A New Jersey appellate court has ruled that a former employee's claims of discrimination should proceed to trial. The case, Rosemary Beneduci v. Graham Curtin, P.A., revolves around allegations that Beneduci was not offered a job at a new firm after her employer merged with another company while she was on medical leave. The court's decision is significant as it addresses the application of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) in the context of business mergers.

Rosemary Beneduci, who worked as a bookkeeper for Graham Curtin for nearly 30 years, took a disability leave for knee surgery in 2017. While she was recovering, Graham Curtin began closing its doors and merging with McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLC. During this transition, all employees except Beneduci were offered positions at the new firm. Beneduci claims she was denied employment due to her age and disability, which she argues is a violation of the LAD.

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division's ruling on June 9, 2023, overturned a lower court's decision that had dismissed Beneduci's claims. The appellate court found that there were genuine disputes regarding the reasons for her not being hired and whether those reasons were discriminatory. This ruling allows Beneduci to present her case in front of a jury.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Rosemary Beneduci, the plaintiff, and three defendants: Graham Curtin, P.A., McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLC, and Peter M. Laughlin, who was the managing partner at Graham Curtin and later became a partner at McElroy. The dispute arose after Beneduci alleged wrongful termination and discrimination based on her age and disability after the merger of the two law firms.

During her recovery from knee surgeries, Graham Curtin was negotiating its merger with McElroy. Laughlin, who was responsible for recommending staff to McElroy, did not include Beneduci in his recommendations for employment. The court filing indicates that all other staff members were offered positions, leading Beneduci to believe her exclusion was based on discriminatory factors related to her medical leave.

After her employment was terminated, Beneduci filed a lawsuit against the firms, claiming violations of the LAD. The case was first heard in the Law Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, where the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, stating that they had no obligation to secure her employment. Beneduci then appealed the decision, leading to the recent ruling by the Appellate Division.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, led by Judge Sumners, ruled that the lower court had erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court noted that there were material facts in dispute regarding whether Beneduci's exclusion from employment at McElroy was due to discriminatory reasons. The ruling stated, "Because of the LAD's remedial purpose, Beneduci's claim that the decision not to transition her employment from Graham Curtin to McElroy was based on discriminatory factors may constitute a viable cause of action."

The court emphasized that the LAD was designed to protect individuals from discrimination in employment practices, and it should be interpreted broadly. The ruling reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for trial, allowing Beneduci to present her claims against the defendants.

Impact

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the application of the LAD in cases involving business mergers. It highlights that employees who are on medical leave cannot be excluded from consideration for employment based on discriminatory factors. The court's decision reinforces the idea that employers have a responsibility to ensure that employment decisions are not influenced by an employee's disability or medical leave status.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar cases in New Jersey, particularly in situations where employees are excluded from job opportunities during mergers or acquisitions. It emphasizes the need for employers to be aware of their obligations under the LAD and to ensure that their hiring practices do not inadvertently discriminate against employees on the basis of disability or age.

What's Next

The case will proceed to trial, allowing Beneduci to present her claims before a jury. The defendants may still have the option to appeal the appellate court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeals were not available in the court filing. This case will be closely watched as it unfolds, particularly for its implications on workplace discrimination laws.