Mark & Galusha, LLC, Employment Lawyers, Nutley and Cedar Grove, Essex County, New Jersey.
In the matter of Rueben Gillett v. Farleigh Dickinson University, Mr. Gillet was employed as a Public Safety Officer for Farleigh Dickinson University. Mr. Gillet began working in this capacity in October 2007. In accordance with company policy, Farleigh Dickinson instituted a 90 Day Introductory Period for all new employees. Mr. Gillet was provided with a copy of the Company Manual which outlined the requirements for employment including great attendance, quality performance and a strict dress code.
Shortly after Mr. Gillet began working for Farleigh Dickinson, he became sick and needed to take time off from work. Mr. Gillet followed company procedure and called into the office to report his time off. During the following weeks, Mr. Gillet was out of work a total of six days including time off due to a slip and fall he suffered while at work. Mr. Gillet was placed out of work by his personal doctor as a result of a torn rotor cuff and Farleigh Dickinson's workers' compensation adjuster had been in contact with Mr. Gillet following the injury.
Eventually, in January 2008, Mr. Gillet was able to see the workers' compensation doctor who placed Mr. Gillet on light duty, beginning January 14, 2008, after Mr. Gillet received a cortisone injection and was prescribed physical therapy. Despite being under the care of a medical provider, Mr. Gillet was terminated from his position at Farleigh Dickinson on January 16, 2011, for absenteeism and violation of the dress code.
As a result of his termination, Mr. Gillet filed suit against Farleigh Dickinson for disability discrimination as he was out of work on temporary disability due to his workers' compensation injury. As Mr. Gillet was under the care of a doctor, he was a protected class under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits an employer from retaliating against an individual as a result of a disability, albeit temporary.
The School tried to have Mr. Gillet's lawsuit dismissed by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. This type of motion is an easy way to dispose of a lawsuit when the Plaintiff is unable to provide ample evidence to support his claims. The motion is heard before a Judge, and it is heard before it goes to a Jury. There are two points that a moving party will need to prove in order for summary judgment to be granted. They must first be entitled to judgment and capable of submitting evidence as to why summary judgment should be granted. Considering the above, the Court is obligated to view the non-moving party and the information supporting the non-moving party's claims in the most favorable light.
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Farleigh Dickinson produced a certification which outlined the alleged infractions of Mr. Gillet, including his excessive absenteeism and violation of the dress code. Defendants also stated during oral argument that Plaintiff was unable to produce evidence that he was terminated as a result of a disability. The trial court found suitable evidence in favor of Farleigh Dickinson and dismissed Mr. Gillet's Complaint.
The Trial Judge improperly dismissed the case, and the Appellate Court reversed. The Appellate Court felt that the trial court did not view Mr. Gillet's supporting documentation in the "most favorable light." See Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). In considering the appeal, the Court felt that looking at the totality of the matter could easily sway a jury in Mr. Gillet's favor. While Mr. Gillet was absent from work often during a three month period, the absences were accompanied with doctor's notes and Mr. Gillet did not violate the terms of the company policy by going over his allotted time off. Plaintiff produced an opposing Certification which attached a performance review which indicated that Mr. Gillet's work performance was satisfactory. Plaintiff argued that the defenses claims during oral argument for summary judgment were merely pro hoc and not valid at all.
The Court determined that Mr. Gillet's evidence was equal to the evidence produced by Defendants and therefore, his Complaint should not have been dismissed as "it was sufficient to raise a triable issue."
If you feel that you have been wrongfully terminated while you were out of work due to a workers' compensation injury, or if your case has been dismissed and you need legal assistance before the Appellate Division, please do not hesitate to contact Mark & Galusha, LLC. There are laws in place which protect you from losing your job. We are experienced employment attorneys serving Nutley, Cedar Grove and all of Essex County, New Jersey. We can be reached at (908) 626-1001 or 973-440-2311, or simply tell us your story by clicking the "contact us" page.
