Under terms of the agreement, Clementon Fire and Rescue of Clementon, Camden County, paid firefighter Merrissa V. Garretson $15,000 last month. The fire company also agreed to give Garretson a positive letter of employment reference whenever contacted by a prospective employer. Garretson resigned from Clementon Fire and Rescue in April 2010. As part of the settlement with Garretson, the fire company made no admission of liability.

“This is a fair settlement that resolves troubling allegations of discrimination against a young woman in a male-dominated work environment,” said Division on Civil Rights Director Chinh Q. Le. “No employee should be treated like a second-class citizen because of his or her gender, and no worker should suffer reprisals for having reported such treatment.”

At age 13, Merrissa Garretson began her employment with Clementon Fire and Rescue in May 2003 as an Explorer. She was promoted to Junior Firefighter in July 2006, and promoted again to Probationary Firefighter in July 2008. In December 2008, Garretson was promoted to the position of Firefighter. At all times, she was a volunteer employee and was not paid by the fire company.

According to her formal Complaint, Garretson approached the fire company’s deputy chief, Randall Freiling, in March 2009 to report repeated, discriminatory remarks by a male firefighter that were demeaning to women generally, and derogatory toward Garretson in particular. Garretson alleged that she later approached Clementon Borough Administrator Jenai L. Johnson, in July 2009, with the same information.

In the aftermath of those two conversations, Garretson received a letter from Administrator Johnson – in August 2009 — advising that a thorough investigation had been conducted, and that corrective action had been taken.

However, Garretson charged in her Complaint, she saw no evidence of a thorough investigation or corrective action.

To the contrary, Garretson alleged, she was subjected after reporting her concerns to such actions as being “bumped” from fire truck assignments in favor of less qualified, less experienced junior firefighters, and having her gear removed from her locker. Garretson filed her formal Complaint with the Division on Civil Rights in November 2009.

Director Le thanked Division Investigator Maurice Sykes and John Beauchamp, Regional Supervisor in the Division’s Camden Office, for their work on the Garretson matter.

Contact an attorney in New Jersey

Named as Respondent in the Finding of Probable Cause is the Royal Aluminum Company, Inc., which manufactures insulated glass units at a factory in Newark.

In a complaint filed by former employee Nereira Berrospi Juares and joined by Division on Civil Rights Director Chinh Q. Le, Royal Aluminum is charged with terminating Juares shortly after her left hand was crushed in a machine and she was restricted by a physician to light duty.

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Juares was injured on October 30, 2009 – her third day on the job — when her work glove became caught in a machine. She was treated for a crush injury and directed by the physician to avoid work until November 2, when she would be re-evaluated. On that date, she was told the severe swelling and bruising of her left hand necessitated further rest. On November 4, Juares was cleared to return to work on a “light duty” basis and provided Royal Aluminum a physician’s note documenting that restriction. Two days later she was terminated.

“The Law Against Discrimination was designed precisely to address the kind of conduct alleged here – a complete disregard of the civil rights of someone injured on the job,” said Division Director Le. “We simply cannot tolerate employers who exploit our most vulnerable workers – people who are just trying to earn an honest living.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Royal Aluminum Vice-President Jeff Papa told State Investigators Juares was slated for discharge before her accident because of poor job performance. However, Papa acknowledged that Juares had only worked at Royal Aluminum for two full days at that point, and that no one at the company had raised a concern with her about her performance. Royal Aluminum was also unable to provide any documentation to support its claim.

Papa also maintained that Royal Aluminum was not in violation of the LAD because Juares did not belong to a protected class at the time of her discharge. Specifically, Papa contended that Juares could not be classified as “disabled” because of her hand injury.

However, according to the Finding of Probable Cause, the term “disability” is broadly construed within the meaning of the LAD, and is not limited to “severe” or “immutable” disabilities. The LAD definition of disability includes a “physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement which is caused by bodily injury.”

A Finding of Probable Cause does not resolve a civil rights complaint. Rather, it means the state has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the LAD has been violated.

The LAD provides that each Respondent found to have committed a violation is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000. The LAD also provides for other remedies, including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, such as changes in the employer’s policies and management/staff training.

Now that the Division has issued a Finding of Probable Cause, the Royal Aluminum case will be referred for a process known as Conciliation. If Conciliation is not successful, the matter will be referred for a non-jury trial before an Administrative Law Judge. Once the trial is completed, the presiding Administrative Law Judge will issue a written Initial Decision.

Director Le thanked Division on Civil Rights Investigator Elbia Concepcion, Newark Office Manager Lorraine LeSter and Legal Specialist Benn Meistrich for their work on the Royal Aluminum case.

In a 6-1 decision, the state Supreme Court held that an employer’s refusal to renew the contract of an employee who is over 70, when the basis for that non-renewal is age, is a prohibited discriminatory act under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

The decision upholds an earlier ruling by the Appellate Division that longtime dean Rose Nini could pursue a discrimination suit against Mercer County College over its refusal to renew her contract in 2005, when she was 73.

Despite Nini’s 25 consecutive years of employment with the college – including 23 years as Dean of the Division of Corporate and Community Programs – Mercer County College contended that its failure to renew her contract in 2005 was not a termination, but rather a refusal to hire. As such, the college contended in court, its non-renewal of Nini’s contract was protected by a 1985 amendment to the LAD that permits employers to refuse to hire job candidates over age 70.

