A New Jersey state appeals court has vacated the ruling of a trial judge, who had granted summary judgment to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and its employee Michelle Edwards in a case in which the defendants were sued by a student manager of a Rutgers athletic team for discrimination.
Plaintiff Kimi Stephenson, a part-time employee at the university, alleged specifically that she was harassed and discriminated against with respect to compensation on the basis of her perceived sexual orientation and because of a disability in violation of the New Jersey Law against discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49.
Stephenson filed her complaint on March 30, 2009. The defendants answered in May 2009, denying the material allegations of the complaint.
The defendants moved for summary judgment in August 2010. The notice of motion requested oral argument pursuant to Rule 1:6-2(d). Stephenson opposed this, to which the defendants filed a reply. Despite the requirement of Rule 1:6-2(d), the motion judge declined to hear oral argument. On October 15, 2010, the judge filed an order granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The judge “handwrote a nine-line explanation of his decision, which did not contain any findings of fact and contained only cursory conclusions of law,” according to the appeals court.
Stephenson appealed.
In reviewing the appeal, the court wrote that Rule 1:6-2(d) “clearly provides that, unless a civil motion ‘involves pretrial discovery or is directly addressed to the calendar,’ a request for oral argument ‘shall be granted as of right.’ The motion judge did not have the option to deny oral argument on a substantive motion such as the one in this case. In addition, the motion judge’s cursory explanation of his reasons for granting the motion do not comply with the requirements of Rule 1:7-4(a), which provides that the ‘court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon.’
“Consequently, we vacate the order on appeal and remand to the Law Division for oral argument on the motion and full compliance with Rule 1:7-4(a). The judge should address both the statute of limitations issue, which was apparently the basis for his decision, and the substantive-law issues raised in the motion.”
Kimi Stephenson v. Rutgers University and Michelle Edwards; Super. Ct. N.J.; DOCKET NO. A-1660-10T3, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2447; 9/22/11.
Attorneys of record (for appellant) Kalimah H. Ahmad (for respondent) John J. Peirano, of counsel and on the brief; Paula M. Castaldo and Michael J. Dee, on the brief).
