ROBERT STEPHENS VS. COUNTY OF UNIONÂ (L-1293-14, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3425-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 16, 2017Background
- Robert Stephens, assistant manager of a county-owned ice rink, was laid off in 2012 and sued Union County under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging age discrimination.
- County defended the layoff as a legitimate reduction in force caused by budget cuts.
- At summary judgment, the motion judge found the County produced legally competent evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason (budget-driven RIF).
- The judge ruled Stephens failed to produce legally competent evidence showing pretext and relied on undisclosed materials that were not properly produced during discovery.
- Some alleged new evidence related to hiring in 2016, which the court found temporally irrelevant to the 2012 layoff.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment dismissing the LAD claim; the Appellate Division affirmed on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the layoff was pretext for age discrimination | Stephens argued the layoff was motivated by age and pointed to alleged evidence (including later hires) | County argued the layoff was a budget-driven reduction in force and produced competent evidence supporting that reason | Court held Stephens failed to produce legally competent evidence of pretext; summary judgment for County affirmed |
| Admissibility of evidence not disclosed in discovery | Stephens relied on materials not previously disclosed to show discrimination | County argued undisclosed materials should not be considered and defendant's facts are undisputed | Court declined to consider undisclosed materials and deemed County's statement of facts undisputed |
| Relevance of post-layoff hiring evidence | Stephens pointed to hiring of younger employees in 2016 to show pattern | County argued 2016 hires are temporally remote and irrelevant to 2012 layoff | Court ruled the 2016 evidence did not relate to the relevant time period and was not persuasive |
| Whether appeal raises issues warranting written opinion | Stephens challenged the summary judgment ruling | County maintained judgment was correct and supported by record | Appellate court found issues lacked sufficient merit for extended discussion and affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, 219 N.J. 395 (discussing summary judgment review in employment discrimination context)
- Turner v. Wong, 363 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div.) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- O'Brien v. Telecordia Tech., Inc., 420 N.J. Super. 256 (App. Div.) (pretext analysis in employment discrimination cases)
- Polzo v. Cty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (addressing consequences of failure to produce discovery materials)
- Spinks v. Twp. of Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 465 (App. Div.) (court will not comb appendices for unsupported factual assertions)