RENALDO A. KING v. COUNTY OF BURLINGTON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5577-04T55577-04T5

RENALDO A. KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF BURLINGTON,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Argued: March 21, 2006 - Decided April 11, 2006

Before Judges Axelrad and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, L-2234-02.

Ian Stuart argued the cause for appellant.

Elizabeth A. Dalberth argued the cause for respondent (Murphy and O'Connor, attorneys; Ms. Dalberth, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Renaldo King, a black man of Panamanian descent, was employed by defendant, County of Burlington, for ten years as a maintenance worker in the building and grounds department. He appeals from summary judgment dismissing his complaint against his former employer, alleging discrimination and violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42, based on national origin, race, and language for not permitting him to rescind his resignation from employment. We affirm.

On July 10, 2000, plaintiff submitted to the County a written resignation, to be effective July 21, stating he was moving to another state. Plaintiff anticipated he would be taking a new job at a New York hotel. The next day, his superintendent Bruce Doty accepted the resignation. By letter of July 14, plaintiff extended the resignation to September 29, to allow his pension to vest, which the County accommodated and Doty accepted. On September 26, 2000, two days before his resignation was to take place, plaintiff changed his mind and submitted a letter to the County stating he was withdrawing his resignation. In response, by memorandum dated September 27, Doty informed plaintiff that his resignation had been accepted on July 11, it was extended to September 29, a replacement was hired and started work, and it was the County's policy not to rescind any resignations. Plaintiff did not talk to anyone in the union about withdrawing his resignation or file a grievance, and he did not complain to any official in the County about not being able to withdraw his resignation.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on July 9, 2002, alleging discrimination, based on the allegation that other employees resigned and were permitted by the County to rescind their resignations. Plaintiff's contention that the County did not have a policy disallowing the withdrawal of a resignation was based on having spoken with an "older lady" in the Freeholder's Office sometime in the middle of September. His claim of disparate treatment was founded on the belief that two white employees, Joe Jarra, who worked in a different building in his department, and Joan Dickenson, who was on his maintenance crew at some point in time, previously had resigned and thereafter were permitted by the County to return to work. His knowledge of Jarra was based on information from "a couple of employee[s] that worked with him," more particularly "Ralph the painter." Plaintiff did not propound any written discovery or take any depositions of the County's representatives. The discovery period ended in January 2004, and trial was scheduled for June 13, 2005.

In April 2005 the County moved for summary judgment, contending plaintiff had no objective evidence to support his claim that other people similarly situated were allowed to withdraw their resignations and thus could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under LAD. The County argued that plaintiff's self-serving statements contained in his deposition testimony alone were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Milacci v. Mato Realty Co., 217 N.J. Super. 297, 300 (App. Div. l987). It was noted that plaintiff's argument with respect to Jarra was based on hearsay evidence alone, as plaintiff neither presented an affidavit of Jarra or any other witness with personal knowledge of disparate treatment, see N.J.R.E. 602, nor did he depose any County representative. Moreover, Dickenson's personnel records, which were presented by the County, clearly reflected she did not withdraw a resignation, but rather indicated a return to work after a short union layoff, a subsequent worker's compensation injury and a subsequent disability.

Judge LeBon found plaintiff's argument about Jarra to be based on inadmissible hearsay and found Dickenson's circumstances to be much different than plaintiff's. Accordingly, the motion judge found, regardless of whether or not the County had a policy preventing employees from rescinding their resignation letters, the record failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was discriminated against because of his race, national origin or language. Indeed, the County's extension of plaintiff's original resignation date to accommodate his accrual of pension benefits is inconsistent with plaintiff's unsubstantiated claims of discrimination.

We agree. We are satisfied the evidence is so one-sided in favor of the County that it must prevail as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 536 (1995).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-5577-04T5

April 11, 2006