Michele Burke v. Interstate Restoration LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considers Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination arising from alleged disability discrimination and retaliation. The Court grants the motion as to Susan Murrell, finding insufficient allegations of knowing and substantial assistance, but denies it as to Zac Talbot and Scott Futrovsky. The action proceeds against Talbot and Futrovsky on aiding-and-abetting theories.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint adequately alleged that Murrell, Futrovsky, and Talbot were supervisory employees because Murrell allegedly controlled Burke's return-to-work schedule and Futrovsky and Talbot allegedly had authority to terminate her.
2. Burke failed to plausibly allege that Murrell knowingly and substantially assisted or encouraged discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, or that Murrell's inaction constituted substantial assistance; the claims against Murrell were dismissed.
3. Burke plausibly alleged that Talbot knowingly and substantially assisted First Onsite's alleged discriminatory or retaliatory conduct; the claims against Talbot were not dismissed.
4. Burke plausibly alleged that Futrovsky knew of the discrimination and retaliation allegations and knowingly assisted in the challenged termination; the claims against Futrovsky were not dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Burke sufficiently alleged that Murrell, Futrovsky, and Talbot were supervisory employees subject to individual liability under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
2. Whether Burke sufficiently alleged active or passive aiding-and-abetting liability against Murrell, Talbot, and Futrovsky under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged claims against the individual defendants under Rule 12(b)(6).

Disposition

other