Opinion ID: 1010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count 3: NJLAD Claim

Text: Jones argues, albeit very briefly, that the District Court erred in dismissing her NJLAD claim. When analyzing NJLAD claims, “New Jersey has adopted the procedural burden-shifting methodology articulated in McDonnell Douglas . . . .” Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 867 A.2d 1133, 1139 (N.J. 2005). Jones again complains of the fact that she was not promoted to battalion chief and of the job assignments which allegedly prevented her from gaining the experience necessary to be eligible for that promotion, and makes a vague reference to the “history of gender based comments” that she endured. (Appellant’s Br. at 43). As we have explained, the failure to promote claim fails because she quite simply did not achieve a high enough score on the examination for the position she wanted, an examination she does not itself challenge. With reference to the genderbased comments, the District Court correctly noted that, based on the amended complaint, there is “no claim for hostile work environment based on gender in this case.” (App. at 19). Summary judgment was appropriately granted on Count 3.