In a recent decision of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, the court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, PSE&G. The employee, a female manager in her forties, had made numerous complaints of a “glass ceiling” (my words) at PSE&G to her supervisors and Human Resources over a number of years. According to the decision, the employee alleged that her supervisor finally had enough of her complaints and began “investigating” her for violations of the company’s expense reimbursement policy. PSE&G then fired the employee based on its finding that she had, it alleged, violated the policy in certain respects. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was proper. The employee argued that the investigation and firing were pretextual; in other words, that these actions were retaliatory and false. The trial judge agreed with the employer, and the case was dismissed.
The appellate court reversed this decision and reinstated the complaint. The court noted that the employee had provided evidence that at least one male peer had also “misused” his company expense accounts, without repercussion. The company argued that this male peer had permission to do so, and that the female employee did not. However, since questions of fact like this can only be decided by a jury, and not by a judge, the appellate court ruled in favor of the employee.
The takeaway from this case is that discrimination and retaliation claims can rise and fall upon one crucial detail. If you have experienced discrimination or retaliation at work, you need a smart employment attorney who can identify these crucial facts and use them to their advantage.