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.

Hernon v. Webb-McRae

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 4, 2018

DENNIS J. HERNON, Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER WEBB-MCRAE, individually and in her official capacity as Cumberland County Prosecutor, and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, Defendants.

          ALLAN E. RICHARDSON THE VIGILANTE LAW FIRM On behalf of Plaintiff

          A. MICHAEL BARKER VANESSA ELAINE JAMES BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES LINWOOD GREENE On behalf of Defendants

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendants for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims that he was discriminated and retaliated against during his employment with the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office (“CCPO”). For the reasons expressed below, Defendants' motion will be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, Dennis J. Hernon, began working for the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office on August 20, 2007 as an Assistant Prosecutor. For seven years prior to his employment with CCPO, Plaintiff was a full-time active duty member of the United States Army. On August 25, 2009, Plaintiff was commissioned as a First Lieutenant in the Army Reserves. Over the next twelve years, Plaintiff's employment with CCPO was interspersed with several military assignments: May 5, 2010 to June 18, 2010; January 2011 to October 2012; July 2013 to June 2014; and August 2016 to August 2017.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated and retaliated against at CCPO by the Cumberland County Prosecutor, Defendant Jennifer Webb-McRae, because of his military service. Plaintiff has asserted claims for violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has opposed Defendants' motion.[1]

         DISCUSSION

         A. Subject matter jurisdiction

         The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff brings claims arising under federal law. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

         B. Summary judgment standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that the materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, or interrogatory answers, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

         An issue is “genuine” if it is supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party's evidence “is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Marino v. Industrial Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004)(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).

         Initially, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. Thus, to withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57. A party opposing summary ...


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.