2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-11-2005 

# C o efield v . GPU P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2081

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C oefield v

. GP U " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1452. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1452NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 2081 J AM ES COEFI ELD A ppel l ant

v. G P U , F IR S T E N E R G Y , D E N N IS M c G IN N IS , RO BERT SHERM AN , LAR RY HA YES

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 02- cv- 2000) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St anl eyR . C hes l er Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2005 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, R O T H , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 11, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. B efor e us i s an appe al of an or derbythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eygr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees . FortheAp p e l l e e F i r s t E n e r g yC o rp . i s a h o l d i n g c o m p a n yth a tp u r c h a s e d J C P &L . J C P &L 1 p r e v i o u s l y d i d b u s i n e s s u n d e rth e n a m e G P U E n e r g y. 2 f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. F a cts B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , w e sh a ll o n lyre sta te th e f a c ts p e rtin e n t to ouranal y s i s . J ames Coefi el d ( “A ppel l ant ”) i s an A fr i can- A m er i can w ho atal l t i m es r el evantt o t hi s l aw s ui tw as empl oy ed byJ er s eyC entr al Pow erand Li ghtC om pany ( “J C P& L ”) . I n J une 2001, J C P& L pos t ed a j ob openi ng forthe pos i t i on of Seni orR el ay

1 T echni ci an. A ft era more s eni orC auca s i an empl oy ee w i thdr ew hi s bi d forthi s pos t i ng, A ppel l antappl i ed for , and w as aw ar ded, the pos i t i on overtw o otherC auca s i an empl oy ees w ho had al s o appl i ed. A ppel l antw as a mem berof Local U ni on 1289 of the I nt ernat i onal B r otherhood of El e c tr i c a l W o r k e r s , a n d wa s a l s o a me mb e ro f a d i f f e r e n tl o c a l c o v e r e d b yth e s a me coll ect i ve b argai ning agreem ent atal l t i m es r el evan tt o thi s sui t . S om et i m e i n 2 00 0, t hese or gani zat i ons m etw i th J C P& L m anage m entand agr eed thatthe J C P& L ’ s C entr al N ew J er s eyR egi on ( w her e A ppel l antw or ked) w oul d adoptthe s ame t es t i ng pr ocedur e thathad been us ed i n t he N or thern R egi on forappr oxi m at el y20 y ear s t o t es tcandi dat es for pr om ot i on t o Seni orR el ayT echni ci an. A l l futur e ca ndi dat es forthe Seni orR el ay T echni ci an pos i t i on i n the C entr al R egi on w oul d be r equi r ed t o t ake thi s t es t , w hi ch in c lu d e d th e “ 2 3 0 k V lin e tr ip te s t.” A ppel l antther eaf

t erbegan the 90- dayqual i fi cat i on per i od m andat ed bythe3

c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. D u rin g th is tim e , JC P & L d id n o t sc h e d u le th e tes ts r equi r ed t o pr om ot e A ppel l ant , nordi d i ti nform hi m he w oul d be s ubj ectt o the addi t i onal t es t i ng. A tthe end of

thi s per i od, A ppel l antw as i nform ed thathe w oul d have t o pas s fi ve cat egor i es of t es t i ng cr i t er i a, i ncl udi ng the 230kV l i ne tr i p t es t . I n or dert o pr epar e for thi s t es t , A ppel l antw as s chedul ed t o w or k w i th a s eni orr el ayt echni ci an for appr oxi m at el yone w eek. H e al s o pr epar ed w i th anotherr el ayt echni ci an ( w ho w as a s s ig n e d to a s s is t h im o n th e a c tu a l te s t) f o r t w o o r t h re e d a y s . A ppel l antw as t es t ed on N ovember15, 2001. H e made fi ve err or s , and fa i l ed the t es t . A ppel l antthen fi l ed a uni on gr i evanc e, w hi ch J C P& L deni ed, ci t i ng a cl aus e i n t he c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t g iv in g it e x c lu s iv e a u th o ri ty to d e te rm in e p ro m o tio n s . I tw as ther eaf

