Age Discrimination

Gerber Must Bring Witness to New Jersey to Testify in Discrimination Lawsuit

January 8, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division affirms a trial court’s order requiring Gerber Products Company to bring a witness from Switzerland to New Jersey, at Gerber’s expense, to testify at a deposition in a discrimination lawsuit. A deposition is a formal interview under oath used to obtain testimony from witnesses in lawsuits.

Denise Willson is a former Vice President of Medical Sales North America for Nestlé Infant Nutrition. Ms. Willson sued Gerber Products Company, Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., Nestlé Holdings, Inc., and Gerber’s President and CEO, William Partyka, alleging they discriminated against her because of her age and gender. More specifically, she claims they fostered a “boys club” culture, paid her less than her younger male peers, denied her a promotion to the position of general manager, and ultimately fired her in retaliation for her complaints about the discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

As part of her lawsuit, Ms. Willson alleges she spoke to Mr. Partyka’s supervisor, Alexandre Costa, about the retaliatory termination, gender discrimination and Gerber’s failure to promote her. When Ms. Willson’s lawyers sought to take Mr. Costa’s deposition, the defendants objected. They argued that Mr. Costa lives in Switzerland, claims his meeting with Ms. Wilsson was about sales rather than her allegations of discrimination and retaliation, denies he was involved in the decision to terminate her employment or has any other information pertinent to her case, and that requiring him to come to New Jersey for his deposition supposedly would “create a tremendous burden on [his] business.” The defendants also argued that neither Mr. Costa nor his employer, Nestlé Enterprises S.A., is a party to the lawsuit.

New Jersey Law Amended to Increase Protection Against Age Discrimination

October 14, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Older worked forced to retire

New Jersey has an extremely broad anti-discrimination law, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). The LAD became even broader last Tuesday, October 5, 2021, when Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a new amendment that increases the statute’s protections against age discrimination by removing several loop holes and exceptions.

More specifically, the amendment makes four changes to the LAD:

Lack of Evidence of Alleged Corporate Restructuring Can Prove Discrimination

July 2, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision from the District of New Jersey concludes that, when an employer claims it fired an employee as part of a corporate restructuring, but has no documents to prove there was a restructuring, can be enough to prove age discrimination in violation of New Jersey law.

In 2014, Talbird Reeves Sams began working for Pinnacle Treatment Centers, Inc. His job was to find new locations for new facilities, and to help Pinnacle open those facilities.

In 2016, Pinnacle’s Chief Development Officer, Robert O’Sullivan, told Mr. Sams that his position was being eliminated due to “corporate restructuring” and his employment was being terminated as a result. At that time, Mr. Sams was 58 years old.

Age Discrimination Lawsuit Need Not Specify Replacement’s Age

May 13, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

An employee bringing an age discrimination claim does not need to state the age of the individuals who replaced him in the lawsuit. Rather, at that early stage, it is sufficient to assert that his replacement was “significantly younger” than him.

That was the ruling of the Third Circuit Court of appeals earlier this year. The Third Circuit is a court that handles appeals from the District of New Jersey.

The case was brought by Zeferino Martinez, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Martinez’s former employer, UPMC Susquehanna, fired him in 2017. At the time, Dr. Martinez was 70 years old.

Close Enough? Who is “Similarly Situated” Under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination?

April 17, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals helps clarify who is a “similarly situated” employee in discrimination cases under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). This is important since one way to prove discrimination is by showing the employer treated other similarly situated employees more favorably than the employee who is claiming he or she was the victim of discrimination.

Santos Andujar worked for General Nutrition Corporation (“GNC”) as a store manager for 13 years. After failing the company’s Critical Point Audits four years in a row, he received a failing score through the company’s Performance Evaluation Process (“PEP”). On the day Mr. Andujar received his failing PEP score, GNC placed him on a “Red Store Action Plan” which gave him days to improve his job performance. Approximately one month later, the company fired him for failing to meet the Action Plan. GNC replaced Mr. Andujar, who was 57 years old, with someone in his twenties. Mr. Andujar then filed a lawsuit alleging that GNC had engaged in age discrimination in violation of the LAD.

The case went to trial. GNC argued that it fired Mr. Andujar because of his poor performance and not because of his age. However, Mr. Andujar presented evidence that five other store managers between 25 and 34 years old had failing PEP score, but GNC did not put any of them on an Action Plan, let alone fire them.

Employee Hired When 60 Years Old Can Proceed with Age Discrimination Claim

August 17, 2016 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last month, New Jersey’s Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s ruling that had dismissed an employee’s age and disability discrimination case.

Spencer Robinson worked for Armadillo Automation, Inc., also known as Onyx Valve Co., in its assembly department. When Onyx hired Mr. Robinson, he was 60 years old. According to Mr. Robinson, when he was hired he made it clear he had a lower back condition and needed a stool so he could sit during the workday. Onyx provided him a stool.

Approximately six years later, Mr. Robinson experienced neck pain while he was working. He claims he reported his injury to the company’s vice president, who refused to send him the doctor and indicated he did not believe it was a workplace injury. Mr. Robinson further alleges the vice president told him he would not take him to the hospital unless he was “passed out on the floor or profusely bleeding.”

Jury Must Decide Whether Employee Was Fired Because of Insubordination or Age

December 3, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent age discrimination case from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a helpful reminder that just because your employer has a good excuse for its decision to fire you, it does not necessarily mean the company did not violate the law.

