Unpublished Opinions for the Week of May 8, 2017

01-2-3182 Prieto v. Bd. of Review, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from the final decision of defendant, which affirmed plaintiff’s disqualification from unemployment compensation benefits for leaving her job without good cause attributable to the work. Plaintiff began working as a data manager for employer Shiloh Community Development Corporation, when several months after beginning her job, data plaintiff had entered into the computer began to go missing. Plaintiff testified that her supervisor, Linda Johnson, screamed at her during a meeting that month, and at various times made racially derogatory comments. Plaintiff submitted a complaint detailing her allegations at Johnson, which resulted in employer reassigning plaintiff to a new supervisor, Avril Noyan. Plaintiff later informed upper management that she believed Noyan had improperly coded medical records. Senior managers asked plaintiff to take time off while they investigated. Plaintiff locked her office door and turned in her keys, concerned with being falsely accused of discrepancies with her work. After returning, plaintiff claimed that Noyan demanded to know the status of a data discrepancy, with plaintiff accusing Noyan of changing records in response. Plaintiff further claimed that she began witnessing “strange people” at the office, and concerned with being accused of fabricating data, submitted her resignation. On appeal, plaintiff claimed that she resigned with good cause, alleging that employer retaliated against her by requiring her to keep a performance log, and that the racial and religious comments directed at her created a hostile work environment. However, the court found that employer’s actions were the result of plaintiff’s substandard performance, and ruled that one-time discriminatory or harassing comments were not sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment. Accordingly, finding nothing arbitrary or unreasonable, the court affirmed defendant’s final decision.

07-2-3128 Orozco v. Boulis, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Plaintiff filed two separate auto negligence lawsuits, alleging that she was injured in two different rear-end collisions. Thereafter, defendants moved for, and was granted, consolidation of the two cases; however, the consolidation order shortened the discovery period allowed. Defendants moved for reconsideration believing there was error in setting the discovery end date; the court denied the motion reciting that the discovery end date was adjusted at time of consolidation in the court’s discretion. Following numerous motions by the parties and settlement of one of the cases, the court granted plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss and to re-file the complaint within the statute of limitations, but ordered that the parties were bound by all discovery previously exchanged and no substitution of any experts was permitted without leave of court. On appeal, the court affirmed holding there was no abuse of discretion in denying defendants’ counsel fee application as the parties would be in essentially the same position upon the refiled complaint. Further, the court held that an action shall be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance upon leave of court and set terms and conditions pursuant to Rule4:37-1(b). Although the court may have handled the case differently, it noted any refile of the complaint would not cost the parties a duplication in efforts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.