A veteran Jackson Township police lieutenant has amended his whistleblower lawsuit to expand the list of defendants, now naming former Mayor Michael Reina alongside township officials and police leadership in a case alleging misconduct, safety failures, and retaliation.
The lawsuit, filed in Ocean County Superior Court by Lt. Joseph Candido, stems from a complaint originally brought earlier and now updated to include additional claims and parties. Candido, a longtime member of the department who rose through the ranks to lieutenant, alleges that after reporting violations of law, policy, and public safety standards, he faced a series of retaliatory actions that damaged his career and reputation.
The amended filing names the Township of Jackson, the Jackson Township Police Department, former Police Chief Matthew Kunz, former Mayor Reina, and other unidentified individuals. Candido asserts that the retaliation and misconduct he describes were not isolated, but part of broader systemic failures within township leadership.
According to the complaint, Candido was appointed Public Safety Director in 2024 and soon began raising concerns about department operations. Among the issues cited are alleged failures to properly complete mandatory statewide police licensing renewals. The filing claims deadlines were missed despite assurances from leadership that the department was in compliance, including an instance in which a corrected application was not submitted for more than two months and ultimately filed late.
Candido also alleges that internal affairs investigations were mishandled, with disciplinary matters delayed beyond required timelines. He claims that explanations provided by leadership regarding consultations with legal counsel were inaccurate, potentially putting the department at risk of violating state Attorney General directives governing such investigations.
The complaint further raises concerns about safety practices within the department. Candido alleges that outside vendors were permitted to use the township’s police firing range without proper oversight, insurance verification, or controlled access. He claims that shared entry codes made it impossible to track who entered the facility, including during overnight hours, creating potential risks involving weapons stored on site.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that a review of department equipment found multiple officers using expired bulletproof vests or lacking clear records of issuance, despite available funds that could have been used to replace them. Candido contends these conditions placed officers’ lives in jeopardy.
Central to the amended complaint are claims of retaliation. Candido alleges that after reporting these issues to township officials and the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, then-Chief Kunz declined to recommend his police license renewal, citing “moral turpitude and candor issues” without providing supporting documentation. He further claims he was removed from internal affairs, reassigned to a lesser role, and deprived of overtime and specialty assignments.
The filing also references earlier allegations dating back to 2016, when Candido and another officer reported Kunz to state authorities for misconduct. According to the complaint, township officials failed to act at that time, allowing issues to persist.
Candido further alleges that he was not informed of potential legal conflicts when he accepted the role of Public Safety Director, including concerns about the incompatibility of holding that position while remaining a sworn officer. A court later determined the roles were incompatible, forcing his return to his prior position and affecting his pension status. The amended complaint now ties former Mayor Reina to those decisions, alleging he was involved in discussions regarding the position but failed to disclose the potential conflict.
The lawsuit includes claims under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the state’s whistleblower law, as well as alleged violations of civil rights protections. Candido is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along with attorneys’ fees and a jury trial.
The case remains pending in Superior Court. The allegations outlined in the amended complaint have not yet been tested in court, and no responses from the defendants were included in the filing.