In a Supreme Court amicus brief supporting Nini, however, the Division on Civil Rights maintained that the non-renewal of Nini’s contract was not protected by the so-called “over-70 exception” to the LAD. Rather, the Division contended, Mercer’s failure to renew Nini’s contract was tantamount to a firing on the basis of age, and was therefore subject to the LAD’s prohibitions on such actions.

“The Supreme Court decision confirms that the LAD’s age discrimination protections will apply even to those who are subject to renewable employment contracts, and that employers cannot avoid compliance with anti-discrimination laws simply by restructuring their relationships with their employees,” said Division on Civil Rights Director Chinh Q. Le.

In upholding the Appellate Division’s earlier ruling, the Supreme Court remanded Nini’s lawsuit for a trial on the merits of the case. However, Nini and Mercer County College have reportedly reached settlement in the matter.

Director Le, however, said the Supreme Court ruling remains significant. He noted that it would have seriously hindered the State’s ability to combat age discrimination in the future if the “overly broad interpretation” of the 1985 LAD amendment put forth by Mercer County College had been accepted by the court.

Nini was a member of the Mercer Community College Board of Trustees before she began working at the college as an executive assistant to the president in 1979. In 1982, she became Dean of the Division of Corporate and Community Programs, a position she held until her final contract expired on June 30, 2005.

Although Nini was provided three ostensibly performance-related reasons for the non-renewal of her contract, she maintained in her lawsuit that the reasons were pretexts, and that the actual reason was her age. Her civil complaint against the college, its board of trustees and President Robert Rose, filed in September 2005, charged age-based discrimination.

The trial court held, however, that state law permitted an employer to decline to renew the employment contract of any employee 70 years or age or older. Nini appealed, arguing that the non-renewal of her employment contract represented an unlawful termination or discharge. The Appellate Division agreed and reversed the trial court.

The college then petitioned the state Supreme Court for certification on the issue of the Appellate panel’s interpretation of the over-70 exception, and certification was granted. The case was argued in November 2009 and decided this past Tuesday, June 1.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Anne Marie Kelly and Assistant Attorney General Andrea M. Silkowitz handled the Nini amicus brief on behalf of the State.

Contact a New Jersey Civil Rights attorney

Named as Respondent in the Finding of Probable Cause is the Wendel Family Wellness Center of Woodbridge, Middlesex County. The center is accused of allowing a male patient to repeatedly harass the alleged victim, former chiropractic assistant Giselle Ramsingh, by making numerous physical and verbal advances toward her while she treated him throughout an eight-month period in 2004.

Ramsingh, of Parlin, Middlesex County, was discharged from her job in early September 2004, approximately one month after she submitted a formal memorandum complaining about being sexually harassed by the patient — the second one she had submitted in a year regarding the same patient. Her dismissal also came less than two weeks after a meeting in which, Ramsingh told State Investigators, she advised her employer she did not feel her concerns had been dealt with appropriately, and that she was contemplating calling the police.

“The allegations in this case are disturbing,” said Director Le. “Employers have a duty under the law to ensure the workplace is harassment-free, and workers have a right under the law to report harassing conduct without fear of reprisals. When an employee reports that she or he has been subjected to harassment, the employer is obligated to investigate the matter and take the appropriate steps to address it and prevent such conduct from taking place in the future.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Ramsingh was subjected to acts of sexual harassment by the same patient during numerous visits for treatment at Wendel Family Wellness Center during the months spanning January through August 2004. Among other things, Ramsingh reported that the patient smacked her on the buttocks with a clipboard during one visit. On other occasions, she charged, he grabbed her ankles and moaned her first name while undergoing a chiropractic massage, grabbed and twirled her hair and, in one instance, told her she was “very sexy” and that “you don’t know all the fun I can have with you if we go out.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Ramsingh not only submitted her memorandums complaining about the patient’s conduct, but also complained directly to Dr. David Wendel and his office manager, Tara Montalvo, to little avail.

The Finding of Probable Cause refers to an anecdote provided by Montalvo in which she described filling in for Ramsingh and treating the harassing patient on one occasion in June 2004. Montalvo described entering the room and beginning to massage the patient without him realizing it was Montalvo, not Ramsingh, providing treatment. Montalvo told State Investigators the unwitting patient began to moan and groan Ramsingh’s first name, “Giselle,” which Montalvo said she found “very gross.”

According to the Finding of Probable Cause, Dr. Wendel confirmed to State Investigators that Ramsingh brought her situation to his attention, and that in response he had taken over treatment of the patient. However, the state’s investigation yielded “sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion” that Ramsingh was, in fact, asked to continue treating the patient on at least a few occasions after submitting her August 2004 memorandum, and that she continued during these sessions to be sexually harassed.

A Finding of Probable Cause does not resolve a civil rights complaint. Rather, it means the state has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) has been violated. The LAD provides that each Respondent found to have committed a violation is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000, provided he or she has not been convicted of a previous violation within the past five years. The LAD also provides for other remedies, including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, such as changes in the employer’s policies and management/staff training. Now that the Division has issued a Finding of Probable Cause, the case will be referred for a process known as Conciliation. If Conciliation is not successful, the matter will be referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a hearing on the merits, which is a non-jury trial. The ALJ will then issue a written Initial Decision.

Director Le thanked State Investigator Elbia Concepcion and Division on Civil Rights managers Atley Tyler and Lorraine LeSter for their work on the Wendel matter.

Contact a New Jersey Civil Rights attorney