Sharon Gomez v. Intertek Testing Services, Na, Inc., A-3168-22

Background

Sharon Gomez, the plaintiff, was employed intermittently by Intertek from 2003 and ultimately served as Operations Coordinator at the Carteret, NJ branch until her termination in 2020 amid COVID-19-related financial difficulties.
Intertek faced financial strain and implemented cost-cutting measures, including furloughs, salary reductions, and ultimately a reduction in force (RIF) that resulted in plaintiff’s dismissal based on a "last in, first out" (LIFO) policy.
After her position was eliminated, Intertek hired or promoted several male employees for new or different roles, including an Operations Supervisor (requiring field experience not possessed by Gomez), Business Development Manager, and Operations Manager.
Gomez filed suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, alleging gender discrimination and aiding and abetting liability against her supervisors.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding plaintiff failed to prove that Intertek’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons for her termination were pretextual.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff’s termination constituted gender discrimination under the LAD	Intertek’s stated reasons for terminating her were pretext for gender discrimination, citing subsequent hiring of men for other positions	Plaintiff was selected for RIF pursuant to established LIFO policy based on seniority; new hires were for distinct positions requiring different qualifications	No pretext shown; termination was legitimate under business necessity and LIFO policy
Whether the LIFO reduction in force policy was pretextual	LIFO not applied consistently; Intertek could have used performance criteria; men kept/hired instead	LIFO was applied consistently among same-titled positions, and plaintiff lacked necessary qualifications for new roles	LIFO was a legitimate, non-discriminatory method; inconsistent application not proven
Whether failure to offer plaintiff the Operations Supervisor position was evidence of discrimination	Plaintiff was qualified or could have been trained for the job	Operations Supervisor required field experience, which plaintiff did not have; promotion was planned before RIF	Plaintiff not similarly situated or qualified; not evidence of pretext
Whether individual defendants were liable for aiding and abetting discrimination	Supervisors knowingly aided in discriminatory termination	Plaintiff failed to show underlying discrimination or substantial assistance by individuals	No individual liability as no discrimination established under LAD

Key Cases Cited

Crisitello v. St. Theresa Sch., 255 N.J. 200 (de novo standard for summary judgment in discrimination cases)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for summary judgment—no genuine issue of material fact)
Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler, 157 N.J. 188 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Young v. Hobart West Group, 385 N.J. Super. 448 (prima facie standard for gender discrimination discharge)
Baker v. National State Bank, 312 N.J. Super. 268 (RIF discrimination standard—replacement or retention of those outside protected class)
Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (aiding and abetting liability under the LAD requires wrongful act and substantial assistance)