Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3425-15T1
05-16-2017
ROBERT STEPHENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF UNION, UNION COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS and UNION COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Defendants-Respondents.
Rinaldo and Rinaldo Associates, attorneys for appellant (Matthew T. Rinaldo and Tiana Gimbrone, on the briefs). Robert E. Barry, Union County Counsel, attorney for respondents (Moshood Muftau, Second Deputy Counsel, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Reisner and Mayer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-1293-14. Rinaldo and Rinaldo Associates, attorneys for appellant (Matthew T. Rinaldo and Tiana Gimbrone, on the briefs). Robert E. Barry, Union County Counsel, attorney for respondents (Moshood Muftau, Second Deputy Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a March 4, 2016 order granting summary judgment dismissing his age discrimination complaint against Union County, filed under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49.
Having reviewed the record de novo, we find that plaintiff's complaint was correctly dismissed on summary judgment for the reasons stated by the motion judge. See Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, 219 N.J. 395, 405-06 (2014); Turner v. Wong, 363 N.J. Super. 186, 198-99 (App. Div. 2003). We also conclude that plaintiff's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add these brief comments.
Plaintiff, the assistant manager of a County-owned ice rink, was laid off from his job. He claimed the lay-off was due to his age. The County produced legally competent evidence that the lay-off was due to budget cuts that required a reduction in force. In an oral opinion issued on March 4, 2016, Judge Camille M. Kenny found that plaintiff failed to produce legally competent evidence that the County's legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the lay-off was a pretext for age discrimination. See O'Brien v. Telecordia Tech., Inc., 420 N.J. Super. 256, 263 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 479 (2012). The judge also found that plaintiff's motion opposition failed to rely on any legally competent evidence, with the possible exception of some materials that plaintiff had never disclosed during discovery. The judge declined to consider the previously-undisclosed material and deemed defendant's statement of material facts to be undisputed. See R. 4:46-2(b); Polzo v. Cty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 586 (2008). However, she also noted that the alleged new evidence did not relate to a relevant time period, because plaintiff was laid off in 2012 and his alleged new evidence related to the hiring of younger employees in 2016. We agree with Judge Kenny's factual and legal analysis.
In light of our conclusions as to the LAD claim, we need not address whether the County Freeholders and the County Parks and Community Renewal Department are entitled to immunity from suit. --------
We also observe that plaintiff's appellate brief does not properly cite to record evidence in support of his statement of facts. See R. 2:6-2(a)(5). While we review the record de novo, it is not our role to hunt through the appendices in search of support for plaintiff's purported evidence, and we decline to do so. See Spinks v. Twp. of Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 465, 474-75 (App. Div. 2008), certif. denied, 197 N.J. 476 (2009).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION