Linda Tisby v. Camden County Correctional Facility
152 A.3d 975
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Linda Tisby, a corrections officer at Camden County Correctional Facility (CCCF) since 2002, reverted to Sunni Islam in 2015 and began wearing a khimar to work.
- CCCF's longstanding Uniform Grooming Standards prohibit head coverings; supervisors told Tisby to remove the khimar; she refused and was sent home and disciplined, receiving a two-day suspension and ultimately removed from her position.
- Tisby filed two suits: (Tisby II) a verified prerogative writ complaint seeking reinstatement/back pay alleging violation of N.J.S.A. 11A:2-13 and failure to accommodate under the LAD; and (Tisby I) a separate LAD damages/equitable relief complaint alleging defendants failed to accommodate and had permitted others to wear head coverings.
- Defendants moved to dismiss both complaints, submitting the Warden’s certification describing safety, security, contraband-concealment, and neutrality concerns and asserting undue hardship from any accommodation.
- A trial judge dismissed Tisby II (treating the motion on summary judgment grounds relying on materials outside the pleadings) finding defendants established undue hardship and lack of pretext; a second judge dismissed Tisby I under the entire controversy doctrine. Appeals consolidated; both dismissals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tisby stated a claim under the LAD for failure to accommodate religious practice and whether dismissal was premature without discovery | Tisby argued her complaint stated a claim and further discovery was needed to show others were allowed head coverings (pretext) | CCCF argued uniform ban served legitimate safety and neutrality interests and any accommodation would cause undue hardship; judge relied on factual certification | Court upheld dismissal (summary judgment); CCCF met burden showing undue hardship and no pretext; discovery not shown to be necessary |
| Whether the separate LAD damages complaint (Tisby I) was barred by the entire controversy doctrine | Tisby contended Tisby I alleged additional facts (others allowed head coverings) and sought damages/equitable relief | Defendants argued all related claims should have been raised together; duplicative litigation barred by Rule 4:30A | Court affirmed dismissal under entire controversy doctrine because both complaints arose from the same events and claims should have been joined |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 182 N.J. 436 (adoption of McDonnell Douglas methodology under LAD)
- EEOC v. GEO Group, Inc., 616 F.3d 265 (3d Cir.) (prison safety and contraband concerns support denial of religious head-covering accommodation)
- Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256 (3d Cir.) (perception of impartiality and uniform neutrality can constitute undue hardship)
- Kelly v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (deference to employer uniform and grooming rules)
- Badiali v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Group, 220 N.J. 544 (summary judgment not premature absent particularized showing that discovery will supply missing elements)