CURT BRICKELL VS. CABLEVISION (L-0971-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-5232-16T1 CURT BRICKELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABLEVISION, a/k/a CSC TKR, LLC, MARK LIME, and ROBERT KNAPP, Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________ Argued February 6, 2019 – Decided June 22, 2020 Before Judges Fuentes, Accurso, and Moynihan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-0971-15. Eric V. Kleiner argued the cause for appellant (Eric V. Kleiner and Rudie O. Weatherman, on the briefs). Barbara E. Hoey (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondents (Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, attorneys; Barbara E. Hoey and John P.J. Mattiace, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by FUENTES, P.J.A.D. Plaintiff Curt Brickell worked at Cablevision a/k/a CSC TKR, LLC (Cablevision) from December 1996 until he was terminated for cause on February 26, 2014. On January 23, 2015,1 nearly a year after his termination, plaintiff filed a six-count civil action against his former employer predicated on violations of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42. Plaintiff also named as defendants Mark Lime and Robert Knapp, two of his former supervisors. In Counts I through III of the complaint plaintiff alleged he was subject to a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. According to plaintiff, his supervisors and coworkers incessantly harassed and taunted him based on his alleged cognitive deficits and/or developmental disabilities. Count IV alleged violations of his right to due process and equal protection under our State and federal constitutions; Count V alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress; and Count VI alleged negligent management or retention by Cablevision. Plaintiff appeals from: (1) the court's decision to strike his expert's report as a sanction for his attorney's failure to adhere to a court-ordered discovery 1 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2015. A-5232-16T1 2 schedule; and (2) the court's subsequent decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment which resulted in the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. After reviewing the record developed before the trial court, we affirm. Plaintiff worked for Cablevision as a field service technician. In this role, he traveled to customers' homes in response to reports of technical problems with their cable service. Plaintiff's fellow service technicians made numerous complaints to management about plaintiff's technical proficiency and work ethic. They alleged that work assigned to plaintiff was not performed correctly or left incomplete requiring other technicians to return to the worksite to finish the job. From August 2000 until he was terminated on February 26, 2014, Cablevision formally disciplined plaintiff sixteen times for dereliction of duty, failure to complete work assignments, and other employment-related misconduct. Plaintiff's employment ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals