Jury rules against township in discrimination case

Thursday, September 23, 2010
BY MARIA KARIDIS
Belleville Times
OF BELLEVILLE TIMES

A former Town Hall employee sued Belleville and Township Manager Victor Canning for discrimination. After a 10-day trial, a Superior Court jury ruled unanimously in favor of former employee Carol Politz for the amount of $466,000.

The lawsuit stems from alleged incidents in 2007 in Town Hall, where Politz worked under Canning’s supervision.

Judge James Rothschild Jr., who presided over the case, will hear the township’s motion against the verdict at 9 a.m. Friday, Oct. 1.

Assistant Township Attorney Michael Parlavecchio represented Belleville in the initial case, but he is no longer employed by the township. His replacement, Joseph Angelo, declined comment, stating the case is still "under litigation." Canning declined comment for the same reason.

Rothschild, however, had no problem giving court documents to the Times, with his chamber’s representative saying, "What’s in the past is in the past. The new motion can’t be discussed, but the case that was closed can be."

According to the lawsuit, Canning relocated Politz’s office, requiring her to go up and down stairs to retrieve the files she needed. Politz suffers from hypertension (high blood pressure) and cardiac dysrhythmia (abnormal heart beat), according to the court. The lawsuit claims she informed Canning of those physical disabilities, and how they prevented her from climbing stairs.

Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, an employer "must make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices or procedures to ensure that people with disabilities have access to employment opportunities [offered to the general public]."

The township manager failed to provide a physically accommodating workspace for Politz after she requested one, the lawsuit claimed. Politz made legal complaints of her discriminatory working conditions and resigned.

When Politz resigned, the township refused to pay out $16,000 in accumulated sick time, according to the plaintiff. Politz claimed that the township maliciously withheld her sick-time pay.

The jury termed the incidents "adverse employment action" that resulted in "intentional retaliation" on the part of the township, caused by Politz’s complaints of discrimination.

A breakdown of the court-mandated $466,000 the township must pay to Politz is as follows: $300,000 against the township for failure to accommodate; $150,000 against Canning for his role in the accommodation failure; $8,000 against the township for retaliation (half of Politz’s sick pay); and $8,000 against Canning for his role in retaliation (the other half of Politz’s sick pay).