Police officer sues over bagel sandwich served with hair

Related Topics

PHILADELPHIA | Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:47am EDT

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A police officer is suing a New Jersey delicatessen and its cook, who admitted stuffing body hair into the officer's bagel sandwich in revenge for a traffic arrest.

The lawsuit filed by Patrolman Jeremy Merck of the Evesham, New Jersey, Police Department seeks unspecified damages from Good Foods to Go in Marlton, New Jersey, and its cook, Ryan Burke, for an incident that occurred in February 2010.

Merck ordered an egg, cheese and turkey bagel and after eating part of it, he found it "was adulterated with pubic, chest or other human hair," the lawsuit said.

Merck sought medical help and was checked for communicable diseases at a hospital, his attorney, Bruce Zamost, said on Friday. None was detected.

Burke, who served Merck the sandwich, was later charged with aggravated assault, retaliation against a public servant and food tampering. He ultimately served 15 days in jail.

According to a police report from the criminal case, "Burke admitted to tearing out hairs from his chest and his pubic area and placing them on Ptl. Merck's sandwich out of anger due to the fines and lawyers fees he had from the prior arrest in 2009."

In 2009, Merck charged Burke with traffic offenses. Burke later complained the traffic case cost him $4,400.

"Burke admitted that he did not like Ptl. Merck as a result of that incident and expressed that he shouldn't have to see Ptl. Merck at Good Foods to Go," the police report continued.

A woman who answered the phone at the headquarters of the restaurant chain declined to comment on reports Burke was fired after the sandwich incident. The restaurant's lawyer, Mark Sander, could not be reached for comment on Friday.

Zamost said no trial date has been set for the civil case but it would likely begin next year.

(Editing by Barbara Goldberg and Jerry Norton)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
bwilly321 wrote:
So how is the store responsible for what a disgruntled employee does? It seems to me they did all they could if indeed they fired him. I know, the lawyers are looking for deep pockets. The case against the store should not be allowed to go forward, and the employee who did the deed should be personally liable and fired!!

Nov 01, 2011 2:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
So, what damages does the officer have? Perhaps pain and suffering as he was too stressed out by the incident. As a police officer, though, I would think he would be able to tolerate stress. Although he is a lowly traffic cop…

Nov 01, 2011 9:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cootz wrote:
f the stupid police. serves them right. NJ is home of the speed trap and other questionable traffic snares designed to bilk money out of the citizens. the real dirtbag criminals dont have money to pay fines and ultimately end up in jail anyway. all that costs money until they have no choice but to lower dui limits and increase fines and screw otherwise good people over. @cops – if you dont want a pube sandwich, don’t wear your uniform to the restaurant. who do you think makes your food? answer – the people you harass.

Nov 02, 2011 1:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.