149 F. Supp. 3d 502
D.N.J.2015Background
- Michael Jackson, a long‑term casino employee and dual‑rate floorperson, returned from cancer treatment in mid‑2010 with dry mouth from radiation and requested accommodations (water, gum).
- Jackson alleges accommodations were effectively denied; he formally requested accommodations in March 2011 and was denied; he contacted the EEOC later in 2011.
- Landry’s acquired Trump Marina and, pursuant to the asset purchase agreement, required retention of 85% of employees; Trump Marina terminated all employees effective May 25, 2011, and Landry’s selectively rehired; Jackson was not rehired.
- Jackson sued under the ADA (disability discrimination), the ADEA (age discrimination), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (retaliation for complaining about disability discrimination).
- The court reviewed cross‑motions for summary judgment and treated the facts as a termination/failure‑to‑rehire with RIF‑style considerations, viewing subjective rehire criteria used by decisionmakers.
- The court denied summary judgment as to disability discrimination and retaliation claims (finding sufficient inference of causation and possible pretext), but granted summary judgment on the ADEA age discrimination claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA disability discrimination — failure to rehire/terminate | Jackson argues he was denied reasonable accommodations and was not rehired because of his disability | Landry’s contends nonselection was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory rehire criteria and past performance/behavior issues | Denied summary judgment for Landry’s — jury could infer disability discrimination/pretext given timing and inconsistent explanations |
| NJ LAD retaliation — internal complaints about denial of accommodations | Jackson argues he engaged in protected activity (internal complaints) and was shortly thereafter not rehired | Landry’s disputes causal link between Jackson’s complaints and nonselection, pointing to RIF and subjective selection factors | Denied summary judgment for Landry’s — temporal proximity and other record facts permit inference of retaliatory motive |
| ADEA age discrimination — not rehired because of age | Jackson contends rehiring pattern shows younger employees retained in his role (dual‑rate supervisors) | Landry’s argues retained cohort’s ages do not show a sufficiently younger replacement or disparity to infer age bias | Grant summary judgment for Landry’s — plaintiff failed to show a sufficiently younger comparator or age‑based replacement |
| Burden and framework for RIF/rehire context | Jackson urges application of relaxed RIF prima facie standard; selection was effectively a RIF plus selective rehiring | Landry’s frames it as termination/failure to hire subject to McDonnell Douglas with employer’s articulated nondiscriminatory reasons | Court applied McDonnell Douglas with RIF‑style consideration of subjective criteria; analysis denied summary judgment on disability/retaliation but granted on age claim |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (plaintiff’s burden to show employer’s reason is pretextual)
- Pivirotto v. Innovative Sys., 191 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 1999) (relaxed prima facie fourth element in reduction‑in‑force cases)
- Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997) (methods to establish causation for retaliation claims)
- Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity can establish causation when unusually close)
- Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis‑Cohen, 983 F.2d 509 (3d Cir. 1992) (direct and indirect methods to prove pretext)
- Monaco v. American Gen. Assurance Co., 359 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2004) (proof required in RIF age cases to show a sufficiently younger retained employee)