CARL E. LARSON VS. CITY OF PATERSON, ETC. (L-4092-13, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2526-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Carl E. Larson was a Paterson fire captain (employed 1987–2013); he filed workers' compensation claims for 2008 (neck), 2010 (ankle) and 2011 injuries; claims were settled by city council resolution in Feb. 2013.
- After the settlement Larson twice offered to take a fitness-for-duty exam; Fire Chief Michael Postorino allegedly told him to remain off duty and said the legal department and city council viewed him as a liability and intended to terminate him.
- Postorino allegedly warned Larson that if he tried to return he would be suspended without pay and, if he litigated, could be out of work for years and incur heavy attorney fees; Postorino also suggested retirement by a particular date to protect terminal leave.
- Larson (age 49) submitted his retirement application the following day and sued, alleging (1) retaliatory discharge for asserting workers’ compensation rights (common-law Lally claim) and (2) age discrimination under the LAD.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment to the City, dismissing both counts; Larson appealed.
- The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the age-discrimination claim but reversed as to the retaliatory-discharge claim and remanded for trial on that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.1 (exclusive LAD forum for "required to retire") deprived the court of jurisdiction over Larson's retaliatory-discharge (workers' comp) claim | Larson: statute does not apply because his claim rests on retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims (Lally), not on an LAD "required to retire" theory | City: 10:5-12.1 requires forced-retirement claims to be filed with the Attorney General, so the court lacked jurisdiction | Reversed: 10:5-12.1 applies only to claims under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12; it did not divest the court of jurisdiction over a Lally retaliatory-discharge claim based on workers' compensation retaliation |
| Whether the LAD preempts Larson's common-law retaliatory-discharge claim | Larson: Lally claim is independent of LAD and seeks different interests/remedies (common law tort) | City: LAD exclusivity (N.J.S.A. 10:5-27) bars parallel common-law claims | Reversed: LAD does not preempt common-law retaliatory-discharge claims that vindicate interests independent of LAD; Lally claim not barred |
| Whether summary judgment was proper because Larson failed to show an adverse employment action / constructive discharge | Larson: Postorino's statements and threatened suspension without pay/coerced retirement created objectively intolerable conditions — a constructive discharge | City: no formal termination proceedings had been started; alternatives existed (challenge suspension/termination), so Larson wasn’t forced to retire | Reversed: disputed material facts exist; viewed in Larson’s favor, evidence could support constructive discharge (coercive choice: retire or face suspension/termination without pay), so issue must go to a jury |
| Whether Larson stated a prima facie age-discrimination claim under the LAD | Larson: retirement was forced because of age (claimed) | City: no evidence age played any role; statutory filing/venue issues noted | Affirmed: Larson produced no evidence that age played a determinative role or that he was replaced by a sufficiently younger person; LAD claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary-judgment standard — view evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Lally v. Copygraphics, 85 N.J. 668 (1981) (recognizes common-law retaliatory discharge for workers’ compensation claimants)
- Shepherd v. Hunterdon Dev. Ctr., 174 N.J. 1 (2002) (constructive-discharge standard—objective, intolerable working conditions)
- Catalane v. Gilian Instrument Corp., 271 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 1994) (LAD preemption of parallel common-law claims when remedies overlap)
- Dale v. Boy Scouts of Am., 308 N.J. Super. 516 (App. Div. 1998) (LAD does not bar common-law remedies that vindicate independent interests)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)