Trials can be expensive and time-consuming not just for the parties but the court system as well. As part of the rules of civil procedure for both state and federal courts, the legal system contains ways to short circuit legal claims and defenses when the facts and law align. If one or both sides file motions for summary judgment, a judge, looking at the facts, may feel there’s no point in going forward to trial and will issue a decision in favor of one of the parties.

Sometimes these motions are partially for the plaintiff and partially for a defendant. It’s a decision that there are no material, disputed facts to justify a full-blown trial. Some facts may be disputed, but they may not be material to the outcome of the case. There may be a decision for the plaintiff or defendant on one or more claims, but there could still be material facts to be determined by a jury on other issues. A trial may continue on much more narrow issues than were alleged in the complaint or counterclaim.

In a recent decision involving disability discrimination claims filed in federal court in New Jersey, Peter Weber worked for a short time for Don Longo, Inc., in Chester, PA, which sells products to the automotive repair and petroleum industries. According to Don Longo, Weber performed poorly and didn’t follow instructions to the point co-workers didn’t want to work with him.

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, at one point Weber used a tool that his supervisor, William Longo, thought was unsafe and wrong for the task. Longo allegedly told Weber to use a different one. Weber supposedly ignored what he was told and ended up cutting one of his fingers, which required stitches. Longo told him to take time off to heal but Weber allegedly refused and showed up for work anyway the next day.

After a number of mistakes and failures to follow instructions, Longo fired Weber. His given reasons were that he took too much time to complete tasks, ignored direct instructions, and his coworkers weren’t comfortable working with him. After Weber was fired, he became agitated and was overheard talking to himself, saying he might as well shoot himself, his life was over, his wife was going to divorce him, and they were going to lose their house. Weber also took a claw hammer and destroyed his hard hat in the presence of other employees.

After a short time, Weber begged for his job back and Supervisor Longo relented. Longo then heard from his workforce that they wouldn’t work with Weber, or if they did, they wanted higher pay. Longo changed his mind, told Weber he wasn’t welcome back and sent him the equivalent of two weeks’ pay.

Weber later filed a successful workers compensation claim based on his injured finger and sued Longo for disability discrimination. Weber stated that during the worker’s compensation process it was determined that he had a 35% permanent partial disability in his injured finger. He claimed that because of that disability, or because Supervisor Longo perceived him as disabled, he was fired.

Weber sued under state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The judge in the case, in response to Don Longo’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims in March. Judge Kevin McNulty stated that Weber wasn’t disabled or perceived as disabled. He pointed out that Weber continued to work after his injury. Under the ADA a disability is a substantial limitation of a major life activity (like eating, breathing, walking). McNulty found no evidence to support that.

The judge didn’t give much weight to the worker’s compensation finding because that’s a different legal process involving different legal claims. He pointed out that working is a major life activity but to be protected under the ADA the plaintiff would need to show he couldn’t work in a broad range of jobs. Weber didn’t have the facts to establish the cut finger prohibited him from working.

Weber’s claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) also failed. It has a much lower threshold than the ADA for disability discrimination claims. NJLAD does not require that a disability restrict any major life activity and for the legal decision.  On that basis, Judge McNulty decided he didn’t have sufficient facts to decide if Weber was disabled under state law.

But the judge went further and found reasons to dismiss the case anyway because whether or not Weber was disabled wasn’t material to the case. Even if the plaintiff was disabled, he still didn’t have enough evidence to win:

• Supervisor Longo provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Weber and the plaintiff didn’t establish enough evidence to call Longo’s explanation into question.
• McNulty found no reasonable trier of fact (a judge or jury) could find the given reasons for Weber’s termination were so clearly wrong as to imply an illegal bias.
• Weber also didn’t have evidence “with sufficient probative force” that a fact-finder could decide by a preponderance of the evidence that Weber’s alleged disability was a motivating or determinative factor in Longo’s decision to fire him.

Deciding cases on motions for summary judgment, especially fact-driven cases like employment discrimination claims, are generally frowned upon by appellate courts.  The party opposing the motion is supposed to get the benefit of all favorable inferences when these motions are decided. But these motions are a common way to bring a case to a close or narrow the legal claims at issue. On the facts shown, the employer was entitled to prevail, legally, and there was no reason to hold a jury trial to determine the facts or legal issues.

Often settlement negotiations stall if such a motion is pending because one party or another may feel it will be in a stronger negotiating position after the motion’s decided. If the case is dismissed, the plaintiff won’t have much leverage.  If the case continues, a defendant may be willing to put up more money to avoid the uncertainty and expense of a trial.

If you have suffered illegal discrimination at work, please contact our law firm.   We are employment attorneys for workers.  Call Hanan M. Isaacs, P.C., at 609-683-7400, or contact us online, to set up a near-term reduced fee initial consultation at our Central Jersey location in Kingston.  We will listen to your facts, explain the law, and discuss your best legal options to achieve maximum financial and social justice.  Call today. You will be glad you did.