Opinion ID: 3029277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NJLAD Age Discrimination

Text: Next, Muzslay alleges the defendants discriminated against him because of his age. To prevail on an age discrimination claim under either federal law or NJLAD, Muzslay must show his age “actually motivated” and “had a determinative influence on” his employer’s decision to fire him. Monaco v. Am. Gen. Assurance Co., 359 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2004). We agree with the District Court that Muzslay’s age discrimination claim survives summary judgment. Mayor Knight’s statement to the Sentinel that the City sought “some younger people” to take over Beach Patrol operations provided direct evidence that his employer placed substantial negative reliance on his age in deciding to fire him. This was not a vague statement, “random office banter” or “an innocuous conversational jab in a social setting.” Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., 308 F.3d 335, 339-40 (3d Cir. 2002). We further agree with the District Court that the City’s explanation lacked consistency. The record presents sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could disbelieve the City’s explanation. We will affirm the District Court’s denial of summary judgment on Muzslay’s NJLAD age discrimination claim. 10