SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4598-16T3

DEIRDRE K. HARTMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

COMMISSION (PERC), and

P. KELLY HATFIELD, Individually

and in her official capacity as

Chair of PERC,

Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted July 9, 2018 – Decided July 20, 2018

Before Judges Carroll and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L2534-14.

Attorneys Hartman, Chartered, attorneys for 

appellant (Mark A. Gulbranson, Jr., on the 

briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney

for respondents (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly Ann

Eaton, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-4598-16T3

 Plaintiff Deirdre K. Hartman brought suit against her 

employer, the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) and 

its Chair, P. Kelly Hatfield.1 Pertinent to this appeal, plaintiff 

asserted a claim against defendants alleging disparate pay based 

on gender discrimination in violation of the Law Against 

Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Specifically, 

plaintiff contended that in her capacity as Co-Deputy Director of 

PERC's Unfair Practices Section (UPR), she was paid less for the 

same work than her male Co-Deputy Director, Jonathan Roth. 

 In Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 118 N.J. 89, 96 (1990), 

our Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether two female 

employees suffered unlawful discrimination when they received 

lower wages than male employees performing comparable work. The 

Court held that a female complainant can establish a prima facie 

case of pay discrimination under the LAD if she "can demonstrate 

that unequal pay was given for the performance of work that is 

substantially equal to that performed by male employees." Id. at 

110. In such instances, "the burden [then] shifts to the defendant 

to demonstrate that the difference in pay was justified." Id. at 

102. 

[O]nce a prima facie case has been 

established, a defendant must establish by 

 

1 The State of New Jersey was also named as a defendant in 

plaintiff's complaint. 
3 A-4598-16T3

preponderance of evidence one of four 

affirmative defenses in order to avoid 

liability. It must prove that the wage 

disparity is the result of (i) a seniority 

system, (ii) a merit system, (iii) a system 

which measures earnings by quantity or quality 

of production, or (iv) a differential based 

on any factor other than sex. 

[Ibid. (internal citation omitted).] 

 In the present case, after discovery was complete, both 

plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On 

June 9, 2017, Judge Kay Walcott-Henderson conducted oral argument, 

rendered a cogent oral opinion, and granted summary judgment to 

defendants. Citing Grigoletti, the judge agreed with defendants 

that plaintiff "failed to make a prima facie case of gender 

discrimination because plaintiff and Roth did not perform 

substantially equal work." Consequently, defendants were not 

required to show a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the 

pay disparity. 

 The judge found that Roth's compensation was based on his 

Civil Service position of Hearing Examiner (HE) 1, which was a 

higher Civil Service position and entailed different duties than 

the Public Employment Relations Specialist (PERS) 1 position held 

by plaintiff. The judge also found it undisputed that Roth and 

another male employee "did not receive promotions or pay raises 

when appointed to the position of Deputy Director." Finally, the 
4 A-4598-16T3

judge rejected as "inadmissible hearsay" plaintiff's contention 

that other Deputy Directors were paid a salary commensurate with 

that of the HE 1 Civil Service position even though they lacked 

the HE 1 job title. 

 On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in 

dismissing her complaint and granting summary judgment to 

defendants. Specifically, plaintiff contends the court erred in 

finding she failed to establish a prima facie case of wage 

discrimination as a matter of law. Plaintiff further contends 

none of the four affirmative defenses identified in Grigoletti

apply so as to insulate defendants from liability under the LAD. 

 We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de 

novo, employing the same legal standard as the trial court.

Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 59 (2015) (citing Davis v. 

Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405 (2014)). Like the 

trial court, we consider whether "the competent evidential 

materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to 

the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational 

factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the 

non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 

540 (1995). 

 We have carefully reviewed plaintiff's contentions and the 

controlling legal principles and affirm substantially for the 
5 A-4598-16T3

reasons expressed by Judge Walcott-Henderson in her June 9, 2017 

oral opinion. 

 Affirmed.