2325 COM Cover Letter re Zinnia Health Objection w Exs

-3- FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 9. Rodgers is a 63-year-old African American woman. 10. At all relevant times, Rodgers was and is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist/Licensed Clinical Alcohol & Drug Counselor in good standing with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs and the New Jersey Board of Marriage and Family Therapy Examiners (the “Board”). See N.J.S.A. 45:8B-34 et seq. 11. On or about January 17, 2022, Zinnia hired Rodgers as an Outpatient License Clinician earning $70,000 a year. 12. In this role, Rodgers provided group and individual therapy to residents and outpatients of the Endeavor House. 13. Rodgers reported directly to Idris Rahman, also a licensed therapist and the Endeavor House’s Assistant Clinical Director, and was indirectly supervised/managed by Cincotta, Zinnia’s New Jersey-based Vice President of Operations, and Estefania Riofrio, the Endeavor House’s Clinical Director. 14. On Monday, December 26, 2022, the day after Christmas, one of Rodger’s clients, a vulnerable inpatient substance abuse patient, reported to Rodgers that she was sleeping with Steven Costa, Operational Manager, a Zinnia and Endeavor House staff member. 15. Upon information and belief, Costa reported directly to Cincotta, was a resident overseer in Zinnia’s Bloomfield House, an all-male sober facility, and supervised operational staff for Zinnia’s male and female sober houses. 16. As the patient was in recovery and being actively treated by Zinnia for substance abuse, for Costa to be engaging in a romantic/sexual relationship with Rodger’sESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 3 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-4- client constituted a violation of, among other things, federal and state law, Zinnia’s licensing obligations, Zinnia’s internal policies, and governing professional standards. 17. As Rodgers was bound by patient confidentiality but also knew Costa’s conduct to be a serious ethical breach and a violation of applicable law (in addition to being a threat to her client’s sobriety, treatment and well-being), Rodgers was obligated to report Costa’s misconduct, including pursuant to the terms of her own license and in accordance with Zinnia’s internal policies. 18. In light of these competing ethical and legal obligations and Rodgers’ good faith belief that laws had been and were being violated on an ongoing basis and her patient’s treatment and care was being compromised, Rodgers reached out to Rahman, her direct supervisor and a fellow certified and licensed therapist having responsibility for the relevant patient’s care, for advice on how to handle the matter. 19. After receiving the report about Costa and Rodger’s patient and their ongoing relationship, Rahman told Rodgers to go back to her office because he was supposedly receiving an important call. 20. Rodgers worked at her desk for a few more hours on December 26 but received no response from Rahman. 21. Rodgers returned to Rahman’s office at the end of the day because it was the week between Christmas and New Years and Rodgers was scheduled to be out on vacation for the next three days, but Rahman had already left the office for the day without following up with her about Costa and Rodger’s patient.ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 4 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-5- 22. Rodgers heard nothing from Rahman, Zinnia’s Human Resources Department, or anyone else during her holiday, and she went back to work on Friday, December 30, 2022. 23. After facilitating a group therapy session in the morning, Rodgers went to Rahman's office again to follow-up on the Costa report. 24. To Rodgers’ shock, Rahman indicated at that time that Costa had filed a complaint against Rodgers accusing her of improperly "gossiping" about Costa and/or defaming him. 25. Given that the only person Rodgers had discussed the matter with was Rahman himself, a direct supervisor also bound by patient confidentiality to whom she had a legal and ethical obligation to report the misconduct, it became evident to Rodgers that Rahman had disclosed her report to Costa who had been using her three-day absence from Zinnia to “set her up,” potentially by encouraging other patients to make coerced and/or falsified claims about Rodgers. 26. That Rahman, Costa, and others in Zinnia’s management were collaborating appeared to be confirmed when Rahman received a call he indicated was from Costa who was “on his way” to Rahman’s office. 27. Rahman, visibly flustered, rushed Rodgers from the office and indicated that he would follow up with her after he had received Costa. 28. Shortly thereafter, Rahman called Rodgers back into his office where Scher, Zinnia's Regional Human Resources Manager, was on the phone. 29. Scher told Rodgers she was being sent home pending an investigation.ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 5 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-6- 30. Rodgers asked Scher a number of questions about why and how she could possibly be subject to investigation much less discipline for bringing Costa’s misconduct to the attention of her supervisor, but Scher refused to answer Rodgers’ inquiries, claiming that Rodgers would have the right to ask pertinent questions at a meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2023. 31. In fact, that meeting did not happen and Rodgers was not contacted by anyone from Zinnia until she was called by Scher and Riofrio, Endeavor House’s Clinical Director, on Thursday, January 5, 2023. 