O'Brien v. Telcordia Technologies
20 A.3d 1154
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- O'Brien was a long‑time Telcordia managing director in the CSCC, reporting to Anita Amin.
- Telcordia undertook large workforce reductions from 2001 onward, laying off O'Brien in October 2002 at age 51 after 29 years of service.
- In 2002 CSCC directors were reassigned to SBMS or OSS; eight candidates competed for five forced‑adjustment positions, and O'Brien was not selected.
- O'Brien sued in 2003 for age discrimination and sex‑plus discrimination; Telcordia moved for summary judgment and won; appeal followed.
- The appellate court discusses mixed‑motives versus McDonnell Douglas analysis, Gross v. FBL, and the admissibility of Sperman’s certification, remanding for evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether direct or mixed‑motive evidence requires mixed‑motive analysis | O'Brien relied on Sperman’s certification as direct evidence | Gross limits Price Waterhouse‑style analysis for NJLAD age claims | Threshold: mixed‑motive analysis postponed pending admissibility ruling |
| Whether McDonnell Douglas pretext framework governs the case | Plaintiff presents genuine pretext issues | Defendant had legitimate non‑discriminatory reasons | Summary judgment upheld on pretext issues; remand for evidence admissibility |
| Whether NJLAD 10:5‑12a creates an affirmative defense like ADEA reasonable factors | NJLAD requires defense to show lawful considerations other than age | NJLAD amendment allows retirements on other legitimate considerations; no affirmative defense obligation | Court rejects strict affirmative‑defense theory; frames issue as admissibility/debatable evidentiary framework on remand |
| Whether Sperman certification is admissible and binding post‑arbitration | Sperman certification is direct evidence of discrimination | No privity; evidence may be inadmissible hearsay | Remand to determine admissibility and impact on framework; privity not shown; admissibility crucial for ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (mixed‑motive framework origin for discrimination cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial evidence)
- Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 118 N.J. 89 (1990) (N.J. adoption of McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination claims)
- Peper v. Princeton Univ. Bd. of Trs., 77 N.J. 55 (1978) (adopts federal framework for discrimination under NJLAD)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009) (limits Price Waterhouse framework for ADEA claims; for NJLAD, applicability debated in state courts)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (addresses standard for mixed‑motive analysis and direct evidence considerations)
- Myers v. AT&T, 380 N.J. Super. 443 (App.Div. 2005) (discusses mixed‑motive analysis in NJ context; remand in some scenarios)
- Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler, 157 N.J. 188 (1999) (mixed‑motive framework discussion in NJ context)
- Fleming v. Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 164 N.J. 90 (2000) (recognizes mixed‑motive analysis but treats some claims as pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- McDevitt v. Bill Good Builders, Inc., 175 N.J. 519 (2003) (discusses direct evidence considerations in NJLAD)