promoted to staff member, a paid

position, in November 2020.

8. Plaintiff Arostegui commenced employment with Defendant HWF in or about

November 2019 as a volunteer. Plaintiff Arostegui was promoted to staff member, a paid position,

in or about October 2020.

9. Plaintiff Alphonsus commenced employment with Defendant HWF in or about

June 2019 as a volunteer.

3
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 4 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

10. Plaintiffs were responsible for giving tours at Defendant Howling Woods Farm, as

well as caring for the animals and maintaining the premises.

11. Defendant HWF houses wolves and wolfdogs.

12. Defendant Hodanish oversaw Defendant HWF and its employees, both paid staff

members and volunteers, by way of a private Facebook group titled “HWF Weekday Schedule.”

(“Facebook Group Page”).

13. Defendant HWF’s Facebook Group Page was used to distribute employee hours,

instructions, announcements, and other information relevant to employment and operations at

Defendant Howling Woods Farm.

TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES

14. In Defendant HWF’s Facebook Group Page, Defendant Hodanish constantly

subjected employees to verbal abuse and threats of termination.

15. On numerous occasions, Defendant Hodanish furthered a toxic work environment

in which employees, including Plaintiffs, worried about the stability of their employment.

16. Defendant Hodanish attempted to regulate all aspects of his employees’ lives, even

going as far as to say that if someone remained friends with a former employee, their employment

would also be terminated.

17. These threats and aggressive posts were considered status quo by employees of

Defendant HWF, with Defendant Hodanish verbally attacking someone in the Facebook group

seemingly on a daily basis.

4
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 5 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

18. Defendant Hodanish’s poor treatment of employees did not stop with threats and

harassment – he also required paid staff members to work without pay on a regular basis.

19. On numerous occasions Defendant Hodanish threatened employees that he would

withhold their wages for whatever reason he came up with that day.

20. These threats became common place for employees of Corporate Defendant, and

eventually Defendant Hodanish began to withhold wages, describing the money not paid to the

employees as “contributions” to the Corporate Defendant.

21. Both Plaintiff Vanderbrooke and Plaintiff Arostegui have been victims of these

deceitful practices by Defendant Hodanish, and both have received paychecks in which the money

they received was less than the amount earned based on the number of hours worked.

22. Clearly, Defendant Hodanish had no regard for his employees. Inevitably, Plaintiff

Arostegui fell victim to his unfair ways.

23. On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff Arostegui posted to Defendant HWF’s Facebook

5
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 6 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

Group Page that she could not attend work due to the ongoing nor’easter winter storm, which was

subject to Governor Philip Murphy’s Executive Order Number 218, which declared a State of

Emergency in New Jersey from January 31, 2021 through February 2, 2021.

https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-218.pdf (last visited May 13, 2021).

24. Immediately, Defendant Hodanish ridiculed Plaintiff Arostegui on the Facebook

Group Page, stating “I find it hard to believe those who live less than one hour away could not

come in.” Shortly thereafter, in complete disregard of the Governor’s Executive Order, Defendant

Hodanish terminated Plaintiff Arostegui’s employment.

25. To work for Defendant HWF essentially required submission to harassment on a

near daily basis. Additionally, it meant accepting the fact that you would likely not be paid in full

for the work you had done. It is without question that Defendant Hodanish’s treatment of

Defendant HWF employees was appalling and unlawful.

6
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 7 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

26. In addition to the constant harassment, arbitrarily subtracted of earned wages, and

threats of termination, employees of Defendant HWF were in constant fear for the animals they

cared for, as they were forced to live in poor conditions due to Defendant Hodanish’s blatant abuse

and neglect.

27. Among the most alarming procedures implemented by Defendant Hodanish was

his mandates to staff to not feed the animals for three days at a time.

28. This practice ultimately resulted in many of the animals becoming sick and

emaciated, as well as one animal’s death after not eating for three days.

29. Despite this, Defendant Hodanish felt it was appropriate to continue to withhold

food from the animals, and often aggressively questioned employees to make sure the animals

were not fed in contravention of his orders. As a result, the animals continued to become emaciated

and lethargic, and were frequently vomiting and experiencing diarrhea.

7
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 8 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

30. Many employees of Defendant HWF secretly fed the animals due to their deep

concern that Defendant Hodanish’s policies would lead to further sickness and death. Employees

additionally have paid for food to secretly feed the animals out of their own pockets.

31. Defendant Hodanish also disregarded the safety of the animals by ordering animals

that were known to be contentious towards one another in the same pen. Defendant Hodanish

would frequently forget giving such orders, a constant theme in his communications with his

employees. Unsurprisingly, this led to animals engaging in physical violence and causing injuries.

