These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed
NEWS BRIEFS:
Temporary Fix to Public Notice Law Easily Approved in NJ Senate
The New Jersey Legislature unanimously passed a bill Thursday that would temporarily allow public bodies to publish public notices in news outlets in a digital-only format.
Explore Implicit Bias in the Law with NJICLE
Join NJICLE on Dec. 27 for a seminar about implicit bias, or unconscious bias, and the role it can play in interactions between people of a different race, socioeconomic status, religion or sexual orientation. The program will discuss practical strategies to identify and mitigate the effects of implicit biases, allowing legal professionals to create a more inclusive, effective and profitable practice. Register here.
Meet the Judges: Senate Confirms 7 Superior Court Nominees in Final 2024 Session
In the New Jersey Senate’s final 2024 session, the legislators confirmed a new Mercer County prosecutor and seven nominees to the Superior Court.
NJSBA Members Can Get a Free Security Evaluation or IT Operations Assessment
NJSBA members can receive a free security evaluation or IT operations assessment from cybersecurity and IT management benefit, Ember IT. Members can also receive three months of additional free services with any three-year agreement. Learn more here.
Vigorous Senate Review for the FBI Director Nominee
In 1968, Public Law 90351 provided that, at the conclusion of the service of longtime FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, the director would be nominated by the president for a 10-year term subject to confirmation by the Senate. The purpose of the law was to affirm the independence of the chief national law enforcement agency. The attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president. But the FBI director is outside the ordinary chain of command
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – December 20, 2024
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CIVIL RIGHTS
Saadeh v. State Bar Ass’n, Appellate Division, Judge Accurso. State Bar Association appealed the grant of partial summary judgment on liability to plaintiff on his New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claim. Plaintiff, a member of the Bar Association, claimed discrimination based on Association’s practice of reserving at-large seats for underrepresented demographic groups on its Board and committees. Plaintiff asserted the practice constituted an illegal quota system under the LAD, while Association argued its method was a bona fide affirmative action program protected by the First Amendment’s right of expressive association. Trial court found Association’s reservation of seats was an impermissible quota system, violated the LAD and rejected the Association’s First Amendment defense. Court reversed, holding Association’s method of ensuring diversity in its leadership was protected by the First Amendment’s right of expressive association. Compelling the Association to alter or eliminate its program to ensure diversity in its leadership to comply with the LAD would significantly burden its First Amendment right of expressive association that permitted it to select the membership of its governing bodies through intentional inclusion of specified underrepresented groups.
CIVIL RIGHTS | LABOR LAW
Macaulay v. RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Conscientious Employees’ Protection Act complaint. Plaintiff, an advanced practice nurse at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, was involved in several “near miss” incidents and disputes with colleagues in 2019. She contracted COVID-19 in 2020. When she returned to work, items were missing from her locker and she posted latter expressing her belief that someone “purposefully discarded” her belongings. She was combative during a meeting about her 2019 performance evaluation and improperly removed a pager out of the hospital. She was furloughed pending an investigation of multiple incidents and sued alleging discrimination and retaliation and infliction of emotional distress. Defendants asserted the employment actions against plaintiff were grounded in legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons based upon plaintiff’s behavior and job performance. Prior to trial, trial court granted defendants’ motion in limine to bar hospital’s former employee from testifying as plaintiff’s witness since plaintiff failed to identify her in discovery or at the pretrial conference. Jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff contended trial court erred when it failed to exclude testimony and counsel statements that violated N.J.R.E. 403, 404(b), 405, 608, and 611(a)(1). Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s evidentiary decisions, no plain error in the conduct of the trial and no cumulative error that would warrant a new trial.
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
Citibank, N.A. v. McKenzie, Superior Court Law Division, Judge Acquaviva. Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. moved to dismiss a counterclaim filed by defendant Shalmar McKenzie. Plaintiff filed suit to recover a credit card debt from defendant, who counterclaimed by alleging that plaintiff violated the “Ability to Pay” provision under 12 CFR § 1026.51 of the Truth in Lending Act. In support of its motion to dismiss, plaintiff argued that there was no private right of action for this alleged violation and that the counterclaim was time-barred. The court agreed, noting that TILA’s private rights of action were limited to specific sections under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a), which did not include the “Ability to Pay” provision. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation begins with the statute’s plain language, and Section 1640(a) does not authorize private civil actions for violations of Section 1665e. Additionally, the court found that defendant’s counterclaim was time-barred under TILA’s one-year statute of limitations, as the alleged violation occurred in June 2019, and the complaint was filed in May 2024. Defendant’s attempt to reframe the counterclaim as an affirmative defense was rejected, as it was initially presented as a claim for damages. The court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim.
CRIMINAL LAW
Pieper v. Dep’t of Corr., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Darren Pieper appealed the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ final agency decision, which found him guilty of being in an unauthorized area. While incarcerated at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, appellant was observed exiting a Porta John shortly after another inmate, leading to disciplinary charges. During the hearing, appellant, assisted by counsel substitute, submitted a written statement but chose not to call witnesses or cross-examine officers. The hearing officer found appellant guilty, citing a lack of evidence to discredit the officers’ reports, and imposed sanctions including a 30-day loss of various privileges and a referral for a 90-day loss of recreational privileges. Appellant’s administrative appeal argued procedural errors, lack of notice, and retaliation, but the DOC upheld the decision, finding substantial evidence to support the decision and the hearing officer’s procedural compliance. On appeal, appellant contended that excessive prehearing detention, due process violations, conflict of interest, lack of notice, insufficient evidence, excessive sanctions, and equal protection violations warranted overturning the disciplinary sanctions. The court, applying a limited review standard, found the DOC’s decision was supported by substantial credible evidence and procedural safeguards and affirmed. The court dismissed appellant’s claims of retaliation, bias, and procedural errors as speculative and unsupported, and rejected his equal protection argument due to lack of evidence.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Garcia, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant had a suspended license and attempted to evade police, resulting in a high-speed chase and defendant’s collision with another car that killed two women. Defendant pled guilty to several counts, including eluding and aggravated manslaughter, and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement in 2013. On direct appeal, his sentence was affirmed, with a modification to remove a reference to the No Early Release Act for one count. PCR court found that defendant’s 2022 PCR petition, arguing defense counsel did not discuss strategy with him during the trial and the sentence was excessive, was untimely under Rule 3:22-12(a) and lacking in excusable neglect. Court noted defendant was informed of his appellate rights at sentencing, undermining his claim of excusable neglect and affirmed the PCR court’s decision. Additionally, his conclusory assertions of IAC based on plea counsel’s alleged failure to investigate, communicate with him, and negotiate mitigating information for a better plea offer did not meet the threshold of demonstrating deficient representation.