11/2/2009

Richard Daugherty & Director, DCR v Vanco USA, LLC

DCR Docket No. EC04HB52974

Complainant alleged that Respondent discharged him because of his disability. Specifically, Complaint alleged that in July 2006 he notified Respondent that he would need surgery, and would be out of work for two days. Complainant was out of work September 7 and 8, 2006 and Respondent discharged him on September 19, 2006.

10/26/2009

Joyce Baker & Director, DCR v Woman to Woman

DCR Docket No. EU 13 HB53590

Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based upon her disability. To support her claim, Complainant alleged that she was denied a reasonable accommodation, docked one day’s pay and discharged from employment.

9/25/2009

Carl Carpenter & Director, DCR v CBM and Vincent Milo, Supervisor, Individually

DCR Docket No. EC24WB60143

Complainant alleges that Respondents subjected him to a racially hostile work environment and discharged him from his position as a carpenter because of his race (Black) and reprisal. To support his claim, Complainant alleged that Respondent Vincent Milo who was a supervisor, kept referring to him at work as ‘shop boy’ and calling him ‘nigger.’ Complainant alleged that on July 18, 2008, he complained about this to Respondent CBM/s General Manager, Vincent Gianfrancesco. Complainant alleged that he was discharged on August 14, 2008, and that Respondent told him he was being discharged for doing a job incorrectly. Complainant denied that he did a job incorrectly and alleged that he was discharged in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment.

9/21/2009

Minnie Davis, & Director, DCR v Galilee Baptist Church & Reverend John H. Harris, Jr.

DCR Docket No. EL11WB-53908

Complainant, who was employed as a secretary at Respondent Galilee Baptist Church
(GBC), alleged that she was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by Respondent John H. Harris, Jr., Pastor, and that Respondent Harris subjected her to reprisal for rejecting his sexual advances. Complainant alleged that on March 28, 2008, she addressed a memo to Respondent GBC’s Board reporting that she was repeatedly being sexually harassed by Respondent Harris. Complainant alleged that after submitting the memo, she was stripped of many of her duties, and was required to work every Saturday. On June 3, 2008, after the filing of the complaint in this matter, Respondent terminated Complainant’s employment.

7/23/2009

Paul Nathan & Director, DCR v Bank of New York, Charles Ferrari & Walter Gorski, Individually

DCR Docket No. EJ09WB52897

Complainant alleged that he was differentially treated and subjected to hostile environment harassment because of his sexual orientation and race, and he was subsequently retaliated against for objecting to acts forbidden by the New Jersey aw Against Discrimination. Complainant alleged that since 2004, and continuing until August 2006, he was differentially treated as a machine operator by his supervisor, Walter Gorski. Specifically, it was alleged that Mr. Gorski would not provide Complainant help in running his machine which required heavy lifting. However, non-Black employees received assistance.

7/20/2009

Arsine Zuccari & Director, DCR v Mays Landing Village Condominium Association

DCR Docket No. HA12HW60428

Complainant alleged that she was being discriminated against based on her disability. Specifically, Complainant alleged Respondent issued violations against her for having a service dog, a 35-40 lb. Australian Shepherd which Respondent claimed was a pet. Complainant alleged that Respondent has a one pet only rule and those pets have to be 20 lbs. or less. Complainant alleged Respondent issued a violation to her after she obtained a second smaller dog for a pet. Complainant alleged Respondent falsely issued a violation, because her service animal is not a pet.

7/10/2009

Clifford B. Aaron & Director, DCR v 88 Café and Johnny Wong, Individually

DCR Docket No. PG10WB60508

Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against based on his disability when he was denied seating in the main dining room because he was accompanied by his guide dog, Alto. Complainant asserts he provided Respondent with identification to confirm he is a person with a disability. Complainant also asserts he presented identification to show that his guide dog, Alto, was trained and certified by an approved facility and authorized to accompany Complainant. Finally, Complainant alleges that as a result of Respondent’s refusal to grant access to seating available to any patron, Complainant summoned the police.

6/11/2009

Jon Stokes & Director, DCR v Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 9

DCR Docket No. EN12RU60182

Complainant alleged that Respondent removed him from his shop steward position because of his race. To support his claim, Complainant alleged that Respondent’s business agent told him he was being removed because union workers at the job complained about him, but he performed his shop steward duties in a manner that met Respondent’s legitimate expectations. Complainant alleged that he was removed because of his race and replaced by Angelo Rotondo, a Caucasian employee.

6/11/2009

Gurlene Exavier & Director, DCR v Sterling Jewelers d/b/a Kay Jewelers & Mercell Berry, Store Manager, Individually

DCR Docket No. EC06WB60442

Complainant alleged that Respondent Mercell Berry, Store Manager, sexually harassed her. Complainant alleged that incidents of sexual harassment included, but were not limited to, Respondent Berry asking her out on dates, rubbing up against her, and making remarks such as ‘you’re so sexy’ and ‘can I kiss you?’ Complainant alleged that on August 17, 2008 Respondent Berry discharged her because she rejected his sexual advances.

6/2/2009

Joyce Riedel& Director, DCR v OKT-AT LLC d/b/a The Jersey Diner

DCR Docket No. ED05HB54092

Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based upon a perceived disability when Respondent’s owner, Aytekin Pul discharged her for not providing medical certification.

