Orlando Mass Shooting Victims Bring Sex-Harassment Claims Against NJ Law Firm
The plaintiffs also claim the office manager for the Law Offices of Conrad J. Benedetto in Voorhees enlisted them to help solicit clients who were victims of the October 2017 mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas.
September 25, 2018 at 03:45 PM
6 minute read
Two survivors of the 2016 Pulse nightclub mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, claim in a recently filed suit that, after they were solicited by a New Jersey law firm as clients, the firm's office manager pressured them for sex.
The plaintiffs also claim the office manager for the Law Offices of Conrad J. Benedetto in Voorhees enlisted them to help solicit clients who were victims of the October 2017 mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas. When the plaintiffs resisted the office manager's sexual advances, they suffered retaliation, blackmail and were denied reimbursement for travel expenses to Las Vegas, the suit claims.
The suit—filed Sept. 14 in Superior Court in Camden County, New Jersey, and first reported by NJ Advance Media—brings claims for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation and improper reprisal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, as well as consumer fraud and negligence claims against Benedetto, his firm and office manager John Groff.
The Benedetto firm and Groff contend that the complaint contains inaccuracies and leaves out information.
A lone gunman who entered the Pulse nightclub killed 49 people and wounded 53 others.
According to the complaint, plaintiff Javier Nava, a resident of Orange County, Florida, suffered a gunshot to the abdomen in the nightclub shooting. The other plaintiff, Brian Nunez, from Providence, Rhode Island, was not wounded.
The plaintiffs said they met Groff through a Facebook group he established and maintained, “Survivors of Mass Shootings,” whose stated purpose was to “help each other through our healing process.”
“By holding himself out on Facebook as a fellow victim, Defendant Groff gained access for Defendant Benedetto to a database of vulnerable victims,” the complaint stated.
After Groff “advised Plaintiffs that they had viable legal causes of action based on their presence at Pulse Nightclub” during the shooting, Nava and Nunez retained the Benedetto firm to represent them in early 2017, they claim. The plaintiffs heard nothing about their cases for months, the suit said.
Soon, Groff began sending text messages to Nava and Nunez, “not for professional purposes relating to their cases, but to establish personal relationships with plaintiffs and to groom them for his imminent sexual harassment,” the complaint stated.
Then, after the October mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas—where 58 people were killed and more than 800 injured—Groff enlisted Nava and Nunez to travel with him to Las Vegas and California to offer Benedetto's legal services, according to the suit. Groff agreed to pay travel, lodging and food expenses for Nava and Nunez, who believed that sharing their stories with others would be “therapeutic,” the suit said.
During the trip, Groff allegedly first made sexual advances toward Nunez. When Nunez rejected the advances, Groff threatened to withhold payment for travel expenses, the complaint said.
Later, when the group visited Riverside, California, Groff made advances toward Nava, who likewise rejected the overtures, according to the suit.
The suit alleges that Groff then began sending sexually graphic text messages and pornographic images to Nunez and Nava, who nevertheless stayed on the trip because they had no independent means to return home. Numerous text messages from Groff to the plaintiffs, in which he repeatedly solicits them for sex, are documented in the complaint.
After the trip to Las Vegas and California, Nunez and Nava learned that the Benedetto firm never filed any suits on their behalf, prompting them to fire the firm, said Matthew Luber of McOmber & McOmber in Red Bank, who represents Nunez and Nava.
Also representing Nunez and Nava is Pasadena, California, attorney Brian Claypool.
Benedetto's firm said in a statement about the suit, ”It is quite the coincidence that one of the attorneys who filed this lawsuit just so happens to represent victims of the November 2017 Las Vegas shooting—just like the Law Offices of Conrad J. Benedetto does. This coincidence aside, we believe the complaint contains factual inaccuracies, takes communications out of context, omits facts that would put those communications in a new light, makes factual allegations without a logical basis, and asserts legal claims that are not supported by the alleged facts.”
The statement continued, “We are exploring all of our options regarding the complaint, including investigating whether the filing of the complaint by The Claypool Law Firm and McOmber & McOmber, P.C. was brought in bad faith and without a true factual basis.”
Groff said in his own statement about the suit, “I worked with Javier Nava and Brian Nunez to give them an opportunity to find healing with other people who were the victims of mass shootings. At no point during our interactions—which were always friendly and informal—did Javier or Brian give me any sense that they had a problem.”
Groff added, “I believe this legal complaint is full of incorrect facts and serves as nothing more than an attempt to destroy my professional reputation. I look forward to the opportunity to correct the record and prove that this lawsuit has no merit.”
The high-pressure tactics allegedly employed by the Benedetto firm and other law firms engaging survivors of the Orlando shooting, including Nunez and Nava, were described in an April 2018 New York Times report.
In that report, survivors of the shooting said that “within days of the traumatizing events, they faced relentless pressure to sign representation contracts.”
The case is not the first time Groff has been accused of pressuring a firm client for sex. A January 2016 suit against Benedetto's firm claims Groff told a firm client, Javier Carrasquillo, who was facing criminal charges, that the firm would keep him out of jail so that he could exploit and solicit sex from him. That case is no longer pending, and its outcome could not immediately be determined.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readLargest Law Firms: New Jersey and Firmwide Attorney Count
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250