GAURI NAVARE VS. ATLANTIC HEALTH SYSTEM (L-1613-18, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0471-20

Background

Navare worked for Atlantic Health from 2003 to January 2, 2018, as a clinical nutrition coordinator supervising dietitians and maintaining staff licensure/competency files.
Supervisor Emma Atanasio was hired April 2017 and became Navare’s supervisor until termination.
Navare took New Jersey Family Leave (Dec. 6–18, 2017) and returned to work Dec. 19, 2017.
A Joint Commission audit during Navare’s leave revealed missing documentation; review disclosed that a dietician ("Monroe") lacked RD registration and Navare’s 2015–2016 performance-evaluation entries were incomplete or inaccurate.
Atlantic investigated, learned Monroe was not registered, and terminated Navare on Jan. 2, 2018, citing falsified/omitted documentation and Atlantic policies permitting immediate termination for serious misconduct.
Navare sued under the New Jersey Family Leave Act alleging retaliatory discharge; the Law Division granted summary judgment to Atlantic on all claims, and Navare appealed only the NJFLA retaliation claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Navare established a causal link between taking family leave and her termination	Navare argued temporal proximity (return then fired), supervisor comments and conduct support an inference of retaliation	Atlantic argued it terminated Navare for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (inaccurate/omitted evaluations exposing hospital risk); timing was coincidental and HR advised delay	Court: No causal link; timing not "unusually suggestive"; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Atlantic’s stated reason (false/omitted evaluation entries) was pretext for retaliation	Navare contended Atlantic’s proffered reason was manufactured and therefore pretextual	Atlantic maintained omissions/falsifications were significant and justified immediate termination per policy	Court: Atlantic articulated a legitimate reason; Navare failed to show that reason was pretext
Whether supervisor statements and conduct showed hostility to family leave	Navare relied on remarks like “we’ll see” about future intermittent leave and questions about an employee who overstayed leave	Atlantic said remarks were ambiguous or not directed at protected leave and HR handled leave referrals	Court: Remarks do not permit a reasonable inference of hostility or retaliatory intent
Whether supervisor’s delay in firing (vacation, delegation of payroll) indicates retaliatory motive	Navare argued the delay and delegation undermined Atlantic’s claimed motive	Atlantic said the delegation was ministerial and HR suggested waiting until after holidays	Court: Delay/delegation irrelevant; does not show retaliation

Key Cases Cited

Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015) (standard for reviewing factual record on summary judgment)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard: view record in favor of nonmoving party)
DePalma v. Bldg. Inspection Underwriters, 350 N.J. Super. 195 (App. Div. 2002) (elements required for NJFLA retaliation claim)
Young v. Hobart W. Grp., 385 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2005) (temporal proximity alone ordinarily insufficient to prove causation)
Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997) (temporal proximity analysis cited)
Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) (same, limiting inference from timing)