New Jersey Law Journal: January 23, 2017

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

25-2-2302 Edries v. Quick Chek Food Stores, Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (20 pp.) Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against defendant, her employer, and another employee alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation. Plaintiff alleged several incidents whereby defendant-employee sexually harassed her in violation of the employment handbook, as well as her numerous reports to human resources. At the conclusion of discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant-employer concluding it had “effective procedures for reporting and responding to complaints of harassment.” It further held that defendant “did, in fact, respond in an effective way to [plaintiff’s] complaint of harassment.” The court affirmed holding the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant-employer because the company proved it had an effective anti-harassment policy and it swiftly responded to plaintiff’s complaints. The court noted defendant-employer had formal policies prohibiting harassment and that no retaliation would occur against complainants, as well as defendant-employer had complaint structures for employee’s use in place. The court concluded that defendant-employer’s anti-harassment procedures were effective, so the trial court properly declined to decide whether defendant-employee’s comments were sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment.

New Jersey Law Journal: January 19, 2012

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT—DISCRIMINATION

25-2-4927 Martin v. Quick Chek Corp., App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Plaintiff appeals a discovery order limiting his access to a supervisor’s work notebook to those pages on which he was mentioned, an order granting summary judgment to defendant, and an order denying his motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment in this action alleging wrongful termination and discrimination as a result of his Parkinson’s disease in violation of the Law Against Discrimination. The panel affirms. The trial judge did not err in limiting plaintiff’s access to the entire work notebook as it contained confidential personnel information relating to other employees not relevant to this litigation. The court did not err in granting summary judgment as the two factual inconsistencies asserted by plaintiff do not amount to a dispute of material facts; the LAD is not offended by a private company’s strict enforcement of its no-tolerance drug policy; there is no legal precedent to support plaintiff’s claim that defendants’ awareness of his disease triggered a legal obligation to disregard his explicit request for a demotion and offer an accommodation that would allow him to maintain his manager position where he did not request an accommodation; and since summary judgment was properly granted in Quick Chek’s favor, the individual supervisors cannot legally be held liable.