Court Opinion

ID: 9961225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 14:08:10.944897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:29.588588
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0765-22

JOEY CUTRI,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TEC-CAST, INC., ROBERT
MOREHARDT, JR., and
LYNNE BISS,

     Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________

                   Argued March 12, 2024 – Decided April 18, 2024

                   Before Judges Paganelli and Whipple.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-8474-19.

                   David M. Alberts argued the cause for appellants
                   (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP,
                   attorneys; David M. Alberts, of counsel and on the
                   briefs).

                   Christopher P. Lenzo argued the cause for respondent
                   (Lenzo & Reis, LLC, attorneys; Christopher P. Lenzo,
                   of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM

      Defendants Tec-Cast, Inc., (Tec-Cast), Lynne Biss, and Robert

Morehardt, Jr. appeal from a final judgment after a jury trial. We affirm.

      Plaintiff Joey Cutri sued his former employer—Tec-Cast—his former

immediate    supervisor—Biss1—and      the   company's    owner   and   CEO—

Morehardt—under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD),

N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50. A jury found defendants discriminated against plaintiff

when he was terminated while undergoing cancer treatment. Defendants Biss

and Morehardt were also found individually liable for aiding and abetting the

discriminatory conduct.

      In November 2010, plaintiff was hired by Tec-Cast, a manufacturer and

distributor of aluminum casings, as assistant comptroller. In his only written

performance evaluation in 2017, plaintiff was described as excellent and was

considered a candidate to eventually replace Biss after her retirement.           In

September 2018, plaintiff was promoted to comptroller and inherited Biss's

responsibilities after she retired from her position as CFO. Biss continued to

work for Tec-Cast on a part-time basis as an independent contractor.

1
  Biss was the company's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and later a financial
consultant. She is also plaintiff's mother-in-law.
                                                                             A-0765-22
                                       2
      In December 2018, plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer. He disclosed his

cancer diagnosis to his employer and Biss. According to plaintiff's wife, in early

2019, Biss remarked to her that plaintiff was "using his cancer as a crutch" and

plaintiff only had a job because of Biss. In April 2019, Biss returned to the

company's payroll as an employee and asked for all of plaintiff's work-related

usernames and passwords.        She also began excluding plaintiff from her

conversations with Morehardt. By June 2019, plaintiff confronted Biss about

the "cancer as a crutch" comment. In July 2019, plaintiff called Morehardt and

expressed concern his job was at risk; plaintiff was especially concerned, given

his upcoming cancer surgery and his wife's pregnancy. Morehardt assured

plaintiff his job was secure.

      In August 2019, plaintiff underwent cancer surgery and began a medical

leave of absence to recuperate. Plaintiff texted Biss that his physician cleared

him to return to work after Labor Day 2019, but he received no reply. A few

days after the text was sent, plaintiff received a letter from Morehardt

terminating his employment.

      Morehardt decided that one of the two financial jobs at Tec-Cast, held by

plaintiff and Biss, would be eliminated. Morehardt and Biss together, knowing

                                                                            A-0765-22
                                        3
plaintiff had cancer and was undergoing medical treatment, decided that Biss

would remain, and plaintiff would be dismissed.

      From 2016 to 2019, Tec-Cast's business also suffered a revenue decrease

of eight percent due to the general economic environment. During this time, the

company lost key employees to competitors, leading to its imminent closure,

and forcing Tec-Cast to make financial decisions that allowed it to continue

operations. Defendants assert this economic downturn led to the simultaneous

elimination of five positions, including plaintiff's.     Morehardt testified he

preferred to keep Biss because she had more experience than plaintiff. Other

employees also lost their positions at the same time as plaintiff.

      Plaintiff sued, alleging he was terminated because of his cancer and

subsequent medical leave, in violation of NJLAD. During discovery, defendants

objected to plaintiff's reliance upon the Biss remark as evidence of

discrimination, arguing plaintiff had not included it in his complaint or written

discovery responses. However, the complaint plaintiff made to Biss about the

remark was part of Biss's deposition; she related that plaintiff declared an

unidentified third person told him Biss had made the remark. Plaintiff never

amended his discovery responses to reference the alleged Biss remark or to

identify the person who first reported the remark.

                                                                           A-0765-22
                                        4
      Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint five days before the discovery end

date to include the alleged Biss remark, with a return date after the close of

discovery. At that same hearing, plaintiff's wife was identified as the source for

the Biss remark. The court denied the motion.

      At the conclusion of discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment

asserting: (1) plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence from which a jury

could reasonably find discrimination, and (2) plaintiff was unable to

demonstrate individual liability. The motion judge denied summary judgment,

determining it was a question for the jury to decide whether Biss uttered the

remarks that plaintiff was using his illness as an "excuse" or "crutch" at work.

      On the eve of trial, defendants moved in limine to bar plaintiff's wife from

testifying. The court denied the motion citing defendants failed to depose

plaintiff or plaintiff's wife, and failed to investigate the statement, despite Biss

referencing it during her deposition. The court concluded defendants should

have, but failed to, explore the Biss remark during discovery. At trial, the court

allowed plaintiff's wife to testify Biss made disparaging remarks about plaintiff's

cancer.

      After a multi-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded

compensatory damages. On September 26, 2022, the court entered a final

                                                                              A-0765-22
                                         5
judgment for a total amount of $611,795.91—$147,494 in past economic

damages, $150,000 in past emotional damages, $287,953.31 in attorney's fees,

and $26,348.60 in interest—against all defendants. This appeal followed.

