Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Parochial School That Fired Pregnant Teacher for Premarital Sex May Have Violated the LAD

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Nov 19, 2020 in Appellate Division, Constitutional law, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Standards of review, Summary judgment | 0 comments

Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, 465 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 2020). This decision under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”), was the second time that this case came before the Appellate Division. The issue in today’s opinion was “whether a parochial school’s knowledge of the pregnancy of an unmarried lay teacher, who started as a teacher’s aide for toddlers, later taught art, and had no responsibility for religious instruction, can serve as the nondiscriminatory basis for the teacher’s termination for violating the school’s morals code, where the school never made any effort to determine whether any of its other employees have violated the school’s prohibition against ‘immoral conduct’ that is allegedly incorporated into each employees’ [sic] terms of employment.”

As Judge Rothstadt’s opinion observed, the prior, unpublished opinion had “determined that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not bar plaintiff’s action, and that plaintiff established a prima facie claim of discrimination under the first step in the McDonnell Douglas [Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)] analysis.” That ruling had reversed a summary judgment in favor of defendant.

The prior opinion remanded the case for discovery on “the issue of defendant’s treatment of all ‘similarly situated’ employees who defendant knew were in violation of its ethics code.” This was done because “[a]bsent evidence that men are treated the same way as women who are terminated for engaging in premarital sex, a religious institution violates [the] LAD if the institution terminates a woman for engaging in premarital sex based solely on knowledge of her pregnancy.”

Once that discovery was completed, defendant again sought and was granted summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division again reversed.

Judge Rothstadt explained the basis for that result. “[I]t was undisputed that defendant took no actions to detect whether any of its employees violated Catholic tenets or breached defendant’s employee handbook. Instead, the evidence established that defendant relied only upon knowledge of its female employees’ pregnancy and marital status as a basis to enforce its code of ethics and handbook requirements– neither of which expressly addressed premarital sex as a prohibited conduct, but of which the former prohibited engaging in ‘immoral conduct’ that could cause ‘scandal.'” There were no issues as to plaintiff’s job performance. Applying de novo review, the panel concluded that, viewing the facts most favorably to plaintiff, as required in the summary judgment context, “a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that [plaintiff’s] termination violated the LAD.”

The second and third McDonnell Douglas steps are that the defendant must “produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action” and that the plaintiff must then prove that that reason was “a pretext for discrimination.” Judge Rothstadt said that “[w]hen premarital sex is used as the reason for termination, courts have held that an employer enforcing such a policy unevenly … by observing or having knowledge of a woman’s pregnancy– is evidence of pretext.” Since there was evidence that that was the case here, plaintiff had carried her burden on the third McDonnell Douglas step. Accordingly, she won a reversal of summary judgment.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress