Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scala v. County of Union

December 6, 2007

ALYSSA D. SCALA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF UNION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND RICK PROCTOR AND DENISE SANTIAGO, DEFENDANTS.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, No. L-408-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued October 3, 2007

Before Judges Wefing, Parker and Lyons.

Plaintiff appeals from a trial court order entered January 19, 2007, denying her motion for reconsideration of an earlier trial court order granting summary judgment to defendants. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against defendants, including allegations that their failure to hire her as the Health Educator/Risk Communicator ("HERC") for Union County was discriminatory under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff's appeal relates solely to her claim under the LAD.

Certain background facts must be set forth prior to analyzing plaintiff's claims. The federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control, provides grant money to assist local governments in creating a central network of health departments designed to protect the public and first responders from terrorist attacks that use biological and chemical weapons. This central network is known as a Local Information Network and Communication System ("LINCS"). For some period of time Union County's LINCS program was administered through Union Township and its Board of Health. Commencing in August 2003 plaintiff provided professional consulting services to the Union Township Board of Health as an independent contractor, serving as the HERC for the LINCS program. In that position, plaintiff was responsible for training local police, firefighters, other first responders, and the public, to recognize the signs of, and protect themselves from, terrorist attacks.

In 2004 Union County decided to take over administration of the LINCS program from Union Township. It required approval from the State to do so and, in conjunction with its application to the State, said that it was "currently negotiating the transfer of all existing LINCS full-time employees to the County." It also informed the State that defendant Denise Santiago would be appointed Health Officer for the County's LINCS program. In due course, the State approved the application.

Plaintiff received a letter from Union Township advising her that the LINCS program was being transferred to the county and that her position would be terminated effective September 1, 2004. The letter also stated, "[t]he County of Union has expressed an interest in hiring the current LINCS employees and will be setting up interviews during this transitional period.

[Y]ou will be contacted by the Union County Personnel Department for an interview." In anticipation of continuing her employment with the LINCS program, plaintiff relocated from Passaic County to Union County. Plaintiff alleged she made this move on the basis of representations made to her that she would be hired by the County for the LINCS program if she became a resident of the County.

In late July 2002 plaintiff met with defendant Santiago, Robert Scherr, Health Officer for Westfield, and Benedict Laganga, Union County's Director of Emergency Management. By letter dated August 17, 2004, the County notified plaintiff that it would not be offering her a position as the HERC for its LINCS program. This litigation followed.

The County hired a woman who was significantly older than plaintiff as its HERC for the LINCS program. Plaintiff contended that she was more qualified for the HERC position than the person who was selected, who had no experience training first responders while plaintiff had trained more first responders than any other LINCS program in the State. She also noted that her performance as HERC coordinator was viewed by the people with whom she had worked as good. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, in making this hiring decision, discriminated against her both in terms of gender and age. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that she was not hired because defendant Denise Santiago viewed her as a rival for the affections of defendant Rick Proctor. Defendant Proctor was the Health Officer for Rahway and a member of the Union County Board of Freeholders with whom Ms. Santiago was conducting an affair.

Plaintiff, in her deposition, set forth the basis for her assertions. She testified that Joanne Gemenden, who worked for the county and was a friend both to plaintiff and defendant Santiago told her in a telephone conversation that defendant Santiago had not liked the way Proctor looked at plaintiff when she walked into the meeting room. Plaintiff also testified that Ms. Gemenden told her that defendant Santiago, in discussing why plaintiff had not been hired, made the comment, "This is what big boobs and flipping your hair all over the County will get you."

Defendants denied that such personal considerations entered at all into the hiring decision. In discovery, both defendant Santiago and Ms. Gemenden denied making any such statements. Defendants noted that the successful applicant was a Certified Health Education Specialist, a rank that plaintiff had not yet achieved. In addition, defendant Santiago testified that she had observed several presentations that plaintiff had given and that she was not "comfortable" with the manner in which they were done. Defendant Santiago continued that she considered plaintiff "loud . . . abrasive and . . . non-professional." Ms. Santiago said she had discussed filling the position of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.