32. Scher and Riofrio informed Rodgers that Zinnia’s purported “investigation” (which apparently did not include interviewing Rodgers) had allegedly indicated that Rodgers had broken patient confidentiality and Rodgers was being terminated, ostensibly for that reason. 33. In this call, Scher and Riofrio also indicated that Zinnia purportedly felt compelled to report Rodgers’ alleged breach of patient confidentiality to the Board. 34. Rodgers protested vigorously, noting that any claim that she had breached patient confidentiality was false and pretextual as she had only informed Rahman about Costa’s misconduct, and sought information about what her termination and the direct threat to her license (and livelihood) was supposedly based on. 35. Scher and Riofrio demurred, claiming all such information was confidential. 36. Rodgers continued to push back at her retaliatory treatment, noting among other things the legal and regulatory violations of Zinnia management arising from their failure to protect her client from Costa’s predatory behavior while simultaneouslyESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 6 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-7- sheltering Costa from any and all responsibility for his misconduct, and Rodgers ultimately terminated the call. 37. Scher and Riofrio then called Rodgers back and indicated that, upon reconsideration, Zinnia would not be reporting Rodgers to the Board and further noted that Zinnia management did not intend to challenge Rodgers’ unemployment application. 38. After her termination, Rodgers received a copy of an email that had been sent by a former Endeavor House employee who had quit in disgust after reporting Costa for sleeping with a number of different residents/patients, staff members, and engaging in various other wildly inappropriate and likely illegal behaviors, including sending naked pictures to clients and staff members. 39. As was reflected in the email, Costa’s misconduct had previously been reported to a number of people within Zinnia’s management structure. 40. However, as with Rodgers’ reporting of Costa’s predatory and illegal behaviors that threatened the treatment and care of Zinnia’s clients, Costa had apparently been protected by others in Zinnia’s management with whom he was personal friends and/or “gym buddies,” including, upon information and belief, Cincotta. 41. It is Rodgers’ understanding that as a result of the wide circulation of the email by her former colleague (with whom Rodgers did not have a personal or professional relationship), staff from Zinnia’s corporate offices flew to New Jersey, conducted an investigation, and Costa was terminated as a result of his abusive and illegal behaviors. 42. Upon information and belief, Cincotta has also been terminated by Zinnia as a result of his sheltering of Costa, his retaliatory conduct against Rodgers, and other misconduct.ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 7 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-8- 43. Not only has Rodgers not been contacted by Zinnia at any point since her wrongful termination (including in connection with the investigations of Costa and or Cincotta that led to their terminations), in contravention of Scher’s and Riofrio’s assurances to her, Zinnia has in fact challenged Rodgers’ application for unemployment benefits. 44. Upon information and belief, Rodgers was replaced by Zinnia in her role as an Outpatient Licensed Clinician for the Endeavor House by one or more persons who were substantially younger than 63 years old. FIRST COUNT (Retaliation in Violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et. seq. – All Defendants) 45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above as if set forth at length herein. 46. At all relevant times, Defendants were each acting as an “employer” within the meaning of N.J.S.A., 34:19-2(a). 47. Plaintiff, a Marriage and Family Therapist and License Clinical Alcohol & Drug Counsel licensed by the New Jersey Division of Consumer of Affairs and the New Jersey Board of Marriage and Family Therapists, is a “licensed or certified health care professional” within the meaning of N.J.S.A., 34:19-2(a). 48. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants’ conduct, activities, directives, practices and procedures, in particular in connection with Costa’s predatory and exploitive behaviors: (i) constituted violations of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, including without limitation N.J.A.C. 10:161A-17.2(a)(9) & 10:161A-ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 8 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-9- 1.7(c)(18); 2014 ACA Code of Ethics, A.5.a; NAADAC/NCC AP Code of Ethics I- 23.; (ii) constituted improper quality of patient care; and/or (iii) were incompatible with clear mandates of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare. 49. Plaintiff reported, objected to and opposed such conduct, including by complaining to Rahman, Scher, Riofrio, and other senior management and human resources personnel. 50. As a result of Plaintiff’s reporting of and objections to such conduct, Defendants undertook adverse employment action and otherwise retaliated against Plaintiff, including by terminating her on pretextual grounds. 51. Defendants’ adverse employment action against and termination of Plaintiff was egregious, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 52. Defendants’ senior management, upon information and belief including but not limited to Cincotta, Scher, and other senior managerial and human resources/legal personnel, directly participated in the relevant unlawful conduct. 