Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad

139 A.3d 1 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a certified emergency medical technician and paramedic. P was associated with D for seventeen years, initially as a volunteer member. P assumed a paid position in January 1996. When P was terminated he was Director of Operations and had held that position since June 1998. P's wife at the time, Mary, was also employed by D, as were her mother and two sisters. In 2005, P commenced an extramarital affair with D volunteer, who was supervised directly by P. Mary learned of P's affair and reported it to Redden, management. Shortly thereafter, P also informed Redden of the affair. Redden told P that he could not promise that the affair would not affect P's job. Redden stated, 'All depends on how it shakes down.' The volunteer left D on June 27, 2005, but the affair continued. P moved out of the marital home. On January 2, 2006, P informed Redden that his marriage to Mary had collapsed. On February 16, 2006, Redden told P that he did not think there was any chance of reconciliation with Mary and that he believed there would be an 'ugly divorce. P testified that Redden informed him that if there had been even the slightest chance of reconciliation, Redden would not have to take the issue to the D Board of Directors. P asked Redden if he was being terminated because he was the one who had the affair. Redden replied that if he had to terminate P, it would be for one of four reasons. Two of those reasons were the elimination of P's job because of restructuring and 'poor work performance.' P could not recall the other two reasons. The Board held a meeting on February 7, 2006, which was attended by Redden. The Board decided to terminate P at that meeting. Redden gave P one day to resign before being fired. P was fired the next day, February 17, 2006. The D employment Manual also included a sexual harassment policy, but P testified that he did not believe that having a relationship with a subordinate was a problem because two other supervisors at D had dated employees whom they supervised. The Manual also prohibited the use of P's business cell phone for personal purposes. Phone records indicated that P frequently used his business cell phone to speak with the volunteer after work hours. P testified, however, that no one ever complained to him about his cell phone use. Other employees had divorced while working at D, but he did not know of any other employee who had been terminated because of a divorce. P also learned that in January 2001, Mary had an affair with a D mechanic. P considered the situation awkward but never confronted the mechanic, and Mary was not terminated or disciplined because of the affair. Following P's termination, his position was filled by two employees-Mary and a male employee-who served as Co-Directors of Operations. D appointed a male employee to the newly created position of Chief Operating Officer to supervise the co-directors of operations. In March 2006, P and Mary filed for divorce. Their divorce was finalized that September. P testified that the divorce was 'amicable,' and not 'messy,' and that he continues to have a good relationship with Mary. P sued D for wrongful discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status in violation of the LAD and common law wrongful discharge. At the conclusion of P's case, D filed a motion for judgment and a motion for involuntary dismissal. The court granted the motion for involuntary dismissal. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of P's marital-status-discrimination claim. P's appeal raised the issue of the scope of the marital-status protection under the LAD and interpreted 'marital status' to include the states of being divorced, engaged to be married, separated, and involved in divorce proceedings. Ds' petition for certification was granted.