Heller v. Middlesex Cnty. Coll.
| Decision Date | 29 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-4179-18T3 |
| Parties | NADINE HELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY COLLEGE, JOANN LAPERLA-MORALES, DAVID EDWARDS, and WALTER DEANGELO, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 Gilson and Moynihan
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-7433-15.
James P. Gianakis, attorney for appellant.
Kelso & Burgess, attorneys for respondent Middlesex County College (Kurt J. Trinter, on the brief).
Martin, Kane, Kuper, LLC, attorneys for respondent Joann LaPerla-Morales (John W. Harding, on the brief).
Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, attorneys for respondent David Edwards (Jennifer Passannante, of counsel and on the brief).
Dvorak & Associates, LLC, attorneys for respondent Walter DeAngelo, join in the brief of respondent Middlesex County College.
Plaintiff Nadine Heller is an associate professor at Middlesex County College (MC College). She sued MC College and three senior administrators: then-President Joann LaPerla-Morales, then-Dean David Edwards, and then-Director of Human Resources Walter DeAngelo. Plaintiff contended that defendants violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, and engaged in gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. She also claimed defendants committed several torts and unjustly enriched themselves at her expense.
Plaintiff appeals from orders denying her request to compel and extend discovery, granting summary judgment to defendants, and dismissing all her claims. She also appeals from several orders denying motions for reconsideration. We affirm the orders concerning discovery and reconsideration. We affirm in part and reverse in part the orders grantingsummary judgment to defendants. Specifically, we affirm the orders granting summary judgment to LaPerla-Morales and DeAngelo. We also affirm the orders that dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's tort and unjust enrichment claims against MC College and Edwards. Moreover, we affirm the orders that dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's LAD claim based on retaliation. We reverse and remand plaintiff's claims against MC College and Edwards under CEPA and LAD gender discrimination and harassment.
We summarize the relevant facts from the record, viewing them in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 480 (2016) (citing R. 4:46-2(c)). In March 2008, plaintiff was hired by MC College as an assistant professor and chair of the Visual Performing and Media Arts Department (VPMA Department). As an assistant professor, plaintiff was a member of the MC College faculty and had various teaching responsibilities. Five years later, in March 2013, she was tenured as an associate professor. Plaintiff is still employed in that position.
As chair of the VPMA Department, plaintiff was a member of the administration and was responsible for overseeing the department, including its staff, budget, and programs. She reported to and coordinated with the Dean ofArts and Sciences if she wanted to change the department's curriculum, budget, or faculty. Edwards held the position of Dean of Arts and Sciences from August 2010, when he joined MC College, until July 2016, when he left the college for other employment.
In February 2013, MC College conducted a performing arts exhibit known as "Radio Heads." The exhibit included an outdoor radio tower, which stood approximately twenty feet high and played music. The construction of the tower was overseen by Tony Ross, who was responsible for theater production sets at MC College. Ross was a member of the VPMA Department and reported to plaintiff.
Several safety concerns were raised after the tower's construction, and it was ultimately taken down. President LaPerla-Morales believed Ross should be disciplined because the tower had not been properly constructed. Accordingly, Edwards directed plaintiff to issue a letter of discipline to Ross. Plaintiff objected, informing Edwards that she did not think Ross should be disciplined, and she believed the letter did not comply with union discipline procedures. Nevertheless, plaintiff issued the letter to Ross because she was up for tenure and felt threatened by Edwards.
Later, Ross filed a grievance concerning the discipline. Eventually, Ross's union and MC College resolved the dispute by removing the letter from his personnel file and replacing it with an advisory memorandum that was part of Ross's evaluation.
Plaintiff asserts that following the radio tower incident, Edwards began to retaliate against her. She claims that over the next two years, Edwards (1) set up meetings with her, but then did not hold the meetings; (2) failed to tell her about other meetings until just before the meeting so she was not prepared; (3) set and thereafter changed his expectations; (4) stopped regularly communicating with plaintiff and ignored reports from her; (5) cut financial support to the VPMA Department; (6) took control of theater productions away from her; (7) engaged in "repeated inflammatory and defamatory rhetoric to and about plaintiff and her performance"; and (8) gave her a poor performance evaluation in September 2014.
Plaintiff contends that she raised her concerns about Edwards's improper treatment of her to numerous administrators at MC College. Those administrators included Dean Marlene Laskowski-Sachnoff; Assistant Dean Kathleen Perle; Laura Cahill, a member of the Human Resources Department; Alison Rolling, a member of the Human Resources Department; WarrenKelemen, a special advisor to the president of MC College; and Cathy Lynch, Director of Labor and Human Resources.
In November 2014, Lynch initiated an investigation into plaintiff's concerns about Edwards. That investigation was conducted by the outside law firm, Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer. Plaintiff asserts she was never given a copy of the resulting report. A copy of the report was produced in discovery and was included in a confidential appendix submitted to us. The investigation focused on the radio tower incident and plaintiff's claims of retaliation by Edwards. The report ultimately concluded that there was nothing "illegal or improper about the actions complained of by [plaintiff]."
Separate from the radio tower incident, plaintiff claims that she reported eight complaints of harassment by female MC College students, but MC College failed to take timely responsive action. For example, plaintiff asserts that in April 2014, she told Edwards that a female student reported that she had been sexually harassed by MC College's Director of Facilities. According to plaintiff, Edwards told her to "bury" the incident.
Plaintiff also claims she reported other student complaints concerning sexual and gender harassment to MC College administrators, but the college failed to investigate those complaints or to follow up with the students. Inaddition, plaintiff contends that she gathered documents and information that were provided to the federal Office of Civil Rights. Thereafter, the Office of Civil Rights launched an investigation under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681.
MC College disputes plaintiff's claims concerning the student complaints. The college asserts that most of the reports of student complaints were made by Amanda Lyons and plaintiff was not the person who made the complaints to the Office of Civil Rights. MC College also maintains that its Human Resources Department investigated the student-harassment claims. The students were interviewed, and a report of their claims was submitted to senior administrators at the college.
In December 2014, plaintiff was notified that she would not be renewed as chair of the VPMA Department. She asserts that the decision was made in retaliation for her complaints about the improper discipline of Ross for the radio tower incident and her complaints about student-harassment claims.
In contrast, MC College asserts that plaintiff was removed as chair because of her poor performance. According to MC College, all chair positions at the college are contractual positions subject to annual renewal. The decision to not renew plaintiff as chair of her department was made by Mark McCormick,with input from Edwards. McCormick had joined MC College in August 2014 as Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs. McCormick and Edwards had concerns about plaintiff's management of the VPMA Department, including her ability to handle budget and personnel issues.
Plaintiff was removed as chair of the VPMA Department in mid-December 2014. Initially, she was replaced by Assistant Dean Terry Orosz, who acted as an interim chair. Thereafter, Amy Hogan was hired as the new chair. Both Orosz and Hogan are women. Following her removal as chair, plaintiff continued to be a member of the administration and her salary and benefits did not immediately change. She also continued to hold the position of associate professor at the college.
On January 15, 2015, plaintiff's lawyer sent McCormick a letter concerning plaintiff's non-renewal as chair and her employment status at the college. Thereafter, plaintiff requested and received administrative leave for the spring 2015 semester. She returned in the fall of 2015 and worked as an associate professor. She contends, however, that she was required to teach at night and at inconvenient locations. She also asserts that she was required to work four days a week while other professors were permitted to work three...
To continue reading
Request your trial