STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS OAL DOCKET NO.: CRT 6322-06 DCR DOCKET NO.: EP11WB-47626-E CARL E. MOEBIS, Sr., ) ) Complainant, ) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ) v. ) FINDINGS, DETERMINATION ) AND ORDER HARTFORD LIFE PRIVATE ) PLACEMENT and PAT FOX, ) ) Respondents. ) ) APPEARANCES: Carl E. Moebis, Sr., pro se, complainant. David I. Rosen, Esq., for the respondents (Littler Mendelson, attorneys). BY THE DIRECTOR: INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Division) pursuant to an amended verified complaint filed by Carl E. Moebis, Sr. (Complainant), alleging that Hartford Life Private Placement (formerly known as International Corporate Marketing Group), Michael Jandoli and Pat Fox (formerly known as Pat Ryan) (Respondents) unlawfully discriminated against him based on his age (59), ancestry (German) and disability (carpal tunnel syndrome) in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. On December 10, 2007, the Honorable Solomon A. Metzger, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), issued an initial decision1 dismissing the complaint. After independently evaluating the evidence, the parties’ submissions and the ALJ’s decision, the Director adopts the ALJ’s dismissal of the complaint. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 20, 2001, Complainant filed a verified complaint with the Division alleging that Respondents unlawfully discriminated against him based on his age and national origin, and refused to accommodate his disability in violation of the LAD. Respondents filed an answer denying the allegations of unlawful discrimination, and the Division commenced an investigation. On September 22, 2003, prior to the completion of the Division’s investigation, this matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing at Complainant’s request pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-13. On July 15, 2005, Respondents filed a motion with the ALJ, seeking to enforce a settlement agreement. On August 17, 2005, the ALJ issued an initial decision granting Respondents’ motion and ordering that the terms of the settlement be given full force and effect. On October 18, 2005, after considering exceptions filed by Complainant and Respondents’ reply, the Director issued an order reversing the ALJ’s initial decision and remanding this matter for a hearing regarding the enforceability of the purported settlement agreement. On February 22, 2007, after conducting a hearing, the ALJ issued an order concluding that the parties did not enter into an enforceable settlement agreement. The parties engaged in discovery and the ALJ ruled on several motions regarding discovery. By order dated June 27, 2007, the ALJ granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint against Michael Jandoli, 1Hereinafter, “ID” shall refer to the initial decision of the ALJ; Ex. R- and Ex. P- shall refer to Respondents’ and Complainant’s exhibits, respectively, admitted into evidence at the hearing, CE shall refer to Complaint’s exceptions to the initial decision, and RE shall refer to Respondents’ reply to Complainant’s exceptions. -2- individually, who was named as a respondent in the original complaint.2 On July 10, 2007, the ALJ issued an order denying Complainant’s motion to amend the complaint to add additional parties, but permitting Complainant to amend the complaint to change “national origin” to “ancestry,” to amend the caption to reflect the current name of the corporate Respondent, and to add details regarding his allegations of discrimination. The ALJ conducted a four-day hearing, which concluded on October 30. 2007; after receiving post-hearing submissions, the record closed on November 30, 2007. The ALJ issued his initial decision on December 10, 2007. Complainant filed exceptions on December 24, 2007, and Respondents filed a reply on January 7, 2008. After receiving an extension of the original deadline, the Director’s final order is now due on March 9, 2008. THE ALJ’S DECISION The ALJ’s Factual Findings The ALJ found the following to be undisputed (ID 2-3). Complainant was born in 1941. In 1997, Mike Jandoli, who managed Respondent’s3 information technology unit, hired Complainant as a systems support analyst at a salary of $50,000. In 1998, Complainant was promoted to local area network (LAN) administrator, supervising Thomas Washington, Douglas Hedge and Steven Olshevski, and eventually earning $65,700. In early 2000, Respondent hired John Scott, who previously served as a computer consultant for Respondent, in the newly-created position of Senior LAN Management Analyst. Scott became Complainant’s immediate supervisor, and it was at this point that Complainant began to feel that his future with Respondent was in jeopardy and that his colleagues were conspiring against him. 2The ALJ granted that motion pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-18, finding that Jandoli had ceased to work for the corporate Respondent more than 180 days prior to the filing of the complaint, and concluding that he could not have committed any LAD violation within the statutory limitations period. 