LAWSUIT FILED BY 3 MONROE POLICE OFFICERS vs. WOLFE & AdmIN

THREE MONROE TOWNSHIP POLICE OFFICERS SUE MAYOR GREGORY WOLFE AND TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS

Lawsuit Alleges Age Discrimination, Retaliation, Manipulated Promotions, and a Hostile Work Environment Within the Monroe Township Police Department

Gloucester County Superior Court

Docket No. GLO-L-000363-26

Filed March 17, 2026

Mayor Gregory Wolfe is a named defendant in an age discrimination lawsuit brought by three veteran officers of the Monroe Township Police Department. The lawsuit alleges serious claims including age discrimination, retaliation, discriminatory promotional practices, and a hostile work environment.

The 19-page civil complaint, filed on March 17, 2026, by Lieutenants Anthony Pease, Lester Harris, and Eric Dare, raises troubling allegations about the treatment of experienced police officers under Wolfe's administration.

The central accusation is that officers with over 25 years of service were allegedly overlooked for promotions in favor of younger, less-experienced candidates. Furthermore, they were subjected to age-related remarks, subsequently stripped of responsibilities, reassigned, or marginalized within the department.

Who is suing whom?

Plaintiffs: Anthony Pease, Lester Harris, and Eric Dare are three longtime officers of the Monroe Township Police Department.

Defendants: Mayor Gregory Wolfe; the Township of Monroe; Police Chief John McBride; Deputy Chief Mark Burton; Business Administrator James DeHart; Human Resources personnel Felicia McBride and Christine Scola (noted as Scolia in the complaint's caption); and unidentified defendants.

The allegations against Mayor Wolfe in this Gregory Wolfe lawsuit include direct attribution of several troubling statements made during police promotional interviews.

> “Old guy.” Allegedly, Wolfe referred to Lieutenant Pease as an “old guy” while questioning his retirement plans during a February 13, 2025, interview. 

> “You would be an idiot for staying.” This statement was reportedly made by Wolfe to Lieutenant Dare when discussing the prospect of continuing to work beyond 30 years of service.

> Preference for younger officers. The complaint cites a retired police official who claimed Wolfe expressed a desire to promote younger officers who were not yet retirement eligible.

> Questionable promotions. The officers allege that the administration consistently favored younger candidates over the plaintiffs despite their extensive experience, seniority, and qualifications.

> Retaliatory treatment. Following disputed promotion decisions, the plaintiffs allege they faced punitive reassignments, reduced duties, loss of equipment, and diminished professional standing.

One significant detail - Lieutenant Pease previously served as a School Resource Officer at Williamstown High School, and he is now among the experienced officers suing Wolfe and other township officials.

The lawsuit also alleges that provisions in employment contracts placed financial pressure on senior officers close to retirement eligibility.

These claims made by the plaintiffs raise consequential questions about leadership, fairness, and accountability within the Monroe Township Police Department, even though they are not judicial findings.

SIX LEGAL CLAIMS

The complaint asserts six counts under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD):

1. Age discrimination / failure to promote: Allegations of denying qualified older officers promotions based on age or retirement eligibility.
2. Disparate treatment: Claims of treating older officers less favorably concerning assignments, equipment, and career opportunities.
3. Unlawful retaliation: Allegations of penalizing officers who challenged discriminatory practices or employment decisions.
4. Hostile work environment: Claims of creating intimidating or degrading workplace conditions through age-related comments and professional marginalization.
5. Aiding and abetting discrimination: Seeking personal liability against officials, including Mayor Wolfe, for allegedly participating in or enabling discriminatory conduct.
6. Continuing violation: Alleging that the conduct showed an ongoing pattern rather than isolated incidents.

The officers seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and other relief, and demand a jury trial. Although the complaint references the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, its six pleaded counts are based on New Jersey law.

The bigger question: Who is really standing behind Monroe's police officers?

Supporting law enforcement means more than making political statements or claiming to be pro-police. It involves respecting the men and women who serve, protecting their rights, and ensuring that promotions and employment decisions within the Monroe Township Police Department are based on qualifications and merit rather than age, retirement eligibility, or political connections.

Why did three experienced Monroe Township police officers feel compelled to take their mayor, police leadership, and township administration to court to safeguard their careers and civil rights? And why does a mayor, who presents himself as a champion of law enforcement, face allegations of discrimination and retaliation from the very officers serving his community?

Supporting the badge must also mean respecting the person who wears it.

Source: Pease, Harris, and Dare v. Township of Monroe, Gregory Wolfe, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County, Law Division, Docket GLO-L-000363-26, complaint filed March 17, 2026.