I think that what you are trying to do is the following:
Pick an $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ which satisfies $f(\xi)=0$, where $\xi\in\mathbb{C}$ is a primitive $n$-th root of unity.
Then consider $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})[\zeta]$, where $\zeta$ is a root of the reduction modulo $p$ of the $n$th cyclotomic polynomial $\Phi_n(x)$.
Is it the case that $[f]_p(\zeta)=0$ in $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})[\zeta]$, where $[f]_p(x)$ is the reduction modulo $p$ of $f(x)$?
The answer is, I believe, "yes": since $\Phi_n(x)$ is the monic irreducible polynomial for $\xi$ over $\mathbb{Q}$, it follows that $f(\xi)=0$ if and only if $\Phi_n(x)$ divides $f(x)$ (in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$, but since both have integer coefficients, Gauss's Lemma guarantees the divisibility happens in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$). So we can write $f(x) = \Phi_n(x)g(x)$ for some $g(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$.
Reducing modulo $p$, we get that $[f]_p(x) = [\Phi_n]_p(x)[g]_p(x) \in (\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})[x]$, and evaluating at $\zeta$ we get $[f]_p(\zeta) = [\Phi_n]_p(\zeta)[g]_p(\zeta) = 0,$ since $\zeta$ satisfies $[\Phi_n]_p(x)$.
If you want to define $\zeta$ as satisfying $x^{n-1}+\cdots+x+1$, then the answer is "no". Take $n=4$; then you are defining $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})[\zeta]\cong \frac{(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})[x]}{(x^3+x^2+x+1)}.$ But $f(x)=x^2+1$ satisfies $f(\xi)=0$ (since $\xi=i$), but $[f]_p(\zeta) = x^2+1\neq 0$.
Based on your comment above, it seems rather you are trying to use the "same" primitive root of unity for both $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$. You have to be very careful here. It is of course possible to consider $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]$, where $\zeta\in\mathbb{C}$ is a complex primitive $n$th root of unity. And similarly, you can consider the splitting field of $x^n-1$ over $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, and take a root $\xi$ which is (one hopes) a primitive element of the splitting field, so as to consider $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}[\xi]$, but $\xi\in\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}$, the algebraic closure of the field of $p$-elements. It really does not make sense to talk about $\mathbb{Z}[\xi]$: for this notation to make sense, you need an overring which contains both $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\xi$, and there is no obvious overring that does ($\xi$ "lives" in a field of characteristic $p$, $\mathbb{Z}$ does not).
Here is one thing you can do: keep them straight and proceed more or less along the lines I described above.
First, fix an integer $n$. Let $\Phi_n(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ be the $n$th cyclotomic polynomial over $\mathbb{Z}$, so that the roots of $\Phi_n(x)$ are precisely the complex numbers that are primitive $n$th roots of unity. Let $\zeta$ be such a root, and will consider $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]$.
By the usual theory, for all $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$, $f(\zeta)=0$ if and only if $\Phi_n(x)$ divides $f(x)$ over $\mathbb{Z}[x]$.
Similarly, let $\Psi_{n,p}(x)\in\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}[x]$ be the polynomial $\Psi_{n,p}(x) = \prod(x-\omega)$ where $\omega$ runs over all elements of (multiplicative) order $n$ in $\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}$. Note that $\Psi_{n,p}(x)$ need not be equal to the reduction modulo $p$ of $\Phi_n(x)$. For example, $\Phi_p(x)=x^{p-1}+\cdots+1$, but in characteristic $p$ we have $x^p-1 = (x-1)^p$, so the only root of $x^p-1$ in $\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}$ is $1$, which is not of multiplicative order $p$; so $\Psi_{p,p}(x) = 1$, since the product is empty. In fact,t his holds whenever $n$ is a power of $p$; more generally, if $n$ is divisible by $p$, you are going to run into problems when you work in characteristic $p$.
However, if $n$ is not divisible by $p$, then I believe the proof for $\Phi_n(x)$ will go through to prove that $\Psi_{n,p}(x)$ will be irreducible, and you can consider $\xi$ to be a root in the algebraic closure. Then $\overline{g}(x)\in\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}[x]$ is such that $\overline{g}(\xi)=0$ if and only if $\Psi_{n,p}(x)$ divides $\overline{g}(x)$. In particular, by reducing $\Phi_n(x)$ modulo $p$ you get that $\Psi_{n,p}(x)$ divides $[\Phi_n]_p(x)$.
Now, suppose you have $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ such that $f(x)$ vanishes at a complex primitive $n$th root of unity, $f(\zeta)=0$. Then $\Phi_n(x)$ divides $f(x)$, hence $[\Phi_n]_p(x)$ divides $[f]_p(x)$, hence $\Psi_{n,p}(x)$ divides $[f]_p(x)$, hence $[f]_p(x)$ vanishes at the $\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}[x]$ primitive $n$th root of unity, $[f]_p(\xi)=0$, which proves your claim at least in the case where $p$ does not divide $n$.
What if $p$ divides $n$? Consider $n=p$ for simplicity. $\Phi_p(x) = x^{p-1}+\cdots+x+1$. You can reduce modulo $p$, but since $(x-1)^p = x^p-1 = (x-1)(x^{p-1}+\cdots+x+1),$ it follows that $x^{p-1}+\cdots+x+1 = (x-1)^{p-1}$ in $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}[x]$. The only root is $1$, and there are no primitive $p$th roots of unity, so it makes no sense to talk about $\xi$, a primitive $p$th root of unity in $\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}$. You can ask whether, if $f(\zeta)=0$ for $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$, does it follow that $1$ is a root of $[f]_p(x)$ with multiplicity at least $p-1$ in $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}[x]$, and the answer is "yes": If $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ is a multiple of $\Phi_p(x)$, then reducing modulo $p$ you get that $[f]_p(x)$ is a multiple of $(x-1)^{p-1}$, and therefore $[f]_p(1)=0$ and $1$ is a root with multiplicity at least $p-1$.
But again: you have to be careful because you are really working with two different "primitive roots of unity" (and in characteristic dividing $n$, there may not even be such a thing).