32. While Defendant Hodanish gave the orders that led to the injuries suffered by the

animals, he would often instruct his employees, “if there is a problem, deal with it.” Defendant

Hodanish refused to take responsibility for the injuries that he caused.

33. In addition to his careless decision-making placing contentious animals in close

proximity to each other, Defendant Hodanish also repeatedly refused to send animals to the

veterinarian despite their injuries.

34. Seemingly only concerned with the potential cost of keeping the animals healthy,

not the animals themselves, Defendant Hodanish instructed employees not to bring animals to the

8
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 9 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

veterinarian for what he described as “minor injuries.”

35. Additionally, Defendant Hodanish threatened to charge employees for any

veterinarian bills that were not approved by him, no matter how serious the injury to the animal,

and further would mock the severity of the animals’ injuries.

36. Defendant Hodanish regularly allows minor injuries and illnesses to the animals to

become severe, and even then he argues with staff over the extent of treatment necessary. In the

meantime, the animals at Defendant HWF suffer.

9
OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 10 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

10
OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 11 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

11
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 12 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

37. Evident by the photographs, the animals at Defendant HWF have suffered

numerous injuries and illnesses. The animals’ injuries and illnesses were regularly inadequately

addressed by Defendant Hodanish, who would frequently argue with employees seeking to take

the animals to the veterinarian, or alternatively would seek to limit the extent of treatment

performed on the injured or sick animals. Undoubtedly, Defendant Hodanish prioritized saving

money over the animals’ well-being.

PLAINTIFFS VANDERBROOKE AND AROSTEGUI “BLOW THE WHISTLE”

38. On or about February 3, 2021, Plaintiff Vanderbrooke observed one of the animals

not taking food, acting lethargically, suffering from diarrhea and vomiting, and his ribs and hips

were extremely prominent. Plaintiff Vanderbrooke contacted Plaintiff Arostegui, who agreed that

action needed to be taken to protect the animal. When they approached Defendant Hodanish, he

allowed them to take the animal to the veterinarian, but insisted that they “bargain” with the vet

on the price of the emergency visit. Defendant Hodanish additionally instructed that no tests be

performed on the animal at the vet, clearly to save on costs.

12
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 13 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

39. On or about February 8, 2021, Defendant Hodanish posted to Defendant HWF’s

Facebook Group Page that he would be closing Howling Woods Farm for the week. Defendant

Hodanish subsequently told Plaintiff Vanderbrooke that he wanted to “teach the staff a lesson.”

40. Knowing full well that Defendant HWF’s closing meant that the animals would be

largely unfed and neglected the entire week, Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui contacted the

Jackson Township Police Department (“JTPD”) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (“APHIS”), to inform them of the unsafe conditions the animals were living in. In fact,

Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui contacted APHIS on the same day that Defendant Hodanish

posted that he was closing the farm for the week – February 8, 2021.

41. Officers from JTPD visited Defendant HWF in response to the farm being closed

and the unlawful feeding schedules that Defendant Hodanish was implementing.

42. In response to the visit from JTPD, Defendant Hodanish closed down Howling

Woods Farm for an additional consecutive week and, in direct and most blatant retaliation, publicly

pressured the then-unnamed whistleblowers to “come forward,” otherwise “[t]he farm can remain

closed during the week indefinitely.” Thus, Defendant Hodanish was threatening to hold hostage

13
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 14 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

the health, safety, and well-being of the animals in exchange for the whistleblowers to reveal

themselves to Defendant Hodanish.

43. Defendant Hodanish was undeniably eager to retaliate against whoever informed

JTPD of Defendant HWF policies and practices.

44. Defendant HWF employees were permitted back on the farm for the first time since

the February 8, 2021 closing on February 14, 2021. Tragically yet unsurprisingly, the employees

discovered the animals were not properly fed or watered, were emaciated, chewing on garbage,

vomiting, suffering from diarrhea, and were not taking food. Multiple animals had vomit scattered

in their pens and appeared ill.

45. While Defendant HWF was closed for the second consecutive week, Plaintiff

Vanderbrooke revealed to Defendant Hodanish his and Plaintiff Arostegui’s role in reporting

Defendant HWF to JTPD and APHIS due to “the horrific treatment of employees and animals at

Howling Woods [Farm].” Defendant Hodanish mocked Plaintiff Vanderbrooke, demanding he

“enlighten us all” by “explain[ing] in detail examples of horrific animal abuse at the farm.”

