Bibbs v. Black, 778 F.2d 1318 at 1322. Defendant County of Hudson followed a policy and practice of discrimination against Plaintiff Fischer, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq.. Therefore, Defendant County is not entitled to summary judgment for age or disability claims under the NJLAD.

______________________ A. The NJLAD Only Authorizes Suit In State Court. Count 3 (hostile work environment) of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a violation of the NJLAD. N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. The NJLAD only authorizes suit in New Jersey’s Superior Court. N.J.S.A. § 10:5-13.

32. The conduct of the Defendants, The New Jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New Jersey, Bayside State Prison, Defendants, Charles Egbert, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman, jointly, individually and severally, and the treatment of the Plaintiff, constitutes unlawful discrimination, Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 82 harassment, hostile workplace environment, and retaliatory conduct that represent numerous frank violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et. seq.

Counts 3 and 4 (disability discrimination and retaliation) of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint allege violations of the LAD and seek prospective injunctive relief against State Defendants in the form of reinstatement. N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. However, the State is immune from suit in Federal Court under a State law unless the particular statute waives jurisdictional immunity.

Count 3 (hostile work environment) of Hick’s Complaint alleges a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. However, the State is immune from suit in federal court under a State law unless the particular statute waives jurisdictional immunity.

RSMF#1. III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 29, 2014, Mr. Bals filed his Complaint alleging age discrimination in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 and the New Case 3:14-cv-06055-FLW-DEA Document 32 Filed 07/11/16 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 331 - 3 - Jersey Law Against Discrimination, (“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. Defendant filed its Answer on October 29, 2014.

In addition, this action seeks relief for the Borgata’s unlawful retaliation, including its unlawful termination of Mr. Daniyan’s employment in violation of New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq. Plaintiff’s Workplace Injury And Subsequent Termination From Employment This action seeks relief for Defendant Borgata Hotel and Casino’s (“Defendant” or the “Borgata”) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the New Jersey Law against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. In addition, this action seeks relief for the Borgata’s unlawful retaliation, including its Case 1:07-cv-02734-JHR -JS Document 104 Filed 12/30/10 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2054 2 unlawful termination of Mr. Daniyan’s employment in violation of New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq.

POINT III PLAINTIFF'S BELATED REFERENCE TO THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT RESCUE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. In his opposition brief, Plaintiff discusses the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. Unlike Title VII, the LAD prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation.

76 (2002) and its progeny. In Martindale, the plaintiff asserted statutory claims, including claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq. (the “NJLAD”). An arbitration clause in her employment application provided that all claims related to her employment would be arbitrated and that plaintiff was waiving her right to a jury trial in any action related to her employment.

Consequently, the costs- and attorney’s fees-shifting provision in the arbitration clause of the Enrollment Contract is unquestionably unconscionable with respect to arbitration costs and should be severed from the agreement.5 5 In Delta Funding Corp., because the cost-shifting provision was subject to interpretation by the arbitrator, the Supreme Court of New Jersey did not immediately sever the provision. Rather the court concluded, “Once [interpretation Case 3:17-cv-03132-FLW-TJB Document 12 Filed 06/22/17 Page 29 of 42 PageID: 190 23 The imposition of attorney’s fees on plaintiff should defendant prevail is likewise unconscionable with respect to Plaintiff’s claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq. (West), Title IX; 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VI. “It is well established that arbitration is merely a choice of dispute resolution and does not infringe upon statutory protections.”