DOLLY SANTIAGO v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2978-04-T52978-04-T5

DOLLY SANTIAGO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted April 26, 2006 - Decided May 15, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Kimmelman.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, CP Nos. 98-016881 and 98-017149.

Ambar I. Abelar, attorney for appellant (Ms. Abelar, and on the brief).

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, attorneys for respondent (Robert L. Ghelli, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Dolly Santiago (appellant) appeals from a Workers' Compensation ruling entered January 11, 2005, which dismissed her claim for failure to sustain the burden of proof.

Appellant claims she sustained a psychiatric disability as a result of alleged stalking and sexual harassment at work by her foreman on the filler line. Appellant worked in a confined area and the foreman occasionally had to be in her area when the production line jammed or needed other maintenance. Appellant claims that when in her work area the foreman would put his hands on her or rub against her, all of which made her feel uncomfortable. The foreman denied putting his hands on her or rubbing against her, except for incidental and rare contact when he had to work in her area.

Appellant filed a grievance alleging sexual harassment, which after an investigation, the employer, Anheuser-Busch, found to be without merit. Her own doctor admitted that his notes reflected appellant's statements that her husband did not believe her story about the foreman.

Workers' Compensation Judge Karch delivered an oral opinion on January 11, 2005, dismissing appellant's claims for failure to sustain the burden of proof. We substantially agree with Judge Karch and are satisfied to affirm on the basis of that opinion. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589 (1965).

Affirm.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2978-04-T5

May 15, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.