14
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 15 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

46. Rather than stoop to the level of Defendant Hodanish, who continuously and

publicly bullies his employees on Facebook, Plaintiff Vanderbrooke instead messaged Defendant

Hodanish privately. In response, Defendant Hodanish promptly terminated Plaintiff

Vanderbrooke in the clearest of retaliation.

15
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 16 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

47. After Plaintiff Vanderbrooke was terminated for alerting the authorities of the

animal abuse occurring at Defendant HWF, Defendant Hodanish effectively terminated Plaintiff

Alphonsus due to her relationship with Plaintiff Vanderbrooke. Specifically, Plaintiff Alphonsus

was removed from Defendant HWF’s Facebook Group Page, where all employee scheduling and

assignments were posted.

48. Plaintiff Alphonsus promptly complained to Defendant Hodanish for his decision

to terminate her. Once again, Defendant Hodanish was crystal clear that he terminated Plaintiff

Alphonsus in retaliation of Plaintiff Vanderbrooke’s actions.

49. Plaintiff Alphonsus added: “I also don’t like this line of questioning either. It’s not

fair either.” Defendant Hodanish responded: “Considering the actions taken upon the farm

recently, I believe it is reasonable to have doubts about the motives of certain people.”

50. Defendant Hodanish invited Plaintiff Alphonsus back into Defendant HWF’s

Facebook Group Page, effectively reinstating her employment as a volunteer. However, Plaintiff

Alphonsus was again removed from Defendant HWF’s Facebook Group Page, again effectively

terminating her employment from Defendant HWF. Clearly, Plaintiff Alphonsus was terminated

16
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 17 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

due to her relationship with Plaintiff Vanderbrooke.

51. Defendant HWF regularly exhibited a hostile work environment for all employees

in which no one was sure whether they would be paid, the amount they would be paid, whether

they would be arbitrarily terminated, or whether they would be forced to mistreat the animals they

were hired to care for.

52. Defendant Hodanish bullied, harassed, and threatened Defendant HWF employees

on numerous occasions.

53. Employees of Defendant HWF, including but not limited to Plaintiffs

Vanderbrooke and Arostegui, were ridiculed and ultimately punished for their attempts to ensure

that the animals were treated properly.

54. Through the individual actions of Defendant Hodanish, Defendant HWF has not

only violated CEPA, but it has continuously placed innocent animals in danger while solely

focusing on financial gain.

COUNT I

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CEPA N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14

55. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

56. CEPA’s legislative purpose “is to protect and encourage employees to report illegal

or unethical workplace activities and to discourage . . . employers from engaging in such conduct.”

Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362, 378 (2015) (quoting Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd.

of Educ., 138 N.J. 405, 431 (1994)).

57. CEPA specifically provides:

An employer shall not take any retaliatory action against an

employee because the employee does any of the following:

17
OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 18 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

a. Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a

public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or
another employer, with whom there is a business relationship,
that the employee reasonably believes:

(1) is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation

promulgated pursuant to law, including any violation
involving deception of, or misrepresentation to, any
shareholder, investor, client, patient, customer, employee,
former employee, retiree or pensioner of the employer or any
governmental entity, or, in the case of an employee who is a
licensed or certified health care professional, reasonably
believes constitutes improper quality of patient care; or

(2) is fraudulent or criminal, including any activity, policy

or practice of deception or misrepresentation which the
employee reasonably believes may defraud any shareholder,
investor, client, patient, customer, employee, former
employee, retiree or pensioner of the employer or any
governmental entity;

b. Provides information to, or testifies before, any public body

conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any
violation of law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant
to law by the employer, or another employer, with whom
there is a business relationship, including any violation
involving deception of, or misrepresentation to, any
shareholder, investor, client, patient, customer, employee,
former employee, retiree or pensioner of the employer or any
governmental entity, or, in the case of an employee who is a
licensed or certified health care professional, provides
information to, or testifies before, any public body
conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into the
quality of patient care; or

c. Objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or

practice which the employee reasonably believes:

(1) is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation

promulgated pursuant to law, including any violation
involving deception of, or misrepresentation to, any
shareholder, investor, client, patient, customer,
employee, former employee, retiree or pensioner of
the employer or any governmental entity, or, if the
employee is a licensed or certified health care

18
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 19 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

professional, constitutes improper quality of patient

care;

(2) is fraudulent or criminal, including any activity,

policy or practice of deception or misrepresentation
which the employee reasonably believes may
defraud any shareholder, investor, client, patient,
customer, employee, former employee, retiree or
pensioner of the employer or any governmental
entity; or

(3) is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy

concerning the public health, safety or welfare or
protection of the environment.

