age discrimination claim in New Jersey

2021Id. at 178 .

2015It requires a court to consider twelve factors in determining a worker’s status: (1) the employer’s right to control the means and manner of the worker’s performance; (2) the kind of occupation—supervised or unsupervised; (3) sldll; (4) who furnishes the equipment and workplace; (5) the length of time in which the individual has worked; (6) the method of payment; (7) the manner of termination of the work relationship; (8) whether there is annual leave; (9) whether the work is an integral part of the business of the “employer;” (10) whether the worker accrues retirement benefits; (11) whether t

2005The Court in Reeves explained: "Proof that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive." 530 U.S. at 147 , 120 S.Ct. at 2108 , 147 L.Ed. 2d at 119-20 .

2005The Court in Reeves explained: "Proof that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive." 530 U.S. at 147 , 120 S.Ct. at 2108 , 147 L.Ed. 2d at 119-20 .

2005Bd. of Educ., 334 N.J.Super. 13, 29-34 , 756 A. 2d 1019 (App. Div.2000) (reinstating jury verdict in plaintiff's favor and vacating trial court's grant of defendant's motion to set aside verdicts because plaintiff's evidence supported a finding of discrimination on the basis of a handicap); Mattiello v. Grand Union Co., 333 N.J.Super. 12, 17 , 754 A. 2d 563 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 677 , 762 A. 2d 658 (2000) (affirming a jury verdict in favor of defendant-employer, because the judge correctly charged the jury that it may, but not must, find in favor of plaintiff, on an age discrimi

2005Bd. of Educ., 334 N.J.Super. 13, 29-34 , 756 A. 2d 1019 (App. Div.2000) (reinstating jury verdict in plaintiff's favor and vacating trial court's grant of defendant's motion to set aside verdicts because plaintiff's evidence supported a finding of discrimination on the basis of a handicap); Mattiello v. Grand Union Co., 333 N.J.Super. 12, 17 , 754 A. 2d 563 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 677 , 762 A. 2d 658 (2000) (affirming a jury verdict in favor of defendant-employer, because the judge correctly charged the jury that it may, but not must, find in favor of plaintiff, on an age discrimi

2005Bd. of Educ., 334 N.J.Super. 13, 29-34 , 756 A. 2d 1019 (App. Div.2000) (reinstating jury verdict in plaintiff's favor and vacating trial court's grant of defendant's motion to set aside verdicts because plaintiff's evidence supported a finding of discrimination on the basis of a handicap); Mattiello v. Grand Union Co., 333 N.J.Super. 12, 17 , 754 A. 2d 563 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 677 , 762 A. 2d 658 (2000) (affirming a jury verdict in favor of defendant-employer, because the judge correctly charged the jury that it may, but not must, find in favor of plaintiff, on an age discrimi

2005Bd. of Educ., 334 N.J.Super. 13, 29-34 , 756 A. 2d 1019 (App. Div.2000) (reinstating jury verdict in plaintiff's favor and vacating trial court's grant of defendant's motion to set aside verdicts because plaintiff's evidence supported a finding of discrimination on the basis of a handicap); Mattiello v. Grand Union Co., 333 N.J.Super. 12, 17 , 754 A. 2d 563 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 677 , 762 A. 2d 658 (2000) (affirming a jury verdict in favor of defendant-employer, because the judge correctly charged the jury that it may, but not must, find in favor of plaintiff, on an age discrimi

2005Hunt Transp., Inc., 963 F. 2d 173, 175 (8th Cir.1992) (affirming dismissal of age discrimination claim because it would be "simply incredible, in light of the weakness of the plaintiff's evidence otherwise, that the company officials who hired him at age fifty-one had suddenly developed an aversion to older people less than two years later."); Sanders v. FMAS Corp., 180 F.Supp. 2d 698 , 702 n. 7 (D.Md.2001) ("Because Plaintiff was hired by Defendant at the age of 47 and was fired just a few months later at the same age, an age discrimination claim against Defendant is unsupportable.").