Carol Natale began working for East Coast Salon Services, Inc., in November 2006. At the time she was 59 years old. A little over five years later, the salon’s owner, Stan Klet, called the store. Ms. Natale answered the telephone by saying “East Coast Salon, how can I help you?” Ms. Klet claimed Ms. Natale violated company policy by failing to give her name when she answered the phone. He also claimed Ms. Natale challenged him when he told her she had violated this policy. In contrast, Ms. Natale says she told Mr. Klet that nobody ever told her to provide her name when she answers the telephone. She also claims she apologized to Mr. Klet during the call and that she did not argue with him.

After checking with its Human Resources Department, the company fired Ms. Natale. It claims it fired her because she was insubordinate, argumentative and disrespectful during the call with Mr. Klet.

Proving Age Discrimination When You Are Replaced by Someone Only Slightly Younger

January 21, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Age discrimination occurs frequently but often is subtle. You may be certain you were fired because of your age, but not have any direct proof or “smoking gun” evidence. Fortunately, that does not necessarily mean you cannot prove your claim.

Employees who want to prove they were fired because of their age frequently try to show their employers replaced them with someone significantly younger. However, as a recent case demonstrates, this is not difficult to do and is not necessarily required.

Marion Cohen worked for the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) as an associate professor of anatomy and cell biology and injury sciences pursuant to a series of one, two and three-year employment contracts. In late 2008 or early 2009 UMDNJ informed her it was not going to renew her contract, supposedly due to budget cuts. At the time, Ms. Cohen was 69 years old.

Third Circuit Finds No Evidence of Discrimination Necessary to Prove Discrimination Case

February 28, 2013 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that an employee does not need to have any evidence of discrimination before she can present her case to a jury. The Third Circuit is the federal court that handles appeals from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the Virgin Islands.

The employee who brought the case, Mary Burton, worked for Teleflex Inc. as a Vice President of New Business Development. On June 3, 2008 she got into a disagreement with her supervisor, Edward Boarini. Mr. Boarini claims Ms. Burton resigned during the meeting. In contrast, Ms. Burton claims she mentioned the possibility of resigning, but did not actually resign. At the time, Ms. Burton was 68 years old.

According to Ms. Burton, she did not report to work the next two days because she was upset about the meeting. She then took a preplanned vacation. On the day she was scheduled to return to work, Teleflex sent her a letter indicating it was accepting her resignation.

After her lawyer unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a severance package, Ms. Burton filed a lawsuit claiming the company’s decision to fire her was age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the District Court dismissed Ms. Burton’s case. It found she voluntarily resigned, and therefore could not pursue a wrongful termination claim. It also found that even if she did not intend to resign, there was no evidence the company fired her because of her age or gender, rather than because it believed she had resigned.

But on appeal, the Third Circuit reversed. It found that since there is a factual dispute whether Ms. Burton actually resigned, a jury needs to decide whose version of the events is true. It explained that a jury can conclude Ms. Burton was fired based on her testimony that she never said she was resigning, as well as the fact that she never tendered a resignation letter, never told anyone she was resigning, and the company merely took Mr. Boarini’s word that she had resigned without confirming it with her.

The Third Circuit further ruled that a jury can find Teleflex’s decision to fire Ms. Burton because of her age or gender even though there is no evidence of discrimination. It explained that one way an employee can prove her case is by pointing out “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions” in the employer’s explanation for terminating her. In essence, it ruled that a jury can find Teleflex lied when it claimed it believed Ms. Burton had resigned, and can conclude the reason the company lied was to cover up age or gender discrimination. The Third Circuit’s opinion in Burton v. Teleflex Inc. is published, meaning it is a binding legal precedent.

New Jersey Court Permits Age Discrimination Lawsuit Because Company Retained Younger Employees

December 9, 2012 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last month, a federal judge in New Jersey allowed a group of employees to proceed with their class action age discrimination lawsuit even though they do not claim the company hired younger employees to replace them.

In Bratek v. TD Bank, NA, four customer service representatives, Edna Bratek, Diane Deluca, Lois Skoff, and David Steinberg, claim TD Bank fired them because of their age. They were each over 60 years old when TD Bank included them in a reduction in force. They sued, claiming the company targeted older employees, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

TD Bank moved to dismiss the case, claiming the employees did not set forth facts which, if true, would prove age discrimination. In particular, they argued that the lawsuit does not even allege the Bank hired younger customer service representatives to replace the older employees it fired. The Court agreed that the employees did not claim the Bank had replaced them with younger employees, but it found they could proceed with their case on another theory. It recognized that an employee can set forth a claim of discrimination in a case involving a reduction-in-force by alleging the company retained one or more younger employees to perform his job. Thus, for example, an employee can claim the company gave his job duties to younger employees who it chose not to lay off.

TD Bank also argued that even though the lawsuit named 18 customer service employees under 40 years old who the company retained after the reduction-in-force that was a small fraction of the customer service employees it retained, is statistically meaningless, and is not enough to support an inference of age discrimination. The company claimed this was particularly true since the lawsuit is a class action filed on behalf of hundreds (and potentially as many as a thousand) older customer service representatives who lost their jobs in the reduction-in-force.

The district judge rejected this argument. He recognized it would be extremely difficult for an employee filing a class action discrimination lawsuit to list the names and ages of a large percentage of the employees who the company retained. It also recognized that a lawsuit only needs to set forth facts that are compatible with discrimination to support an inference of discrimination. Accordingly, he concluded that providing the names and ages of several younger customer service representatives who the Bank retained was enough for the employees to proceed with their case.