The case involves a former employee of General Electric suing for employment discrimination after not being rehired for a Quality Assurance Specialist position, claiming bias based on his history of depression and other mental health issues under both the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Following a Third Circuit remand, the district court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on the LAD claim. The court reasoned that the LAD defines 'handicapped' more broadly than the ADA's 'disability' standard, allowing coverage for the plaintiff's actual mental conditions or for being perceived as handicapped, which raised a genuine factual dispute precluding summary judgment.
The case involved the State of New Jersey's appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to lift the automatic stay so it could pursue a civil fraud lawsuit in state court against debtor Peter Mocco, who had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while the suit was pending. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order, holding that the State was barred from proceeding because it had failed to file a proof of claim or nondischargeability complaint by the deadline set in the bankruptcy case. The court rejected the State's sovereign immunity argument, reasoning that the Eleventh Amendment did not apply since the State was not a defendant in the bankruptcy proceeding and had been scheduled as a creditor with notice of the deadlines. It further noted that the confirmation of the debtor's Chapter 11 plan discharged any unfiled claims, consistent with Bankruptcy Rule 3003 and relevant precedent.
The case involved Dennis Gaul, an AT&T employee diagnosed with depression and stress disorders, who sued AT&T for failing to accommodate his disability by transferring him away from a stressful project with a difficult colleague, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the Americans with Disabilities Act; he also asserted breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the company's employment manual and policies. The court granted AT&T's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The core reasoning was that Gaul's requested accommodation was not reasonable as a matter of law, AT&T had no contractual obligation it breached given the lack of a reasonable need for accommodation, there was no constructive discharge because Gaul went out on disability leave rather than resigning amid intolerable conditions, and plaintiff offered no evidence of bad faith by the employer.
The case involved a former Bell Atlantic employee who sued the company and a supervisor in New Jersey state court, alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, plus claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing related to unpaid vacation time, disability benefits, and length-of-service calculations. The defendant removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and the plaintiff moved to remand it. The court denied the motion to remand, finding that Counts Five and Six of the complaint were preempted by ERISA and Section 301 of the LMRA because they concerned rights under an employee benefit plan and a collective bargaining agreement, thereby presenting federal questions that conferred jurisdiction on the federal court.
This case involves a declaratory judgment action by DNA Plant Technology Corp. against Navigators Insurance Company seeking coverage under an all-risk policy for the loss of hybrid tomato seeds shipped from Thailand to California. The central issue was which party bears the burden of proving that the loss occurred within the policy's territorial limits of the United States. The court held that the plaintiff must establish as part of its prima facie case that the seeds arrived in the United States and were lost after arrival. The reasoning was that the territorial limitation is a basic coverage requirement rather than an excluded peril, so the all-risk nature of the policy does not shift the burden on that issue, analogous to proving a loss occurred during the policy period.
The case arose after Kenneth Clark, suspected of bank robbery, was fatally shot in the back by an accidental discharge from a shotgun carried by Hamilton Township Police Detective Donald Buchko during the FBI-assisted execution of an arrest warrant and search warrant at Clark's residence. Clark's estate brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Buchko, other officers, and the township, alleging constitutional violations including failure to train on proper weapon handling and suspect apprehension. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the federal constitutional claims because the record contained no evidence of prior similar incidents, deliberate indifference, or a conscious choice not to train officers, and it dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.