53. Defendants’ retaliatory conduct has inflicted, and will continue to inflict, substantial injury upon Plaintiff, including without limitation economic damages including loss of income and benefits as well as emotional distress damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants awarding her compensatory damages, including but not limited to front pay; back pay; the value of health insurance and other benefits, commissions, bonuses and vacation; damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and costs ofESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 9 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-10- litigation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:19-13(d); and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. SECOND COUNT (Pierce v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980) – Wrongful Termination) 54. Plaintiff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein. 55. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as set forth above, violated “clear mandate[s] of public policy” and/or constituted illegal activities and unconscionable practices, as set forth in Pierce v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980). 56. Plaintiff’s objections to such wrongful conduct, as set forth above, constituted “protected activities” under Pierce. 57. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff was premised, in whole or part, upon Plaintiff’s exercise of protected activities and thus constituted a wrongful termination within the meaning of Pierce. 58. Defendants’ wrongful termination of Plaintiff has inflicted, and will continue to inflict, substantial injury upon Plaintiff, including without limitation economic damages including loss of income and benefits as well as emotional distress damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants awarding her compensatory damages, including but not limited to front pay; back pay; the value of health insurance and other benefits, commissions, bonuses and vacation; damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and costs of litigation; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. THIRD COUNT (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. – Age)ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 10 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-11- 59. Plaintiff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein. 60. Plaintiff was 63 years old and, upon information and belief, was the oldest therapist working at Endeavor House. 61. Plaintiff was terminated by Zinnia, in whole or in part, because of her advanced age. 62. Upon information and belief, Zinnia replaced at least a substantial portion of Plaintiff’s job duties by hiring and assigning them to one or more persons significantly younger than Plaintiff. 63. Zinnia wrongfully terminated Plaintiff and has thereby caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff substantial and foreseeable injury. 64. Zinnia’s conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiff substantial and foreseeable injury, including without limitation economic damages including loss of income and benefits as well as emotional distress. 65. Zinnia’s conduct was egregious, willful and wanton and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and involved extensive upper management participation. WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Zinnia awarding her compensatory damages, including but not limited to front pay, back pay, and the value of health insurance and other benefits, commissions, bonuses, and vacation; damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and costs of litigation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances.ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 11 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530

-12- FOURTH COUNT (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination , N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. – Aiding and Abetting Liability) 66. Plaintiff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein. 67. Defendants each aided and abetted each other’s wrongful acts and violations of the LAD. 68. Defendants each performed wrongful acts that caused Plaintiff injury and were in derogation of Plaintiff’s rights under the LAD as is set forth above. 69. Defendants were all generally aware of their roles as part of the overall illegality and violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the LAD as alleged above. 70. Defendants each knowingly and substantially assisted each other in the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the LAD as alleged above. 71. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiff substantial and foreseeable injury, including without limitation economic damages including loss of income and benefits as well as emotional. 72. Defendants’ conduct was egregious, willful, and wanton, in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and involved direct upper management participation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants named herein awarding her compensatory damages, including but not limited to front pay; back pay; the value of health insurance and other benefits, commissions, bonuses, and vacation; damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and costs of litigation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances.ESX-L-004622-23 07/19/2023 2:53:48 PM Pg 12 of 13 Trans ID: LCV20232124530