BRYAN BRANCACCIO VS. CITY OF HACKENSACK (L-8335-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0802-16T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Brancaccio, a Hackensack firefighter since 1986, primarily worked "on the line" driving engines and operating pumps; firefighters on the fire prevention bureau work inspections and receive a $1,500 annual stipend in addition to base pay.
- In October 2013 a hospital pulmonary test found Brancaccio unable to wear a respirator; the Chief reassigned him to the fire prevention bureau effective October 14, 2013.
- A private physician later cleared Brancaccio to wear a respirator (November 2013); the original doctor then issued a statement finding him fit as well, but Brancaccio remained in the bureau and did not request a written transfer back to a platoon before retiring in 2016.
- Brancaccio sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging perceived-disability discrimination because the City did not return him "to the line," causing loss of overtime and per diem inspection opportunities.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment for the City, finding no adverse employment action and, alternatively, a legitimate non-discriminatory reason (staffing shortage of inspectors); Brancaccio appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City perceived Brancaccio as disabled | City perceived him as unable to wear a respirator after pulmonary test | City conceded perception but relied on safety/fitness concerns | Court: City perceived him as disabled at reassignment (not disputed) |
| Whether reassignment to fire prevention bureau was an "adverse employment action" under LAD | Reassignment deprived him of "massive" overtime and per diem inspection pay, constituting adverse action | Reassignment carried same base pay plus $1,500 stipend; no reduction in wages/status | Court: No adverse action — reassignment without reduced wages/status insufficient |
| Whether claimed lost overtime/per diem wages supported adverse-action/showing of damages | Loss of overtime and per diem was real and substantial (asserted) | Plaintiff provided no documentation, expert evidence, or proof work remained available; claims speculative | Court: Claims speculative; plaintiff failed to substantiate lost wages |
| Whether City's staffing need was pretext for discrimination | City's explanation was pretext; should have returned him once cleared | City legitimately needed inspectors and relied on safety/operational necessity | Court: Even if adverse action existed, staffing need was legitimate non-discriminatory reason; plaintiff failed to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (N.J. 2012) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in non-movant's favor)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Victor v. State, 401 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 2008) (reassignment without reduction in wages/status not necessarily an adverse action)
- Myers v. AT&T, 380 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 2005) (LAD prohibits discrimination based on perceived disability)
- Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339 (N.J. 2017) (appellate standard of review for summary judgment)