265 A.3d 148
N.J.2021Background
- Michele Meade served as Livingston Township Manager from 2005 until the Council removed her by resolution in November 2016; the Resolution cited various performance deficiencies.
- Central dispute arose from Meade’s supervision of Police Chief Craig Handschuch after an April 19, 2013 ESU training incident that prompted an independent investigation and citizen complaints; Meade was criminally acquitted in 2014.
- Councilmember Michael Silverman allegedly remarked in 2014 that "Michele would not be having this problem if her name was Michael," and Meade alleges other council members suggested the Chief did not like reporting to a woman.
- Meade claims labor counsel advised caution about disciplining the Chief and recommended an outside investigation; the Council refused to fund an independent probe, which Meade says impeded her ability to discipline or terminate the Chief.
- Meade sued under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging she was terminated because of her gender and replaced by a male manager to appease the biased Chief; trial court and Appellate Division granted summary judgment for the Township.
- The Supreme Court reversed: it held that, viewing the record in Meade’s favor, sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find the Chief’s discriminatory attitude influenced the Council’s termination decision, so the LAD claim must proceed to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subordinate’s discriminatory bias that influences an employer’s decision can support an LAD claim and survive summary judgment | Meade: Chief Handschuch’s gender bias influenced Council to fire her and choose a male replacement; statements and Council conduct show pretext | Livingston: Termination was for legitimate poor performance; Meade had authority to discipline or fire the Chief, so subordinate bias is irrelevant | Yes. Reversed summary judgment — record, viewed in plaintiff’s favor, permits a jury to find the Chief’s bias influenced the Council; remanded for trial |
| Whether Meade established a prima facie LAD claim under McDonnell Douglas/Zive | Meade: She is in a protected class, performed long-term as manager, was fired and replaced by a man | Livingston: Cites multiple nondiscriminatory performance-based reasons for termination | Court: Prima facie established (modest evidentiary burden satisfied) and shifted burden to defendant |
| Whether Livingston’s evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons was sufficient to foreclose a finding of pretext | Meade: Council focused on problems with the Chief, refused to fund investigation, and offered inconsistent explanations — supporting inference of pretext | Livingston: Council gave multiple, concrete performance-based reasons for removal | Court: Meade presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute about pretext for a jury |
| Whether to adopt the federal "cat’s paw" doctrine or apply NJ precedent on indirect influence | Meade/NELA: Urged adoption of cat’s paw liability | Livingston: Argued cat’s paw not applicable and Meade cannot show subordinate caused Council’s decision | Court: Declined to adopt cat’s paw; relied on Spencer and Battaglia to hold that actions taken to accommodate a non-decisionmaker’s discriminatory views can support liability |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes the burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 182 N.J. 436 (New Jersey’s adoption and application of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie test)
- Spencer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 156 N.J. 455 (permitting proof that an outside individual’s bias influenced an employer’s decision)
- Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518 (recognizes that biased non-decisionmaker evaluations can taint the decisionmaker and support liability)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard requires drawing all legitimate inferences in favor of nonmoving party)
- Marshall v. Rawlings Co. LLC, 854 F.3d 368 (defines the federal cat’s paw theory of liability)