Court Bars Student's 'Novel' LAD Theory in Suit Against Trenton Diocese
The court rejected what it called the plaintiffs' "strained interpretation" of an LAD provision against refusing to enter a contract with someone for a discriminatory reason.
December 22, 2017 at 04:27 PM
3 minute read
A civil suit alleging a young New Jersey boy was verbally abused and harassed by two other youths at the parochial school he attended cannot pursue a claim under the state's Law Against Discrimination, an appeals court has ruled.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel agreed with the court below that the boy, identified in the decision only as G.A., cannot sue the school or the Catholic diocese that operates it since the LAD has an “explicit exception for parochial schools.” The court rejected what it called the plaintiffs' “strained interpretation” of an LAD provision against refusing to enter a contract with someone for a discriminatory reason.
The lawsuit alleged that G.A. was subjected to harassment and bullying for the three years he attended St. Mary of the Lakes School in Medford. The school is owned and operated by the Diocese of Trenton.
Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez, William Nugent and Heidi Currier did not go into detail about the abuse, but said it was “disturbing, disgusting, and deviant.”
The lawsuit was filed by the boy's mother, identified as L.A., who acknowledged that the LAD contains an exemption for parochial schools. However, the lawsuit relied on another provision of the LAD that prohibits “any person to refuse to … contract with … any other person on the basis of … sex, gender, identity or expression, affectional or sexual orientation.”
Burlington County Superior Court Judge Janet Smith dismissed the lawsuit on summary judgment, saying the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim under that provision of the LAD.
“We agree,” the appeals court judges said, although they acknowledged the “novel” approach of the plaintiffs in the attempt to support their claim.
Smith said allowing the lawsuit to proceed would render the exemption for parochial schools “meaningless.”
“The Legislature certainly did not intend to render meaningless a section of the LAD,” the appeals court said.
According to the ruling, the verbal abuse and harassment continued for the three years G.A. attended the school, beginning when he was 5 years old.
Eventually, one of G.A.'s parents contacted the school principal and several teachers, who expressed concern and promised to counsel the older boys and separate them from G.A., who also was seeing a psychiatrist.
The parent then contacted a monsignor at the diocese and said the family was considering withdrawing G.A. from the school. “'I think it's best that you do leave,'” the lawsuit alleges the monsignor responded.
On G.A.'s last day of school, the principal, according to the lawsuit, accused him of “making all of this up” and causing “a lot of trouble for nothing.”
The lawsuit was filed after G.A. left the school.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Deborah Mains of Costello & Mains in Mount Laurel, said only that the ruling was “disappointing” and that an appeal to the Supreme Court is planned.
The attorney representing the diocese and the school, Caroline Berdzik of the Princeton office of Goldberg Segalla, declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Point Us to the Plain Language': NJ Supreme Court Grills Defense Statutory Requirements for Affidavit of Merit
5 minute readMed Mal Claim for Injury Stemming From Epidural Nets $2.75 Million Settlement
3 minute readFormer Fed Prosecutor Takes Leadership Role in NJ AG's Public Corruption Department
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Sullivan & Cromwell Signals 5-Day RTO Expectation as Law Firms Remain Split on Optimal Attendance
- 2CLOSED: These Georgia Courts Won't Open Jan. 10
- 3Volkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
- 4‘Be Comfortable With the Uncomfortable’
- 5Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Delaware Courts to Address in 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250