3Hereinafter, “Respondent” shall refer to the corporate respondent, Respondent Pat Fox shall be identified by name, and the respondents jointly shall be referred to as “Respondents.” -3- On September 17, 2001, Complainant sent an email to Ramani Ayer, the CEO of Respondent’s parent company in Connecticut, with copies to many of Respondent’s employees, commiserating over recent attacks at the World Trade Center, and linking those injustices with his own plight at the company. Ex. R8. Complainant began disability leave the next day; when his leave time was exhausted, he was unable to resume his duties and was released. During his leave, Complainant began treatment with psychologist Anthony Todero. Dr. Todero determined that, among other things, Complainant suffered from paranoia and delusions. In addition to the facts he identified as undisputed, the following factual findings can be gleaned from the undisputed aspects of the ALJ’s summary of witness testimony and his analysis. In late 1999 and/or early 2000, Pat Fox, who worked in product management for Respondent, on one occasion referred to Complainant as a “space nazi.” This was an analogy to a character on the Seinfeld television program who was called the “soup nazi” because he imposed rigid rules on customers ordering soup. ID 3, 6, 9, 11. Jandoli laughed when he heard Fox’s remark, but did not recall referring to Complainant as “network nazi” or “printer nazi,” as Complainant contended Jandoli had done on a few occasions. ID 3, 5-6. Complainant began surreptitiously taping some conversations with co-workers. ID 3. In February 2000, Complainant reported the “nazi” comments to Respondent’s parent company. Jennifer Geisler, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, investigated and concluded that the comments were inconsiderate but not discrimination; she had Fox and Jandoli apologize and desist. ID 9. Complainant felt that Thomas Washington interacted with him in a highly disrespectful manner. ID 3. When Complainant asked Washington to schedule a farewell luncheon for an intern, Washington declined to do so, responding, “what am I, your secretary?” ID 3, 8. During a period in which they shared a cubicle, Complainant found it insulting that Washington placed his name plate higher than Complainant’s name plate. Ibid. Complainant was also troubled that, although employees at Washington’s pay grade normally did not have business cards, Respondent gave -4- Washington this privilege. ID 3. While working on Sunday, December 10, 2000, Complainant discovered that some computer discs were missing. He contacted Mr. Scott and others who came to the office, and employee Katarzyna Bochenski located the discs. Complainant believed Washington hid the discs and should have been disciplined, but Bochenski testified that she had stored the discs in a locked cabinet after consulting with Mr. Scott, because she felt they needed a secure location. ID 3, 6. Complainant felt that Mr. Scott treated him inappropriately. Complainant noted that on December 14, 2000, Scott called him at home to report that work would begin at 10 due to icy roads. When Complainant arrived at 9 he saw Scott and other information technology staff gathered in the cafeteria area, where there is also a meeting room, and Complainant suspects that Scott’s phone call was designed to facilitate the group meeting without him. Complainant also felt that Scott’s March 7, 2000 email congratulating Douglas Hedge on his promotion was an unstated criticism that Complainant was not promoted. ID 4. As evidence that employees were mocking him due to his age, Complainant noted that in the summer of 2001, he instructed staff to label certain equipment in the computer room; instead, someone placed large labels with the word “door” on the door, “cabinet” on the cabinet, and similarly labeled other objects. Complainant reported this to Mr. Scott, who had the labels removed the same day. ID 3, 6. In the summer of 2001, Complainant requested a reverse tilt keyboard as an accommodation for carpal tunnel syndrome; it was ordered the same day. When it arrived in late September or early October 2001, it was installed on Complainant’s computer. ID 6, 12. After summarizing the testimony, the ALJ assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The ALJ considered Complainant’s testimony and demeanor throughout the proceedings to conclude that his interpretation of events was unreliable. ID 10. The ALJ found Michael DeAngelo’s corroborative testimony unpersuasive. Ibid. The ALJ concluded that Michael Jandoli, John Scott -5- and Joseph Mahoney testified credibly. Ibid. The ALJ’s Analysis and Conclusions The ALJ concluded that Complainant presented a prima facie case of employment discrimination, and that Respondents met their burden of articulating legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its conduct. ID 9-10. The ALJ concluded that Complainant failed to demonstrate that Respondents’ articulated reasons were pretextual.