t erdeci ded thatA ppel l ant ’ s qual i fi cat i on per i od w oul d be ext ended s o as t o al l ow hi m anotheroppor tuni tyt o pas s the r equi r ed t es t s . A ppel l antdi s agr eed w i th thi s cour s e of a ct i on, ar gui ng that , beca us e ther e w as no s i gned agr eementbetw een JC P & L a n d h is u n io n re latin g to tes tin g , the e n tire p ro c e ss w a s u n f a ir. D e sp ite h is pr ot es t s , A ppel l antw as gi ven a doc um entdet ai l i ng the fi ve t es t i ng cr i t er i a he w oul d have t o pas s . H e w as al s o i nform ed i n J anuary2002 that , i f he qua l i fi ed forthe pr om ot i on aft erthe nextt es t , he w oul d r ece i ve bac k- payr etr oact i ve t o the end of hi s i ni t i al qual i fy i ng per i od. A ppel l antr et ook hi s t es ton February4, 2002. A ti t s concl us i on, he w as i mme d i a t e l yi n f

o r me d th a th e h a d p a s s e d . On F e b ru a ry2 1 , 2 0 0 2 , h i s p r o mo t i o n b e c a meA f

ter A p p e llan t’s p ro m o tio n , tw o C a u c a sia n m a les a lso a p p lied f o r a p ro m o tio n to 2 the pos i t i on of Seni orR el ayT echni ci an. B oth w er e r equi r ed t o pas s the s ame t es t s that had bee n admi ni s t er ed t o A ppel l ant . O ne appl i cantpas s ed the exa m i nat i on, w hi l e the otherfai l ed. T he l att ercandi dat e w as gi ven anotheroppor tuni tyt o r et ake the t es ts i m i l ar to th e o n e o f

f e re d to A p p e lla n t. Sever al of A ppel l ant ’ s or i gi nal s t at e l aw cl ai m s r equi r ed the i nt erpr et at i on of 3 p r o v i s i o n s o f

th e r e l e v a n tc o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e me n tb e twee n h i s u n i o n a n d J CP& L, a n d h e n c e w e re p re e m p te d b yth e L a b o r M a n a g e m e n t R e la tio n s A c t o f 1 9 4 7 , 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 8 5 , et. s eq. See A nt ol v. E s pos t o, 100 F. 3d 1111, 1117- 18 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . Fol l ow i ng A ppel l ant ’ s amendm entof hi s compl ai nt( pur gi ng i tof al l cl ai m s i m pl i cat i ng fede r al l aw ) , the D i s tr i ctC our thad the di s cr et i on t o r et ai n orr emand t he r emai ni ng s t at e l aw 4 offi ci al , and J C P& L confi r m ed thatthe pr om ot i on w as r etr oact i ve t o the end of hi s i ni t i al q u a l i f yi n g p e r i o d . H e w a s a l s o p a i d a l l p r o m i s e d b a c k - p a y. 2 A ppel l antbr oughts ui ti n the Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , L aw D i vi s i on, O cea n C ou ntyD i vis i on , al l eging t en cau ses of act i on based o n the N ew Jer seyL aw A gainst D i s cr i m i nat i on, N . J . St at . A nn. § 10: 5- 1 et s eq. ( “N J L A D ”) , and var i ous comm on l aw t or t s . A ppel l ees t i m el yr emoved t he ca s e t o fede r al di s tr i ctcourt . T her eaf t er , A ppel l ant w a s g ra n ted p e rm iss io n to f ile a se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, i n w h ich h e o m itt e d a ll empl oym entcl ai m s i m pl i cat i ng fede r al l aw . H e moved forr emand t o the N ew J er s ey S u p erior C o u rt , b u t w as d en ied. F o ll o w ing d isco v ery , A p p ell ee s m o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm enton al l r emai ni ng count s . A m ot i on hear i ng w as hel d on O ct ober21, 2003, and the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on on M ar ch 25, 2004. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r to r i g i n a l l yh a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s c a s e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 6 7 a n d 1 4 4 1 . O u r re v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o rd e r in 3claim s. C arn eg ie-M elon U n iver. v. C o h il l, 4 8 4 U . S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 7 (19 8 8 ). 5 f a v o r o f A p p e lle e s is p le n a ry. T o rr e s v . M c L a u g h lin , 1 6 3 F .3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 (3 d . C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). I n r evi ew i ng gr ant s of s um m aryj udgm ent , w e appl ythe s ame t es templ oy ed bya di s tr i ct courtunderR ul e 56. See K ell eyv . T Y K R ef rac tori es C o . , 8 6 0 F . 2 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 2 (3d C ir . 1988) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l fi nd the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favor o f A p p e llee s to h a v e b e e n p ro p e r o n lyif it ap p e a rs “ th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . I n r evi ew i ng al l evi dence i n the r ecor d, w e ar e r equi r ed “t o vi ew the i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n fr om the under l y i ng fac t s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the p a rt yo p p o s in g th e m o tio n .” B a rt n ic k i v . V o p p e r, 2 0 0 F .3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). A pl ai nt i ff c annotr es i s ta pr oper l ys uppor t ed mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entm er el yby re sta tin g th e a lleg a tio n s o f h is c o m p lain t – ra th e r, h e m u st p o in t to c o n c re te e v id e n c e in the r ecor d thats uppor t s eac h and eve ryes s ent i al el ementof hi s cas e. C e lo tex v . C a tre tt, 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (1 9 8 6 ). It is in th is re g a rd th a t A p p e llan t, by an d th ro u g h h is c o u n se l, m isap p reh en d s h is ob li g ati o n as a n o n -m o v an t r esp o n d ing to a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. I I I . D i s cus s i on A p p e llan t as se rte d th re e sta te la w c laim s b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt: (1 ) F a ilu re to Pr om ot e B as ed on Pl ai nt i ff’ s R ace ; ( 2) H os t i l e W or k E nvi r onm entand D i s cr i m i nat i on; and ( 3) I nt ent i onal I nfl i ct i on of Em ot i onal D i s tr es s . “Excepti n m att er s governed byt he6