10/2/2009

Azra Campbell v. Quest Diagnostics

DCR Docket No. EG14NB-48882
OAL Docket No. CRT 05381-2008N

In this case, the Director adopted the administrative law judge’s dismissal of the complainant’s claim because she failed to comply with repeated deadlines to produce discovery. Azra D. Campbell (Complainant) filed a verified complaint with the Division alleging that Quest Diagnostics (Respondent) unlawfully discriminated against her based on disability (chronic epicondylitis of her right elbow) by failing to provide her with reasonable accommodations and subsequently terminating her employment as a packer/specimen entry lab aide on or about February 21, 2007. Prior to the completion of the Division’s investigation, Complainant, through counsel, requested that this matter be transmitted to the OAL as a contested case pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:4-11.1 (c) and N.J.S.A. 10:5-13.

Respondent served on Complainant its first set of interrogatories, request for the production of documents, and request for admissions on May 22, 2008. Complainant did not submit the information timely. A Pre-Hearing Order (PHO) was issued by The Honorable Irene Jones, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on August 14, 2008 outlining discovery deadlines and scheduling a settlement conference for December 17, 2008. The hearing on the merits was scheduled for January 27, 2009 and January 28, 2009.

Complainant did not answer Respondent’s initial discovery but did secure two extensions from Respondent. On October 24, 2008, ten days past the second extension deadline, Complainant’s counsel forwarded a letter to ALJ Jones in which he stated that he was contending with significant health issues and that these were the reasons why the discovery deadlines were not met. Subsequently, Complainant and counsel failed to participate in the status conference.

Respondent moved to dismiss the claim on July 22, 2009 as Complainant had still not responded to discovery requests more than one year after the request was initially served. Complainant did not reply to the motion despite being granted extensions, and the ALJ issued her initial decision on August 20, 2009 dismissing the case with prejudice for Complainant’s failure to prosecute this matter. The ALJ found that Complainant failed to demonstrate any good cause for repeatedly failing to answer discovery "or otherwise move this matter beyond the filing of the complaint with the [Division] and EEOC." After reviewing the record, the Director adopted the ALJ's dismissal, concluding that the ALJ properly sanctioned Complainant for unreasonably failing to comply with the orders of the ALJ. Notwithstanding Complainant’s counsel’s asserted health problems, the Director concluded that there is nothing in the record that would excuse counsel’s failure to provide discovery for over one year, his failure respect judge-ordered deadlines, or his unwillingness to make the necessary arrangements to ensure this case was properly handled. Accordingly, the Director found that given the unique circumstances of this matter, and the myriad of extensions and adjournments afforded, Complainant has had sufficient opportunity to comply with the ALJ’s order and avoid the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

6/25/2009

Luzardo v. Liberty Optical

OAL DOCKET NO. CRT 03924-08
DCR DOCKET NO. EG14NB-48882

Dinorah Luzardo (Complainant) alleged that Liberty Optical (Respondent) discriminated against her based on her Cuban national origin, when she was transferred/demoted and then discharged. The Division on Civil Rights investigated Complainant’s allegations and issued a Finding of Probable Cause to support her claims of national origin discrimination. After an administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision concluding that Respondent’s articulated reasons for transferring and discharging Complainant–performance deficiencies--were unworthy of credence, and were a pretext for national origin discrimination. The ALJ awarded Complainant $5,000 in emotional distress damages and assessed a statutory penalty of $2,500. The ALJ also noted that reasonable attorneys fees should be awarded to Complainant, in an amount to be determined.

After reviewing the hearing record and considering the exceptions filed by Respondent, the Division Director adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the employer violated the employment discrimination provisions of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The Director acknowledged the evidence that Complainant’s transfer and termination were part of a larger reduction in force, and noted that the question to be addressed was whether national origin played a role in the decisions Respondent made in selecting employees for transfer or discharge as part of that downsizing. In response to the employer’s contention that there could be no unlawful discrimination without evidence of some comment, behavior or practice that suggests an anti-Cuban animus, the Director noted that the LAD does not require such direct evidence of discrimination in every case, and circumstantial evidence may suffice to show that an employer acted with a discriminatory motive.

The Director noted that the ALJ relied on lay witness testimony to reject Respondent’s claim that Complainant was transferred and discharged because of performance deficiencies, and to find it was not credible. Thus, pursuant to the Rules of Administrative Procedure, the Director was bound by that credibility determination unless it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or not supported by sufficient, competent and credible evidence. N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(c). The Director found no basis in the record for rejecting the ALJ’s credibility determination, and concluded that the ALJ’s determination provided compelling support for Complainant’s assertion that performance deficiencies were not the true reason for her demotion and discharge. In addition, the Director’s own review of the evidence demonstrated that Respondent’s articulated reasons changed during the pendency of the complaint, and were also inconsistent with its actions during Complainant’s employment. The Director concluded that Respondent’s articulated reason for transferring and discharging Complainant were a pretext for discrimination based on her national origin.

The Director adopted the ALJ’s $5000 emotional distress damage award, ordered backpay in the amount of $ 9,903 plus pre-judgment interest, and assessed a $5000 statutory penalty. The Director also held that Complainant would be awarded reasonable attorney fees, and directed the parties to submit certifications and supporting documentation to address the fee award.

8/12/09

Linda Callahan v. Irving J. Proud

OAL DOCKET NO.: CRT 02331-09S
DCR DOCKET NO.: HN35ST-06005

The Director adopted the ALJ’s dismissal of the complaint, with some modifications. The Director concurred with the ALJ’s finding that Complainant had established a case of housing discrimination, in that Respondent demanded that she leave the apartment he had rented to her solely because of her sex. The Director also concurred with the finding that Respondent was liable for the economic damages suffered by Complainant, but added prejudgment interest to the economic damages portion of the award. Finally, the Director found that a prevailing party in an action under the LAD may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, and provided Complainant the opportunity to present a certification of services to be submitted within 20 days from the date of the order. Accordingly, the Director upheld the finding in favor of Complainant.