Defendants deny that individual liability can be imposed under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) without also satisfying the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(e), but the Court need not reach this issue because Plaintiff does not assert a LAD retaliation claim under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d), just a LAD age discrimination claim under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). Therefore, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) does not save his individual liability claim against Coppola from dismissal.7 In sum, none of the arguments advanced by Plaintiff in support of his individual liability claims against Coppola were successful when he opposed Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss. Nor are any of them now.

Defendants deny that individual liability can be imposed under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) without also satisfying the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(e), but the Court need not reach this issue because Plaintiff does not assert a LAD retaliation claim under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d), just a LAD Case 3:16-cv-02863-PGS-TJB Document 15 Filed 07/12/16 Page 16 of 17 PageID: 237 12 age discrimination claim under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). Therefore, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) does not save his individual liability claim against Coppola from dismissal.8 CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons and those in Defendants’ Moving Brief, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: s/Mark Diana Dated: July 12, 2016 Mark Diana, Esq. 8 Plaintiff again makes a stray reference to CEPA in his individual liability brief point.

The fact that Plaintiff advised the individual defendants that he disagreed with the drug test results does not establish a basis for individual liability under the NJLAD. N.J.S.A. § 10:5-12(e). In fact, it has nothing to do with any act prohibited by the NJLAD.

The Court makes it clear that the anti-retaliation clause covers and prohibits any reprisals against any person because that person has opposed any practices or acts forbidden under [the LAD] . . . or to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by [the LAD]. [N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) (emphasis added).]” Gerety v. Atl. City Hilton Casino Resort, 184 N.J. 391, 409 (2005).

It states, “Relevant state law (specify, if known):” The form does not explain ancillary jurisdiction, nor does it give a list of state statutes such as New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 (“NJ LAD”)) or the Case 3:16-cv-05430-MAS-TJB Document 24-4 Filed 06/29/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 191 LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD HARRINGTON HEYBURN, ESQ., LLC (7) Conscientious Employee Protection Act (N.J.S.A. §§ 34:19-1 – 34:19-8 (“NJ CEPA”)). The form complaint provides a section for a statement of claims.

Other than employers, individuals may be held liable under the NJLAD for aiding and abetting an employer’s discriminatory conduct. N.J.S.A. § 10:5-12(e); Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep't, 174 F.3d 95, 126 (3d Cir. 1999). However, in order to prove that an employee aided and abetted discriminatory conduct, “the party whom the defendant aids must perform a wrongful act that causes an injury.”

Case 3:15-cv-08188-BRM-LHG Document 31 Filed 01/30/17 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 1603 -11- #42486524 v5 Ms. Zafirellis is protected by the NJ Law Against Discrimination against discrimination based on her childless family status. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12. 7.

NJLAD prohibits discriminatory employment practices, including discrimination based on age. N.J. Stat. § 10:5-12 (West); Monaco v. Am. Gen. Assur. Co., 359 F.3d 296, 301 (3d Cir. 2004).

5.) Specifically, the Order stated that Plaintiff was permitted to add: 1) an individual claim of intentional sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C §§ 2000(e) et seq.; 2) individual and class claims of sex discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a); 3) a class claim of pregnancy discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a) Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding the following claims was denied: 1) class claims for pregnancy, sex and hostile work environment as well as the individual hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or 1964, 42. U.S.C. §2000e et seq.; 2) the separate count for equitable relief; and 3) claims for breach of contract as pleaded; 4) it was further Ordered that the motion for leave to add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was deemed withdrawn.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12, et seq., (hereinafter “LAD”), provides, inter alia, that a person, bank, mortgage company, lender or other financial institution shall not discriminate against an individual based upon a number of factors, including gender. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12. The Complaint is devoid of any fact, allegation or contention specific to Fremont which would fall within the ambit of the LAD.