Feder al C ons t i tut i on orbyact s of C ongr es s , the l aw t o be appl i ed i n anycas e i s the l aw of the St at e. ” E r i e R . R . v. T om pki ns , 304 U . S. 64, 78 ( 1938) . “I n s o doi ng, w e ar e notfr ee t o i m pos e ourow n vi ew of w hats t at e l aw s houl d be; w e ar e t o appl ys t at e l aw as interpre ted b ythe s tat e’s h igh est co u rt . In th e a b sen ce o f g u idan ce fro m that co u rtw e a re to re f e r to d e c isio n s o f

th e sta te’ s in ter m e d iate a p p e llate c o u rts f o r a ss ista n c e in det erm i ni ng how the hi ghes tcourtw oul d rul e. ” M cK enna v. Paci fi c R ai l Ser vi ce, 32 F . 3 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). O u r de term ination tod ayis th ere fo re g o v e rn e d b yth e law s o f th e S tate o f

N e w Je rse ya n d th e ru lin g s o f its c o u rts. W e sh a ll di s cus s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of ea ch cl ai m i n turn. A . Fai l ur e t o P r om ot e Based on Appel lant ’s R ace T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatA ppel l anthad fa i l ed t o putfor th evi dence that es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f

aci e cas e forfai l ur e t o pr om ot e due t o r ace di s cr i m i nat i on. T he S u p r e me Co u r to f

Ne w J e r s e yh a s a d o p t e d th e me th o d o l o g yo f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rt in M c D o n n e ll D o u g las C o rp . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ), “a s a sta rtin g p o in t in act i ons br oughtunderthe [N J L A D ] . ” A nder s en v. E xxon C o. , U . S. A . , 446 A . 2d 486, 490 ( N . J . Sup. C t . 1982) . U nderthi s m ethodol ogy , a courtm us tfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherornot a pl ai nt i ff ha s es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e c a s e o f

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , d e m o n s tr a t i n g b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thathe ( 1) bel ongs t o a pr ot ect ed cl as s , ( 2) appl i ed forand w as qual i fi ed fora pos i t i on forw hi ch the empl oy erw as s eeki ng appl i cant s , ( 3) w as d e n ie d p ro m o tio n , a n d (4 ) o th e rs w ith s im ila r o r l e s s e r q u a lif ic a tio n s a c h ie v e d p ro m o tio n .7

D ix o n v . R u tg e rs, T h e S tate U n iv . o f N e w Je rse y , 5 4 1 A .2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 1 -5 2 (N .J. S u p . C t. 1 9 8 8 ). A ppel l anti s cl ear l ya mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s , and the D i s tr i ctC our tpr es um ed th a t h e w a s q u a lifie d f