2001If, however, a plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that each act was discriminatory, the plaintiff "may not sit back and accumulate all the discriminatory acts and sue on all within the statutory period applicable to the last one." Id. at 282 (holding that an age-discrimination claim based on the denial of suitable laboratory space was actionable at the time it occurred and would not be considered part of later discriminatory conduct); Kidwell v. Board of Comm'rs of Shawnee County, 40 F.Supp. 2d 1201, 1216 (D.Kan.) (holding that the denial of the pla

2001If, however, a plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that each act was discriminatory, the plaintiff "may not sit back and accumulate all the discriminatory acts and sue on all within the statutory period applicable to the last one." Id. at 282 (holding that an age-discrimination claim based on the denial of suitable laboratory space was actionable at the time it occurred and would not be considered part of later discriminatory conduct); Kidwell v. Board of Comm'rs of Shawnee County, 40 F.Supp. 2d 1201, 1216 (D.Kan.) (holding that the denial of the pla

2001If, however, a plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that each act was discriminatory, the plaintiff "may not sit back and accumulate all the discriminatory acts and sue on all within the statutory period applicable to the last one." Id. at 282 (holding that an age-discrimination claim based on the denial of suitable laboratory space was actionable at the time it occurred and would not be considered part of later discriminatory conduct); Kidwell v. Board of Comm'rs of Shawnee County, 40 F.Supp. 2d 1201, 1216 (D.Kan.) (holding that the denial of the pla

1999The Court rejected that argument and concluded: Because the ADEA prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and not class membership, the fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact that the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class. [ Id. at 313 , 116 S.Ct. at 1310 , 134 L.Ed. 2d at 439 .] A fair reading of O'Connor indicates, however, that the Court recognized the unique nature of an age-discrimination claim under the ADEA for the statute defines by age the protected class.

1999The Court rejected that argument and concluded: Because the ADEA prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and not class membership, the fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact that the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class. [ Id. at 313 , 116 S.Ct. at 1310 , 134 L.Ed. 2d at 439 .] A fair reading of O'Connor indicates, however, that the Court recognized the unique nature of an age-discrimination claim under the ADEA for the statute defines by age the protected class.

1998Compare Fischer v. Allied Signal Corp., 974 F.Supp. 797, 807 (D.N.J.1997) (plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of age discrimination where three of the five positions plaintiff applied for were filled by persons older than plaintiff); Esposito v. Township of Edison, 306 N.J.Super. 280 , 703 A.2d 674 (App.Div.1997) (upholding a denial of summary judgment on an age discrimination claim under LAD when plaintiffs failed, in part, to show that persons of similar or lesser qualifications were promoted).

1998Compare Fischer v. Allied Signal Corp., 974 F.Supp. 797, 807 (D.N.J.1997) (plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of age discrimination where three of the five positions plaintiff applied for were filled by persons older than plaintiff); Esposito v. Township of Edison, 306 N.J.Super. 280 , 703 A.2d 674 (App.Div.1997) (upholding a denial of summary judgment on an age discrimination claim under LAD when plaintiffs failed, in part, to show that persons of similar or lesser qualifications were promoted).

1998Plaintiff urges that we follow a decision of this court, Burke v. Township of Franklin, 261 N.J.Super. 592 , 619 A.2d 643 (App.Div. 1993), which held that a thirty-nine-year-old plaintiff was not eligible to bring an age discrimination claim under the LAD or the equivalent Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.CA § 623(a) and § 631(a).

1998Plaintiff urges that we follow a decision of this court, Burke v. Township of Franklin, 261 N.J.Super. 592 , 619 A.2d 643 (App.Div. 1993), which held that a thirty-nine-year-old plaintiff was not eligible to bring an age discrimination claim under the LAD or the equivalent Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.CA § 623(a) and § 631(a).

1996On the age-based claim, the judge explained that defendants' burden was to come forward with "some reasonable articulated reason so as to justify the wage disparity." At the conclusion of the trial, as reflected on the verdict sheets, the jury found, voting five to one in favor of defendants, that "plaintiff proved by the preponderance of the evidence that she was paid less than male pharmacists with substantially similar job descriptions" and "less than younger pharmacists with similar job descriptions." The jury also found defendants had satisfied their burden of showing, on the sex-discrimi

1996On the age-based claim, the judge explained that defendants' burden was to come forward with "some reasonable articulated reason so as to justify the wage disparity." At the conclusion of the trial, as reflected on the verdict sheets, the jury found, voting five to one in favor of defendants, that "plaintiff proved by the preponderance of the evidence that she was paid less than male pharmacists with substantially similar job descriptions" and "less than younger pharmacists with similar job descriptions." The jury also found defendants had satisfied their burden of showing, on the sex-discrimi

1985Hermann v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 183 N.J.