JAMES MONTAG VS. BOROUGH OF HO-HO-KUSÂ (L-2077-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5315-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Montag, a 19-year Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus employee, served as superintendent/licensed operator for the Borough's water and sewer systems and held W-2, T-2 and C-2 licenses.
- DEP regulations required a licensed operator be available and for the operator to give two weeks' notice before ceasing as operator in charge.
- In late August 2012 Montag notified DEP (and faxed DEP inspector Zuzeck) he would no longer be operator in charge; Montag contends he meant the notice to take effect after the two-week period.
- Borough officials (Cirulli and Councilman Shell) learned Montag would need surgery and be unavailable; Borough arranged substitute licensed coverage and a replacement was approved by DEP.
- On September 18, 2012, two days before Montag’s scheduled surgery, the Borough suspended and later terminated him for allegedly relinquishing his operator-in-charge status without prior notice.
- Montag sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claiming failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge based on actual/perceived disability; trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, and the Appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on discriminatory discharge (direct evidence) | Montag argues Borough relied on his disability/perceived disability (need for surgery/medical leave) in deciding to terminate; comments by supervisors reflect discriminatory animus | Borough contends Montag voluntarily relinquished operator role without notice, creating a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for termination | Reversed — material factual disputes (statements, timing, coverage) preclude summary judgment on direct-discrimination claim |
| Whether circumstantial-discrimination (prima facie and pretext) supports Montag's claim | Montag contends he established prima facie elements (disability, satisfactory performance, termination, employer sought replacement) and raised facts showing Borough's reason was pretextual (timing, prior coverage practices, his belief about DEP notice) | Borough argues it produced a legitimate reason (relinquishment without prior notice) shifting burden; that reason justified termination | Reversed — Montag raised a jury question on pretext; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Borough failed to reasonably accommodate Montag's disability | Montag contends a reasonable accommodation was available (arranging substitute licensed operator to cover his medically necessary leave) and Borough failed to engage or consider it | Borough reasons Montag did not provide adequate notice/details about leave and Borough had regulatory concerns about compliance | Reversed — jury could find accommodation (coverage) reasonable and that Borough’s proffered notice-based justification was pretextual |
| Whether a spoliation inference regarding deleted emails was necessary | Montag sought a spoliation inference to address deleted evidence that might show discriminatory intent | Borough opposed spoliation inference; trial court denied Montag's motion without prejudice | Not addressed on merits: because denial was without prejudice and record without the inference still created material disputes, the court did not decide the spoliation issue further |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, 226 N.J. 344 (2016) (summary-judgment standard and viewing facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Qian v. Toll Bros. Inc., 223 N.J. 124 (2015) (summary-judgment review standard)
- Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (2014) (movant must show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law)
- Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373 (2016) (direct-evidence standard for discrimination and burden-shifting)
- Fleming v. Correctional Healthcare Sols., Inc., 164 N.J. 90 (2000) (definition of direct evidence and causation requirement)
- Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler, 157 N.J. 188 (1999) (causal connection standard for direct evidence)
- Jansen v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 110 N.J. 363 (1988) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)