o r th e S e n io r R e lay T e c h n icia n p o sitio n . W h e re h is f irst c laim s tum bl es i s w i th r egar d t o w hetherhe w as actual l ydeni ed pr om ot i on. I ti s undi s put ed thatA ppel l ant ’ s pr om ot i on w as del ay ed dur i ng the s econd 90- daypr obat i onaryper i od fol l ow i ng hi s fai l ur e of hi s qual i fi cat i on exam. H ow ever , i ti s al s o undi s put ed that , upon pas s i ng the s econd e xami nat i on, he w as i n fac tpr om ot ed t o the pos i t i on of a Seni orR el ay T echni ci an, and r ece i ved the payr ai s e comm ens ur at e w i th s uch a pr om ot i on thatw as a p p lied re tro a c tiv e lyto th e e n d o f h is f irst p ro b a tio n a ryp e rio d . W e f a il t o se e h o w th is s i tuat i on can be des cr i bed as a “de ni al of pr om ot i on. ” A tm os ti tw as , as the D i s tr i ct C our tdes cr i bed i t , a “de l ay ed pr om ot i on. ” C ontr aryt o A ppel l ant ’ s s ugges t i on thats uch a char act er i zat i on i s “abs ur d and off ens i ve, ” the fa ctr emai ns thatthe part i cul arpos i t i on A ppel l antappl i ed forw as es s ent i al l yr es erved forhi m w hi l e he pr epar ed t o r et ake the q u a lific a tio n e x a m , sin c e n o o th e r a p p lica n ts w e re c o n sid e re d . M o re o v e r, se v e ra l co u rts hav e held that a del ay ed p rom oti on w i th retroact i ve p aydo es not const i tute an adv ers e empl oym entact i on. See P en n ing ton v . H u n tsvil e, 26 1 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 7 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); see also D o b b s-W eins tei n v . V an d erb il t U n iv., 1 8 5 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 5 -46 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); B enni ngfi el d v. T he C i tyof H ous t on, 157 F. 3d 369, 377- 78 ( 5th C i r . 1998) . Fi nal l y , even if w e w e re to c o n stru e th is a s d e n ial w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e tes t, th e re is n o e v id e n c e in8

th e re c o rd th a t an yo th e r a p p lica n t w ith sim ilar o r le ss e r q u a lific a tio n s w a s p ro m o ted in h is place . W e the ref

o re c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees as A ppel l antdi d notes t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e of empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on. B . H os t i l e W ork Envi r onm ent A pl ai nt i ff w ho al l eges hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on undert he N J L A D m us tpr ove thata def endant ’ s conduct( 1) w oul d nothave oc curr ed butforthe empl oy ee’ s r ace ; and thatthe conduc tw as ( 2) s ever e orpervas i ve enough t o m ake a ( 3) rea so n ab le pe rson o f p lai n ti ff ’s race b eli ev e tha t ( 4 ) th e c o n d it ion s o f e m p loym en t are al t er ed and the w or ki ng envi r onm enti s hos t i l e orabus i ve. T ay l orv. M et zger , 706 A . 2d 685, 688- 89 ( N . J . Sup. C t . 1998) ( ci t i ng L ehmann v. T oy s ‘ R ’ U s , I nc. , 626 A . 2d 445, 453 ( N . J . Sup. C t . 1993) ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tci t ed A ppel l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o pr es ent evi dence demonstr at i ng thathar as s m entt ook pl ace beca us e of hi s r ace , and conc l uded s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te a s to th is c la im . W e agr ee. A ppel l anthas notpoi nt ed us t o a s i ngl e fa cts ugges t i ng thatany A ppel l ee ha s act ed i n anypart i cul arw aybeca us e of hi s r ace , norcoul d w e fi nd one d u rin g o u r in d e p e n d e n t re v iew . It i s u n d isp u ted th a t th e q u a lific a tio n e x a m h a d b e e n in p lac e in th e JC P & L ’s N o rth R e g io n f o r so m e tim e , an d th a t th e d e c isio n to a p p lyit t o e m p lo y e e s o f

th e C e n tr a l R e g io n p re d a te d A p p e lla n t’ s a p p lic a tio n f o r p ro m o tio n . A ppel l antpr es ent s nothi ng t o s uppor thi s ar gum entthatr ace pl ay ed anypartw hat s oeverA ppel l ant ’ s acc us at i on thathi s s upervi s orw as “vi ndi ct i ve” t ow ar d hi m get s hi m no 4 fur ther . H e t es t i fi ed thatthe s upervi s orw as al s o vi ndi ct i ve t o C auca s i ans , and “no N J L A D vi ol at i on [l i es ] i f the s ame conductw oul d have oc curr ed r egar dl es s of [a ] p lain tiff ’s [ ra c e ].” L e h m a n n , 6 2 6 A .2 d a t 4 5 4 . D e sp ite h is re p e a ted a ss e rtio n s th a t h is s upervi s ort ol d r aci al j okes , w e not e thatA ppel l antt es t i fi ed thathi s s upervi s ornever m a d e a ra c ial jo k e in h is p re se n c e . F u rth e r, n o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts th a t an yp a rty t o thi s cl ai m everm ade a nyr aci al j oke r egar di ng A fr i can- A m er i cans , i n orout s i de of A ppel l ant ’ s pr es ence . 9 i n the adopt i on of the N or th R egi on’ s t es t i ng s cheme bythe C entr al R egi on. T her e i s no evi dence thatthe empl oy ee w ho fi r s tappl i ed forthe pos i t i on, a C auca s i an, w oul d not h a v e b e e n s u b

