Robert Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad(074685)
225 N.J. 373, 139 A.3d 1, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 572 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's (LAD) protection against employment discrimination based on 'marital status' is not limited to being single or married, but also includes individuals who are separated, in the process of divorcing, or divorced.
Facts:
- Robert Smith served as Director of Operations for Millville Rescue Squad (MRS), where his wife, Mary, and several of her relatives were also employed.
- Smith was supervised by MRS's CEO, John Redden.
- In early 2005, Smith began an extramarital affair with an MRS volunteer whom he supervised.
- In June 2005, Smith and his wife informed Redden of the affair. Redden told Smith his continued employment depended on 'how it shakes down.'
- On January 1, 2006, Smith moved out of the marital home and informed Redden the next day that his marriage had collapsed.
- On February 16, 2006, Redden met with Smith, stating he believed there would be an 'ugly divorce' and that if there had been a chance of reconciliation, the matter would not need to go before the MRS Board.
- Redden also told Smith, 'You had eight months to make things right with your wife.'
- The following day, February 17, 2006, MRS terminated Smith's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Smith filed a complaint in trial court against Millville Rescue Squad and John Redden for wrongful discrimination in violation of the LAD.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case during a jury trial, the defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Smith's marital status discrimination claim.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's dismissal of the marital status discrimination claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The defendants, as petitioners, were granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's (LAD) prohibition on employment discrimination based on 'marital status' extend to an employee who is separated and in the process of divorcing?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Cuff
Yes. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's (LAD) protection based on 'marital status' extends to employees who are separated and in the process of divorcing. The court reasoned that the LAD is remedial legislation that must be construed liberally to eradicate the 'cancer of discrimination.' Because the term 'marital status' is not defined in the statute, it should be interpreted broadly beyond the simple categories of 'single' or 'married' to include transitional states such as separation and divorce. This interpretation prevents employers from making decisions based on invidious stereotypes, such as assuming a divorcing employee will be distracted or cause disruption in the workplace. The court distinguished this protection from permissible anti-nepotism policies, which are based on legitimate business judgment rather than stereotypes. The court found that Smith provided direct evidence of discrimination through Redden's statements about a potential 'ugly divorce' and the possibility of reconciliation, which directly linked the termination decision to Smith's change in marital status.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of 'marital status' protection under the New Jersey LAD, establishing that the term encompasses not just the static states of being married or single, but also the dynamic processes of entering or exiting a marriage. It sets a precedent that employers cannot take adverse actions based on stereotypes associated with an employee's separation or impending divorce. The ruling also reinforces the critical distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence frameworks in discrimination law, clarifying that when direct evidence of discriminatory animus exists (such as a supervisor's statements), the plaintiff does not need to satisfy the more complex McDonnell Douglas test for circumstantial evidence.
