http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com Mr. Broughton responded by filing a complaint accusing Dr. Toffler of creating a “hostile work environment” for him. In a prepared response, Dr. Toffler said she recognized her request was “viewed as interference, and for this I am distressed, because that was not my intent.” According to Mr. Hameeduddin, Dr. Toffler’s censure was necessary to protect Teaneck from a serious libel suit which could have been pressed by Mr. Wilson and/ or Mr. Broughton. “From a liability standpoint, it is dangerous for public officials to make these types of allegations against longterm public employees without any basis in fact or evidence,” said Thomas Hanrahan, the Teaneck Town Council’s special attorney to defend the body against Dr. Toffler’s lawsuit. Civil Rights Suit In June 2011, four months after she was censured, Dr. Toffler filed a civil rights suit against the council, alleging her rights
April 2012/Nissan 5772
to free speech—presumably the right to make the charges against city employees—and due process were violated. Dr. Toffler maintained she had not received adequate notice of the council’s intention to vote on censuring her and, she said, she had not been given the opportunity to review the claims the council had formulated against her. Defending itself in court, the town council produced a written notice from Teaneck Township Attorney Stanley Turitz showing that Dr. Toffler had received five days to prepare. Further, the council maintained that its members’ expression of “disapproval and outrage” at her behavior was “merely a reprimand” that carried no consequences for Dr. Toffler’s “misguided comments to the reporter, and lack[ed] any real force or punishment.” In addition, they said, the ethicist was not censured for speaking to a reporter, but rather for making statements about city employees she later
The Jewish Voice and Opinion
admitted “were unsupported by fact or evidence, and were both inappropriate and erroneous.” The council said Dr. Toffler’s comments were “detrimental to maintaining the proper management” of Teaneck. Vindication Six months later, in December 2011, Superior Judge Charles E. Powers dismissed Dr. Toffler’s bid to have the censure overturned. He also ruled against her request for legal fees. She had not asked for damages. Mr. Hameeduddin said the council was “vindicated” by the judge’s ruling. “From the beginning, I said Councilwoman Toffler’s lawsuit was frivolous. We only reacted to what she did. We didn’t go after her,” he said. Appeal After losing in court, Dr. Toffler announced that she planned to appeal, explaining that she feared the council’s censure would be used as a tool to silence dissenting political views.
Page - 17
“As people in Teaneck know, I am committed to free speech, truth, and justice, which are denied by this judgment,” she said. Mr. Hanrahan said the ethicist’s claim that she had sued in the first place to vindicate her reputation was “ironic” at best. “She seems to have no concern whatsoever for the reputations of Wilson and Broughton, to whom she has never apologized,” he said. Asked about her charge that her right of free speech had been interfered with, Mr. Hanrahan said there was no violation of free speech because she had made her derogatory comments about the Teaneck employees as a public official, not as a private citizen. Suit Withdrawn In early February 2012, before the appeal was heard, Dr. Toffler withdrew her suit completely. Although her attorney Erik Hassing said she would issue a statement to explain her decision, none was forthcoming.
continued on page 18