j e c tt o th e s a me t e s t . F i n a l l y , th e s a me t e s twa s g i v e n t o th e n e x ttwo ap p li ca n ts fo r S en ior R elayT ec h n ici an , b o th o f w h o m w ere C au ca sian . T h e m ere exi s t ence of new t es t i ng cr i t er i a i s i ns uffi ci entt o s at i s fyA ppel l ant ’ s bur den. A s s uch, 4 su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rlyg ra n ted h e re a s w e ll. C . Int enti on al I

nfl i ct i on of Em oti on al D istress T o est abli sh a cl ai m for i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s, a partym ust demonstr at e that( 1) a def endantact ed i nt ent i onal l yorr eckl es s l y ; ( 2) thi s conductw as extr eme and outr ageous ; ( 3) thi s conductw as the pr oxi m at e ca us e of pl ai nt i ff’ s emot i onal di s tr es s ; and ( 4) the di s tr es s w as s ever e. B uckl eyv. T r ent on Savi ngs , 544 A . 2d 857, 863 (N . J. S up . C t . 19 88 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed as a m at t er of l aw that A pp el l ees’ c o n d u c t w a s n e ith e r e x tr e m e n o r o u tr a g e o u s . T hi s concl us i on w as corr ect . “Exam pl es of conduc tfound t o be extr eme and o u tra g e o u s b yN e w Je rse yc o u rts in c lu d e , w h e n a p h y sic ian , k n o w in g it t o b e f a lse , told par ent s thei rs on w as s uffe r i ng fr om canc er ; s pr eadi ng a fa l s e rum orthatpl ai nt i ff’ s s on10

h a d h u n g h im se lf; b rin g in g a m o b to p lain tiff ’s d o o r w ith a th re a t to lyn c h h im if h e d id notl eave t ow n; and w r appi ng up a gorydead r ati ns i de a l oaf of br ead f ora s ens i t i ve per s on t o open. ” M cC onnel l v. St at e Farm M ut . I ns . C o. , 61 F. Supp. 2d 356, 363 (D . N . J. 1 9 9 9 ) (cit ing H u m e v . B ay er, 42 8 A . 2 d 9 6 6 , 9 6 8 (N . J. S u p er C t. L aw D iv. 19 8 1 )) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he ac t s thatA ppel l antcl ai m s ar e extr eme and outr ageous ar e the exa cts ame act s he ci t es i n s uppor tof hi s N J L A D di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s , w hi ch, as w e have di s cus s ed, ar e w i thoutm er i t . “A s [he] i s unabl e t o m ake a pr i m a f aci e case for unlaw ful di scr i m i nati on , [he] i s perforce unab l e t o p revai l on [his ] cl ai m foremot i onal di s tr es s damages bas ed upon the s ame conduct . ” R os ar i o v. C aca ce, 767 A . 2d 1023, 1030 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2001) ; s ee a l s o G r i ffi n v. T ops A ppl i ance C i ty , I nc. , 766 A . 2d 292, 297 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2001) ( hol di ng that , exce pti n t he cas e of a ggr avat ed di s cr i m i nat oryconduct , “i ti s extr emel yr ar e t o fi nd conducti n the empl oym entcont extthatw i l l r i s e t o the l evel of outr ageous nes s nece s s aryt o pr ovi de a bas i s forr ecove r yforthe t or tof i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ”) . T her efor e, s um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at el ygr ant ed as t o thi s thi r d caus e of a ct i on. I V . C oncl usi on B e c a u se A p p e llan t h a s f a iled to su p p o rt th e e ss e n tial c o m p o n e n ts o f e a c h c laim w i th r ecor d evi dence , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatA ppel l ees w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entas t o eac h of the thr ee c aus es of ac t i on. W e ther efor e af fi r m the d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.