KAREN JOHNSON v. IRVINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6906-03T56906-03T5

KAREN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

IRVINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

DR. ERNEST H. SMITH, JR.,

Defendant.

_________________________________

 

Argued November 29, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Lisa and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,

L-10392-02.

Matthew R. Grabell argued the cause

for appellant (Grabell & Associates, attorneys; Mr. Grabell, on the brief).

Rasheedah R. Terry argued the cause

for respondent (Hunt, Hamlin & Ridley, attorneys; Ms. Terry, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Karen Johnson, appeals from a trial court order dismissing her complaint on a motion for summary judgment. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the oral opinion of Judge Merkelbach, placed on the record on July 22, 2004.

These are the facts. Plaintiff was hired as an accountant for the Irvington Board of Education for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board gave her a contract which extended from August 20, 2001 to June 30, 2002, at a prorated salary of $55,000. Plaintiff discovered that she was pregnant in November 2001. There is no dispute that she told her superiors at the Board that she was pregnant. On March 1, 2002, Controller Ezra Naughton gave plaintiff a satisfactory evaluation. There is no dispute that he knew she was pregnant when he evaluated her.

On May 14, 2002, the Board voted to conduct a reduction in force (RIF) due to uncertainty about the amount of State funding the district would receive. Accordingly, the Board notified all of its employees who had been hired since November 2000, including plaintiff, that they would not be rehired for the coming school year.

On May 20, 2002, Naughton sent a memorandum to Victor Deming, who was the Board's Secretary and Assistant Superintendent for Business. In the memo Naughton complained that plaintiff had been insubordinate to him:

In an effort to obtain the information pertaining to the special revenue fund from Ms. Johnson, I was confronted with belligerent behavior when I inquired about the figures. She insisted that today was not a good day for my inquiries and that I would have to wait until she looked into the matter at some later date. . . . I will not be abused by Ms. Johnson's demeanor and aggressive behavior. Ms. Johnson has displayed insubordination therefore I am bringing this incident to your attention.

This is my second attempt to obtain information from Ms. Johnson and on both occasions I have been faced with uncooperativeness and disdain. Therefore, I am submitting this documentation for the record.

[emphasis in original]

Plaintiff was copied on the memorandum. Significantly, the record contains no evidence that she responded to the memo when she received it, and she submitted no evidence on the summary judgment motion to rebut Naughton's version of the incidents about which he complained.

By June 27, 2002, the District's financial situation had improved, and the Board voted to rehire all of the employees in the central office other than plaintiff. Plaintiff's supervisors did not recommend that she be rehired. Instead of rehiring plaintiff, the Board employed a temporary per diem accountant at a lower rate of pay than plaintiff had earned. Plaintiff gave birth in July 2002. She contends that in September 2002, she attempted to get her job back but received no response to her inquiries.

Applying the well established standard for analyzing a discrimination case, the trial judge concluded that plaintiff had presented a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, but that the Board had presented a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the decision not to rehire her, and plaintiff had failed to produce proof that the Board's reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Viscik v. Fowler Equip. Co., 173 N.J. 1, 13-14 (2002). On this appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment "because plaintiff satisfied her burden of proving pretext."

 
Having reviewed the entire record, we agree with the trial judge's conclusion that the Board produced a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason why plaintiff was not rehired. She was insubordinate toward the Controller, who complained to the Board Secretary. Plaintiff produced no evidence to rebut the charge of insubordination or to prove that the accusation was a pretext for discrimination. Even giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences from the evidence presented on the summary judgment motion, no rational jury could find in her favor. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-6906-03T5

December 8, 2005