BIANCA KARTERON VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMANÂ Â Â SERVICES(L-0146-15, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0859-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 11, 2017Background
- Bianca Karteron (pro se) sued New Jersey Dept. of Human Services, Office of Licensing (Office of Licensing), and Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development, One Stop Career Center (One Stop), seeking damages related to her prior employment with a contractor, SODAT of New Jersey, Inc.
- Karteron alleged the Office of Licensing improperly allowed SODAT to operate without employment contracts and claimed reputational harm that impeded her job prospects.
- She also alleged One Stop failed to advertise or inform her about the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e), arguing sovereign immunity, that state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983 or the NJ Civil Rights Act, failure to comply with the New Jersey Tort Claims Act notice requirement, and failure to state a claim.
- The Law Division dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding (1) tort claims against the State were barred for failure to file a timely Tort Claim Notice, (2) state agencies are immune and not "persons" under § 1983/NJCRA, and (3) the complaint failed to plead a viable cause of action against the agencies.
- Karteron appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning and applying plenary review of the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tort/negligence claims against State agencies may proceed absent a Tort Claim Notice | Karteron alleged negligence/negligent supervision by State agencies relating to her employer | Defendants: NJ Tort Claims Act requires timely notice; no notice was given and statutory time bars apply | Held: Claims barred for failure to file a timely Tort Claim Notice; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether State agencies are "persons" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NJ Civil Rights Act | Karteron sought relief for civil-rights-type harms (e.g., reputational injury, failure to inform about CEPA) | Defendants: State agencies and officials acting in official capacity are not "persons" under § 1983/NJCRA; sovereign immunity bars suit | Held: State agencies not "persons" under § 1983/NJCRA; sovereign immunity applies; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether failure to inform about CEPA or lack of employment contract states a claim against State agencies | Karteron claimed One Stop failed to advise her of CEPA rights and Office of Licensing overlooked contract issues | Defendants: Even if true, those allegations do not create a cause of action against State agencies | Held: Such allegations do not state a viable cause of action against the State agencies; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether the complaint, particularly as filed pro se, sufficiently alleged a cause of action | Karteron argued she should be allowed a trial and relief given her non-lawyer status | Defendants: Complaint fails on its face to allege legal elements | Held: Court searched liberally but found the complaint incoherent and not suggesting a viable cause of action; dismissal with prejudice upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Rezem Family Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 2011) (standard of review for Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal)
- Giannakopoulos v. Mid State Mall, 438 N.J. Super. 595 (App. Div. 2014) (no deference to trial judge’s legal interpretations on motion to dismiss)
- Printing Mart–Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (complaint must suggest a cause of action; courts read pro se complaints liberally)
- Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431 (2013) (reiterating the Printing Mart standard that a cause of action must be suggested by the facts)
- Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Memorial Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244 (App. Div. 1957) (liberal construction of complaints to discern a cause of action)