$______ RECOVERY - RACIAL DISCRIMINATION - VIOLATION OF NJLAD - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION - PLAINTIFF DENIED PROMOTIONS AND POSITIONS GIVEN TO NON-MEMBERS OF PROTECTED CLASS - DEFENDANT DENIES ANY VIOLATION AND ASSERTS PLAINTIFF GIVEN MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT.

• Pages: 5-7

$125,000 RECOVERY – RACIAL DISCRIMINATION – VIOLATION OF NJLAD – HOSTILE

WORK ENVIRONMENT, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION – PLAINTIFF DENIED

PROMOTIONS AND POSITIONS GIVEN TO NON-MEMBERS OF PROTECTED CLASS –

DEFENDANT DENIES ANY VIOLATION AND ASSERTS PLAINTIFF GIVEN MANY

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT.

Essex County, NJ

In this case, the plaintiff, an African-American

employee of the defendant college and

subordinate of the defendant director, claimed

that the defendants failed promote him, retaliated

against him, created a hostile work environment,

and ultimately wrongfully terminated his

employment on the basis of racial discrimination.

On September 18, 2006, the plaintiff was hired

and commenced employment with the defendant

as a Computer Technician. He was qualified for

the position to which he was hired, and at all

relevant times he remained qualified for the

positions that he held with the defendant college.

The plaintiff claimed that his employment was

unlawfully terminated on May 9, 2017. The

defendant denied any discrimination against the

plaintiff and asserted that the plaintiff was offered

encouragement and means by which he could

enhance his opportunities for advancement in the

workplace.

During all relevant times, the plaintiff performed his

duties satisfactorily. In 2007, the plaintiff complained

to Human Resources about being ordered to cover

the NYC campus for an employee who was being

punished for violating company rules. The plaintiff

averred that he should not be part of the punishment

for the employee who violated the rules. The plaintiff

advised HR that he believed it was unethical for the

defendant to have him working in NYC, but not have

him classified as a NYC employee. Thereafter, the

defendant took steps to force the plaintiff to quit. The

plaintiff’s performance reviews regularly were con-

ducted late and were contrived to make it look as if

he were underperforming. Also, the plaintiff’s ex-

penses were not timely paid as they were for others

outside of the plaintiff’s protected class.

In 2009, the plaintiff was qualified for and applied for

the position of Lead Technician. Despite his qualifica-

tion, the plaintiff was denied the promotion. The pro-

motion was given to someone outside the plaintiff’s

protected class. In or about August 2011, the plaintiff

sought to advance his career and applied for the po-

sition of Lead Computer Support Technician. Al-

though qualified for the position, the plaintiff did not

receive the position he sought and was not granted

an interview. The position went to someone outside of

the plaintiff’s protected class. During this time period

there were several promotions throughout the depart-

ment for which the plaintiff could have been

considered but was not.

Upon information and belief, the plaintiff claimed

that, through his supervisors, the defendant was retali-

ating against the plaintiff for his prior complaints. On

August 29, 2011, the plaintiff complained to Human

Resources that he was discriminated against on the

basis of his race, which was the reason he did not re-

ceive the position of Lead Computer Support Techni-

cian. Thereafter, the Head of the IS Department (the

Chief Information Officer of the College) suggested

to the plaintiff that he take a new job. The new job

would have more responsibility, but the plaintiff would

not receive a raise or a promotion unless he proved

that he was worthy of the job.

Others outside the protected class were not similarly

treated with respect to new jobs requiring additional

responsibility with no commensurate pay increase or

promotion. The plaintiff declined this “opportunity”

whereupon the defendant purportedly investigated

the plaintiff’s complaint of discrimination, and found

that although the plaintiff was qualified for the posi-

tion to which he applied, the defendant determined

that another employee (outside the plaintiff’s pro-

tected class) was more qualified, and promoted that

employee. Despite the discriminatory treatment ex-

perienced by the plaintiff in 2011, he continued to

perform his duties satisfactorily.

The plaintiff experienced varying degrees of retalia-

tion and hostile work environment after he com-

plained to HR about the race-based decision to deny

him a promotion in 2011. In 2011, the plaintiff in-

quired about being promoted to Co-Lead in New Jer-

sey. The defendant Director of IT told him there was

no money in the budget, and nothing to substantiate

having co-leads in NJ. The plaintiff offered to take the

position without receiving a pay increase so that he

could gain more experience, help the defendant,

and improve his future prospects. The defendants

refused.

In or about October 2012, the position of Lead Desk-

top/Support Tech of New Jersey opened, and again

the plaintiff applied. Despite his superior qualification,

the promotion was offered to the only other applicant

– who was outside of the plaintiff’s protected class.

That applicant turned down the position. Given that

the plaintiff was the only remaining qualified appli-

cant, the plaintiff was promoted to the position of

Lead Desktop / Support Tech of New Jersey. The

plaintiff was not given a raise commensurate with the

position and responsibility. In addition to the inappro-

priate compensation, the plaintiff was not allowed to

transfer to the position site in Woodland Park, NJ; he

was instead kept in Newark, and relegated to a base-

ment office with no cell phone reception. The loca-

tion made it difficult to communicate with colleagues

and eliminated the opportunity for the plaintiff to

interface daily with his superiors.

FEATURED CASES 5

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now