Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Attorney General of New Jersey decided to supersede control of the Paterson Police Department following a fatal police shooting. The Attorney General appointed Isa M. Abbassi, a veteran NYPD officer, as the Officer in Charge (OIC) and reassigned the Paterson Police Chief, Engelbert Ribeiro, to the Police Training Commission in Trenton. Plaintiffs, including Paterson officials, challenged the Attorney General's authority to supersede the police department without local consent.The case was first brought to the Law Division, which transferred it to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division consolidated the actions and ultimately reversed the Attorney General's decision, ruling that the Attorney General exceeded his statutory powers. The appellate court directed the defendants to reassign Ribeiro to Paterson, relinquish control of the department to city officials, and provide a report summarizing their actions and expenditures during the supersession.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case and found evidence that the Legislature intended to authorize the supersession in two statutes: Chapter 94, which facilitated the OIC's leadership, and the appropriations bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, which funded the Attorney General's operation of the department. The Court did not base its holding on other statutes or authorities cited by the defendants. The Court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment, finding that the Attorney General's supersession of the Paterson Police Department was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and had fair support in the record. The Court did not address whether the Attorney General has general authority to supersede municipal police departments in other circumstances. View "Bulur v. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a person with quadriplegia, purchased cellular service from an Altice retail store in 2019. He was not shown any documents containing arbitration provisions at the time of purchase. Instead, he received a receipt stating that all documents and agreements would be sent electronically to his email. A week later, he bought a phone from the same store and signed a Retail Installment Contract (RIC) that incorporated the terms of the customer service agreement (CSA), which included arbitration provisions. In June 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiff was denied access to an Altice store for not wearing a face mask and the police were called. Plaintiff filed a complaint in October 2022, alleging discrimination and harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.The trial court dismissed the complaint and compelled arbitration based on an affidavit from Altice's Senior Director of Business Process Management, which claimed that the CSA would have been emailed to the plaintiff. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the parties' conduct evidenced a binding agreement.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that under N.J.R.E. 406, evidence of a specific, repeated, and regular business habit or practice is admissible to establish a rebuttable presumption that a business acted in conformity with that habit or practice. However, the court found that Altice produced insufficient evidence of such a habit or practice. The affidavit provided by Altice lacked the necessary specificity to establish that the CSA was emailed to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court did not reach the issue of mutual assent to arbitrate. The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the case was remanded for trial. View "Fazio v. Altice USA" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the ward map adopted by the Jersey City Ward Commission following the 2020 federal census. The Commission found a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards, which exceeded the maximum allowed by the Municipal Ward Law (MWL). The Commission created a new map with a 1.8% deviation and revised the boundaries of all six wards. Plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, argued that the new map failed to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement and violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution. They also claimed a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).The trial court concluded that the Commission’s map created sufficiently compact wards under the MWL and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the MWL claims, remanding for factfinding on whether the Commission’s determination of compactness had a rational basis. It affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the MWL, equal protection, and NJCRA claims. The Court held that the Commission’s map was a proper exercise of its discretion under the MWL. It found that the Commission was not required to use mathematical measures of compactness or consider communities of interest in its determination. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s remand for additional factfinding, reinstating the trial court’s judgment on the MWL claim. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims, concluding that the Commission’s compliance with the MWL negated the equal protection claim and that no statutory or constitutional violation occurred to support the NJCRA claim. View "Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2019 and have one son together. Plaintiff moved out of the marital home in January 2023 and initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. In April 2023, defendant was arrested and charged with weapon offenses after threatening a process server with a handgun. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in July 2023 under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on allegations of stalking and harassment. The court issued a TRO prohibiting defendant from contacting plaintiff, granting her temporary custody of their son, and denying defendant parenting and visitation time.During the final restraining order (FRO) hearing, plaintiff called defendant as a witness. Defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but the trial court ordered him to testify. Defendant refused to answer questions beyond stating his name, invoking the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled that defendant could not invoke the privilege and that an adverse inference could be drawn from his refusal to testify. Defendant appealed the decision.The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal. While defendant's motion for leave to appeal was pending, the Appellate Division published T.B. v. I.W., addressing a similar issue. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted defendant leave to appeal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity in PDVA FRO hearings, a defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions that pose reasonable risks of self-incrimination. The court ruled that no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of this right. The PDVA immunity provision in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and does not adequately protect a defendant's rights. The trial court's ruling was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "M.A. v. J.H.M." on Justia Law

Antonio Fuster went to the Chatham Township Police Department to report that his special needs child had accused an adult male relative of sexual misconduct. His interview with police was recorded on a body worn camera. Fuster and his wife, Brianna Devine, sought access to that video under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. They alleged inaccuracies in the initial police report and wanted the video to potentially file an internal affairs complaint.The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the body worn camera footage was a government record under OPRA but exempt from disclosure under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(b), which protects the confidentiality of information regarding individuals not arrested or charged. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the video was exempt from disclosure under judicial case law protecting uncharged individuals' law enforcement records.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case. The Court held that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(k) did not permit plaintiffs to review the video because Fuster had already requested the video be retained for three years, and Devine was not entitled to review it under the specified provisions. The Court also held that subsection (l) of the Body Worn Camera Law did not abrogate OPRA’s exemptions, but there was no OPRA exemption supporting the refusal to release the video. The Court found that OPRA does not contain an explicit exemption for information received by law enforcement regarding an individual who was not arrested or charged, and New Jersey case law had not established such an automatic grant of confidentiality.The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and ordered the release of the body worn camera footage to the plaintiffs, without reaching the common law claims. View "Fuster v. Township of Chatham" on Justia Law

A.D., a student with disabilities, attended Sparta High School and was designated as having a disability under the IDEA. In early 2019, Sparta informed A.D. that he was in danger of failing several classes, leading to a period of home instruction. A.D.'s parents withdrew him from school, and he subsequently passed the GED, receiving a State-issued high school diploma in April 2019. Despite re-enrolling at Sparta High School and receiving home instruction again, A.D. faced academic challenges and was withdrawn from school multiple times. In May 2021, Sparta denied A.D.'s re-enrollment request, citing his receipt of the State-issued diploma.M.N., A.D.'s mother, requested a due process hearing with the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that A.D.'s State-issued diploma was a "regular high school diploma" under federal regulations, thus ending his entitlement to a FAPE. The Commissioner of the DOE upheld the ALJ's decision, and the Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the State-issued diploma met state standards and ended A.D.'s entitlement to a FAPE.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that a New Jersey State-issued diploma based on passing the GED is not a "regular high school diploma" under 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv). Therefore, a student who receives such a diploma remains entitled to a free appropriate public education under the IDEA. The Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that A.D. remains entitled to receive a FAPE, and Sparta must provide it. View "Board of Education of the Township of Sparta v. M.N." on Justia Law

The case involves Christine Savage, a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the Neptune Township Police Department and others for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2014, which included a non-disparagement clause. Savage filed a second lawsuit in 2016, alleging continued and intensified discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The parties entered into another settlement agreement in 2020, which also included a non-disparagement clause. After a television interview with Savage aired in 2020, the defendants claimed that Savage violated the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.The trial court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, finding that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) barred only non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and that Savage violated a non-disparagement clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the non-disparagement clause enforceable but holding that Savage had not violated it.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. The court found that the LAD protects Savage’s statements. The court concluded that the non-disparagement clause in the agreement directly conflicts with the LAD as it encompasses and would bar speech the statute protects. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. View "Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of New Jersey delivered an opinion concerning an appeal by condominium owners who claimed they were discriminated against because of their need for an emotional support animal (ESA) that exceeded the weight limit set by the condominium association's pet policy. The owners argued that their ESA, a 63-pound dog, was necessary for one of the owners who had been diagnosed with several mental health conditions. The court considered whether the trial court correctly dismissed the disability discrimination claims under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and how requests of this type should be evaluated under the LAD.The court held that individuals seeking an accommodation must show they have a disability under the LAD and demonstrate that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford them an "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The housing provider then has the burden to prove that the requested accommodation is unreasonable. Both sides should engage in good-faith, interactive dialogue in this process. If the parties cannot resolve the request, courts may be called on to balance the need for, and benefits of, the requested accommodation against cost and administrative burdens it presents. With this framework, the court found that the owners' claims should not have been dismissed and remanded the matter. View "Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. K.P. and B.F." on Justia Law

For five months when C.V. was a pre-kindergarten student in the Waterford Township School District, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Alfred Dean, the seventy-six-year-old bus aide who was supposed to be ensuring her safety. C.V.’s parents only discovered the abuse when C.V. came home without her underwear one day. C.V. and her parents sued the Waterford Township Board of Education and Waterford Township School District (collectively, Waterford) alleging, among other things, discrimination in a “place of public accommodation” “on account of . . . sex” in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Waterford and dismissed plaintiffs’ LAD claims. The court found plaintiffs could not, as a matter of law, prove to a jury that Dean’s conduct occurred because of C.V.’s sex, or that it would not have occurred but for C.V.’s sex. According to the trial court, “the but for element can’t be satisfied . . . where you have a compulsive sexual predator, a pedophile,” especially one who testified at his deposition “that he is a compulsive sexual abuser of children, boys and girls.” The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the LAD did not apply “to a sexual predator’s assault of a student on a school bus where there is no evidence his actions were based solely on the victim’s status as a member of a protected group.” The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment because it conflicted with Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993) and L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007). The Court reiterated that under Lehman, sexual touching of areas of the body linked to sexuality happens, by definition, because of sex. The Court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and to obtain certain records, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "C.V. v. Waterford Township Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Church of St. Theresa (St. Theresa’s) owned and operated the St. Theresa School. St. Theresa’s terminated art teacher and toddler room caregiver Victoria Crisitello for violating the terms of her employment agreement. That agreement required employees to abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church and forbade employees from engaging in premarital sex; Crisitello, who was unmarried, had become pregnant. In response to her firing, Crisitello filed a complaint against St. Theresa’s alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), based on pregnancy and marital status. St. Theresa’s countered that its decision to terminate Crisitello was protected by both the First Amendment and the LAD. The New Jersey Supreme Court held: (1) the “religious tenets” exception of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a) was an affirmative defense available to a religious entity when confronted with a claim of employment discrimination; and (2) the uncontroverted fact was that St. Theresa’s followed the religious tenets of the Catholic Church in terminating Crisitello. The Court thus concluded St. Theresa’s was entitled to summary judgment and that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. View "Crisitello v. St. Theresa School" on Justia Law