The Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has granted review in three more cases. Each involves a grant of certification.
In Gramiccioni v. Department of Law & Public Safety, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Under the circumstances presented, was the Attorney General required to defend and indemnify the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, the Monmouth County Prosecutor, and Assistant Prosecutors named as defendants in a civil complaint, pursuant to Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422 (2001)?” In an unpublished opinion of a three-judge Appellate Division panel, that court reversed in part the action of the Attorney General in denying a defense.
Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford arises under the federal and New Jersey Civil Rights Acts. [Disclsoure: I represent plaintiffs, the petitioners, in this matter.] The question presented is “Does the tax collector have final policymaking authority such that the Borough may be liable for her actions?” A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion in this appeal. Acting on plaintiffs’ appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Borough and its Tax Collector, reversed the summary judgment for the Tax Collector but affirmed it as to the Borough, holding that the Borough was not responsible for the actions of the Collector.
Finally, Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ., presents this question: “Is an employee alleging discrimination for failure to accommodate a disability, pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, required to show an adverse employment action; and is this employee’s claim barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146?” The Appellate Division reversed the Law Division’s grant of summary judgment to defendants. The Appellate Division’s decision, by a three-judge panel, was reported at 459 N.J. Super. 400 (App. Div. 2019).