[N.J.S.A. 34:19-3 (emphases added).]

58. In the course of his employment with Defendant HWF, Plaintiff Vanderbrooke

observed that Defendant Hodanish failed to adequately care for Defendant HWF animals.

59. In the course of his employment with Defendant HWF, Plaintiff Vanderbrooke,

Plaintiff Arostegui, and numerous other employees repeatedly objected to Defendant Hodanish’s

mandates to feed the animals every other day and/or every three days, provide proper medical care

for the animals, accomplish compatible grouping, and other activities that obstructed the well-

being of Defendant HWF animals. Most employees of Defendant HWF, including Plaintiffs

Vanderbrooke and Plaintiff Arostegui, refused to participate these activities, policies, and practices

of Defendant HWF.

60. In the course of his employment with Defendant HWF, Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke

and Arostegui reasonably believed that Defendant Hodanish’s activities, policies, and practices

regarding the failure to adequately care for the animals at Defendant HWF constituted a “violation

of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law.” N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(a)(1), (c)(1).

61. Specifically, Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui reasonably believed that

Defendants’ activities, policies, and practices were in violation of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966,

19
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 20 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq. (“the Act”), and the rules and regulations promulgated “in order to

effectuate the purposes of this Act,” 7 U.S.C. § 2151.

62. 9 C.F.R. § 3.9(a), promulgated pursuant to the Act, provides:

Dogs[1] and cats must be fed at least once each day, except as
otherwise might be required to provide adequate veterinary care.
The food must be uncontaminated, wholesome, palatable, and of
sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain the normal
condition and weight of the animal. The diet must be appropriate
for the individual animal’s age and condition.

63. Additionally, 9 C.F.R. § 3.7(d), promulgated pursuant to the Act, provides that

“[d]ogs or cats may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with any other species of animals,

unless they are compatible[.]”

64. 9 C.F.R. § 3.7(a), promulgated pursuant to the Act, provides, “Potable water must

be continuously available to the dogs, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian or except as

provided in § 3.17(a).” Further, “Water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitized in accordance

with § 3.11(b) and before being used to water a different dog or cat or a different social grouping

of dogs or cats.” 9 CFR § 3.10(c).

65. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui reasonably believed that

Defendants’ activities, policies, and practices were in violation of N.J.S.A. 4:22-17(a)(4) and

(c)(2).

66. N.J.S.A. 4:22-17(a)(4) provides: “It shall be unlawful to . . . [f]ail, as the owner or

as a person otherwise charged with the care of a living animal or creature, to provide the living

animal or creature with necessary care.”

1
Since Defendant HWF’s animals are wolfdogs, they are “dog-hybrid cross” animals that are
defined as “dog[s]” under the Act. 9 C.F.R. § 1.1.

20
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 21 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

67. N.J.S.A. 4:22-17(c)(2) provides: “It shall be unlawful to purposely, knowingly, or

recklessly . . . [c]ause bodily injury to a living animal or creature by failing to provide the living

animal or creature with necessary care . . . .”

68. Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui reasonably believed that Defendants’

activities, policies, and practices were in violation of these laws, rules, and regulations, among

others. With these reasonable beliefs, Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui disclosed

Defendants’ activities, policies, and practices to JTPD and APHIS, among other authorities.

69. Plaintiff Vanderbrooke notified Defendant Hodanish that he and Plaintiff Arostegui

reached out to and caused JTPD and APHIS to inspect Defendant HWF. Simultaneously, Plaintiff

Vanderbrooke objected to Defendant HWF’s activities, policies, and practices,

70. Once Plaintiff Vanderbrooke notified that he and Plaintiff Arostegui were

responsible for the authorities coming to Howling Woods Farm, Defendant Hodanish had

knowledge of Plaintiffs’ complaints, objections, and/or protests.

71. As a direct result of Plaintiff Vanderbrooke admitting to contacting the authorities,

Defendants took immediate retaliatory and adverse employment action against Plaintiff

Vanderbrooke, by terminating his employment with Defendant HWF.

72. Additionally, Defendant Hodanish extended this retaliatory action toward Plaintiff

Alphonsus by effectively terminating her employment with Defendant HWF.

73. As a direct result of her association with Plaintiff Vanderbrooke, Plaintiff

Alphonsus was removed from the Howling Woods Farm Facebook group, effectively resulting in

her termination.

74. In turn, Plaintiff Alphonsus objected to Defendant Hodanish’s decision to terminate

her, with the reasonable belief that Plaintiff Vanderbrooke’s termination was “in violation of a

21
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 22 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law.” Moreover, Plaintiff Alphonsus

reasonably believed that to terminate her based on her association with Plaintiff Vanderbrooke was

“in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law.”

75. While Defendant Hodanish initially took corrective action by reinstating Plaintiff

Alphonsus’ employment, he subsequently terminated Plaintiff Alphonsus again, due to her

connection with the employee who exposed his unlawful practices, Plaintiff Vanderbrooke.

76. Finally, Plaintiff Arostegui observed that Defendant HWF was failing to comply

with Governor Phil Murphy’s Executive Order 218.

77. Executive Order 218 declared a State of Emergency across New Jersey due to a

severe nor’easter across the State.

78. In the course of her employment with Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff Arostegui

reasonably believed that Defendant Hodanish’s activities regarding the failure to comply with

Executive Order 218 constituted a “violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant

to law,” N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(a)(1), (c)(1), and was “incompatible with a clear mandate of public

policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare,” N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c)(3).

79. Once Plaintiff Arostegui stated that she would not be coming into work due to the

State of Emergency declared by the Governor, Defendant Hodanish immediately retaliated against

her.

80. As a direct result of Plaintiff Arostegui’s compliance with Executive Order 218,

Defendants took retaliatory action against Plaintiff by taking adverse employment action

culminating in her termination.

81. Defendants are vicariously, strictly, and/or directly liable to Plaintiffs for an

unlawful retaliatory discharge in violation of CEPA, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq.

22
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 23 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

82. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions set forth herein,

Plaintiffs have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants on this Count,

together with compensatory and equitable relief, all remedies available under CEPA, punitive

damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, and for such other relief

that the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT III

NJWHL VIOLATIONS

83. Plaintiffs repeats each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth fully herein

at length.

84. At all times relevant hereto, Corporate Defendant was an “employer” as defined by

the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWH”). N.J.S.A. 34:11-56(a)(1)(g).

85. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Vanderbrooke and Plaintiff Arostegui were

“employees” as defined by the NJWHL. N.J.S.A. 34:11-56(a)(1)(h).

86. New Jersey law states that as of January 1, 2021 an employee must be paid a

minimum wage of at least $12 per hour for every hour worked. Prior to this increase the minimum

wage was $11 per hour in 2020 and $10 per hour for the second half of 2019. N.J.S.A. 34:11-

56(a)(4).

87. Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui, along with all other paid employees of

Corporate Defendant, were regularly required to work “volunteer shifts” in which they were not

paid for their labor. Corporate Defendant required each paid employee to work two weekends per

month without pay.

88. Additionally, Plaintiffs Vanderbrooke and Arostegui both received paychecks on

23
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 24 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

numerous occasions in which they were not compensated for all of the hours they had worked and

tours they had given, for which they were owed a commission.

89. The foregoing actions of Defendant HWF constitute violations of New Jersey law.

90. Defendant HWF intentionally and willfully failed to pay and refused to pay

Plaintiffs minimum wages, in violation of New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.7,

the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour

Regulations, N.J.A.C. 12:56-1.2(a)6.

91. Defendant HWF’s violations of New Jersey labor law entitle Plaintiffs to recovery

of their unpaid wages in an amount to be proven at trial, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of

the action to be determined by the court, plus interest.

DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE

Pursuant to Rule 4:10-2(b), demand is made that Defendants disclose to Plaintiffs’ attorney

whether or not there are any insurance agreements or policies under which any person or firm

carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all the judgment which may be

entered in this action or indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgement and

provide Plaintiffs’ attorney with true copies of those insurance agreements or policies, including,

but not limited to, any and all declaration sheets. This demand shall include and cover not only

primary insurance coverage, but also any excess, catastrophe, and umbrella policies.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues.

McOMBER, McOMBER & LUBER P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Keith
Vanderbrooke, Hanna Arostegui, & Andrea
Alphonsus

24
 OCN-L-001309-21 05/17/2021 3:53:12 PM Pg 25 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20211227770

By: /s/ Matthew A. Luber, Esq.__

Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
Dated: May 17, 2021

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, MATTHEW A. LUBER, ESQUIRE is hereby designated as trial

counsel for Plaintiffs.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, it is hereby certified that, to the best of my knowledge, there are

no other civil actions or arbitration proceedings involving this matter with respect to this matter

and no other parties need to be joined at this time. I certify that the 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.

McOMBER, McOMBER & LUBER P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Keith
Vanderbrooke, Hanna Arostegui, & Andrea
Alphonsus

By: /s/ Matthew A. Luber, Esq.__

Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
Dated: May 17, 2021

25