      On appeal, defendants first argue the motion judge erred by allowing

testimony from plaintiff's wife about Biss's "crutch" remark; they also assert

individual liability cannot be imposed against a primary decision maker under

NJLAD. We find both arguments are unavailing.

                                       I.

      Defendants contend plaintiff used the discovery process to prejudice them,

and argue the trial court's rulings on the Biss remark were contradictory and led

to reversible error. We discern neither contradiction, nor error.

      The motion judge denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the

complaint to add allegations about the Biss remark, because plaintiff had known

about the alleged comment prior to the end of discovery and had not acted on it.

The judge determined allowing the late amendment would require reopening

discovery, which would be substantially prejudicial to defendants. However,

the motion judge did not bar the remark, because it had been uncovered during

discovery and was, therefore, in the record.

                                                                           A-0765-22
                                        6
      Biss stated in her deposition that, during an argument, plaintiff accused

her of saying "he used his illness as an excuse to get away with things," but that

she "never said that." The parties disputed whether Biss made the remark; they

did not dispute plaintiff made that complaint to Biss.

      The motion judge relied on the alleged Biss remark, finding that the

"record contain[ed] evidence that defendants chose [to terminate] plaintiff rather

than [Biss] . . . because of plaintiff's cancer." The motion judge found the

evidence of pretext included defendants having plaintiff replace Biss upon her

retirement but "revers[ing] that decision after [plaintiff] developed cancer,

complained about . . . Biss making remarks about him using his cancer as a

crutch," and going on medical leave after undergoing surgery.

      "[T]he decision to admit or exclude evidence is one firmly entrusted to the

trial court's discretion." Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202

N.J. 369, 383-84 (2010). "If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness'

testimony in the form of opinions or inferences may be admitted if it: (a) is

rationally based on the witness' perception; and (b) will assist in understanding

the witness' testimony or determining a fact in issue." N.J.R.E. 701. Here, the

trial judge stated, "there was nothing during the discovery period . . . that

prevented the defendants from taking a deposition of the plaintiff's spouse or

                                                                             A-0765-22
                                        7
conducting any form of discovery as it relates to the illness as an excuse remark."

Additionally, the trial judge allowed plaintiff's spouse to testify because nothing

precluded her from testifying as a lay witness with knowledge of the matter at

hand pursuant to N.J.R.E. 701. We discern no abuse of discretion in these

decisions.

                                        II.

      Defendants next contend Morehardt cannot be individually liable as an

aider and abettor because he was the sole person who eliminated plaintiff's

position; Morehardt argues he cannot aid and abet his own conduct. He argues

that an "alleged principal wrongdoer, cannot aid and abet his own wrongful

conduct," and, thus, a principal wrongdoer cannot be liable under NJLAD.

Newsome v. Admin. Off. of the Cts, 103 F. Supp. 2d 807, 823 (D.N.J. 2000).

Morehardt asserts the claims against him should have been dismissed, and the

verdict against him should be reversed. We disagree.

      We reject these arguments because they overlook the full record and are

unavailing. The record does not demonstrate Morehardt was acting alone. The

trial court rejected this "sole person" argument when it denied defendants'

summary judgment motion, concluding—based on the deposition testimony of

both individual defendants as well as sworn interrogatory answers —there was

                                                                             A-0765-22
                                        8
sufficient evidence that both individual defendants participated in the decision

to dismiss plaintiff.

      Additionally, at the conclusion of the trial, the judge charged the jury

utilizing the New Jersey Model Civil Charge 2:22A for Individual Liability

under the NJLAD:

             If you find that Tec-Cast has unlawfully discriminated
             against plaintiff, you must then consider whether Lynne
             Biss and Robert Morehardt should be held individually
             and personally responsible for aiding and abetting that
             discrimination.

                    To hold either of these individuals liable,
             plaintiff must show that one, the individual defendant
             was generally aware of his or her role in the overall
             illegal, unlawful, and tortious activity at the time that
             he or she provided the assistance; and two, the
             individual defendant knowingly and substantially
             assisted Tec-Cast in discriminating against the plaintiff.

                   You may consider the following five factors
             when deciding whether Lynne Biss or Robert
             Morehardt knowingly and substantially assisted Tec-
             Cast discrimination against plaintiff.

                   One, the nature of the wrongful conduct incurred.
             Two, the amount of assistance the individual provided
             to Tec-Cast. Three, whether the individual defendant
             was present at the time that the discrimination occurred.
             Four, the individual defendant's relationship to anyone
             else involved in the discrimination. And five, the
             individual defendant's state of mind.

                                                                          A-0765-22
                                         9
                   An[] individual defendant's failure to act so as to
            protect plaintiff or failure to respond effectively to
            plaintiff's complaints of discrimination is insufficient
            to conclude that the individual defendant provided
            substantial assistance to Tec-Cast so as to hold the
            individual defendant personally liable.

      The "aiding and abetting" analysis under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(e) requires a

finding of "active and purposeful conduct." Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70, 83

(2004). To support this finding, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the party

whom the defendant aids performed a wrongful act that caused an injury; (2) the

defendant must be generally aware of his role as part of an overall illegal or

tortious activity at the time that he provides the assistance; and (3) the defendant

must knowingly and substantially assist the principal violation. Hurley v. Atl.

City Police Dep't, 174 F.3d 95, 127 (3d Cir. 1999).

      Defendants did not object to the Model Civil Charge. In addition, under

those instructions and having considered the evidence, the jury returned a

verdict finding individual liability for Morehardt as represented by the findings

in the verdict sheet. We discern no reason to disturb the jury verdict.

      Any remaining arguments raised by defendants are without sufficient

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                              A-0765-22
                                        10