RICHARD WILLIAMS VS. CITY OF NEWARK (L-5682-10, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1138-15T1

Four African‑American Newark police officers (Williams, Brown, Peppers, Thomas) attended a concert off duty; three left weapons unsecured in Peppers’s vehicle in violation of department rules. Thomas had left his weapon at home and was cleared.
The Police Director immediately suspended Williams, Brown, and Peppers for three days; Internal Affairs later charged them and an ALJ and the Civil Service Commission upheld rule violations and imposed a six‑day suspension for each.
Plaintiffs sued the City and multiple police supervisors under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) for discrimination, harassment/retaliation, and aiding/abetting, and asserted additional tort and civil‑rights claims.
At summary judgment the defendants argued plaintiffs had no evidence of disparate treatment, retaliatory causation, hostile work environment, or aiding/abetting under the LAD; plaintiffs relied on (1) the immediate suspension and six‑day Commission suspensions as disparate discipline and (2) transfers and other investigatory/medical‑related conduct as retaliation/harassment.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or aiding/abetting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate discipline under NJLAD	Director’s immediate suspension and Commission’s six‑day suspension show harsher discipline based on race	Discipline was based on rule violations and safety; plaintiffs produced no credible comparators showing leniency to non‑minorities	Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs failed to prove disparate treatment/comparators
Retaliation (transfers after complaints)	Transfers followed protected complaints; temporal proximity supports causal link	Transfers were routine, occurred alongside disciplinary process, and defendants gave legitimate nonretaliatory reasons	Summary judgment for defendants; no sufficient causal evidence or pretext shown
Hostile work environment / retaliatory harassment	Medical‑related conduct, following officers, and other isolated incidents created hostile conditions	Incidents were isolated, not severe or pervasive, and not shown to be race‑based or causally linked	Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs failed the Lehmann test for hostile environment
Aiding and abetting under NJLAD	Supervisors aided discriminatory actions	No evidence supervisors knowingly and substantially assisted an illegal act; discipline was authorized and later upheld	Summary judgment for defendants; no prima facie aiding/abetting proof

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for analyzing proof of discriminatory employment actions)
Jason v. Showboat Hotel & Casino, 329 N.J. Super. 295 (applying McDonnell Douglas under NJLAD)
El‑Sioufi v. St. Peter's Univ. Hosp., 382 N.J. Super. 145 (burden‑shifting framework for NJLAD claims)
Maher v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 125 N.J. 455 (elements of prima facie discrimination)
Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 182 N.J. 436 (plaintiff's obligation to point to evidence of pretext)
Viscik v. Fowler Equip. Co., 173 N.J. 1 (pretext requires more than falsity; discriminatory intent required)
Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (hostile work environment/severity‑and‑pervasiveness test)
Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (elements for aiding and abetting liability under the LAD)