NJ Court Revives Former Rutgers-Newark Athletes’ Discrimination Claim

NEWARK, NJ — A New Jersey appellate court panel has revived a nearly decade-old retaliation claim against Rutgers-Newark University by several members of the 2014-15 women’s basketball team.

Last week, an appellate panel of judges reversed a trial court decision, allowing the former players’ claims to be re-added to an existing lawsuit. Read their full opinion here.

The June 2 decision reinstated the claims made by former players Jasmine Daniels, Jade Howard, Sarah Schwartz and Arianna Williams to a suit involving Sharee Gordon and Adayshia McKinnon. They are alleging that longtime athletics director Mark Griffin and former interim women’s basketball head coach William Zasowski made discriminatory comments that went unpunished by the administration in 2014 and 2015, NJ.com reported.

The players also claim that Zasowski “retaliated” after they complained to university officials, allegedly threatening to cancel the season and limiting Gordon’s playing time, NJ.com reported.

The New Jersey Courts provides the following summary of the case on its website:

“The plaintiffs whose claims are implicated in these interlocutory cross-appeals were members of defendant Rutgers-Newark's 2014-15 women's basketball team. Four plaintiffs describe themselves as African-American and gay, one as African-American and bisexual, and the sixth as Hispanic and heterosexual. They claim they were retaliated against and subjected to a hostile environment in violation of the Law Against Discrimination by defendants because, among other things, their interim coach, defendant William Zasowski, referred to them as ‘dykes’ and ‘nappy-headed sisters,’ and asked the team captain for the names of the team members who were gay and, when they complained and sought a school investigation, defendants retaliated. The trial judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' summary judgment motion.”

Here’s what happened next, according to the court’s summary:

“The court concluded that the judge did not err in denying summary judgment on plaintiffs' hostile environment claims and did not err in denying summary judgment on the retaliation claims of two plaintiffs; the court held, however, that the judge erred in granting summary judgment on the retaliation claims of the other four plaintiffs. The court held that both the hostile environment and retaliation claims should be considered, not individually as argued by defendants, but in light of the fact that plaintiffs were members of small, tightly-knit group and that each plaintiff could rely on the experiences of the others even if they did not directly experience or witness defendants' alleged discriminatory comments and epithets, thereby distinguishing Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, 196 N.J. 178 (2008) in this setting.”

“In the final analysis, whether there was one or more acts of retaliation depends on the particular circumstances,” the appellate panel wrote in their published opinion. “When viewing the ‘constellation of surrounding circumstances’ in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we are satisfied that the pleaded facts are sufficient to create a genuine issue about adverseness.”

The panel added:

“To summarize, we conclude that the judge mistakenly found defendants were entitled to a summary judgment dismissing the retaliation claims of Howard, Daniels, Williams, and Schwartz, and we reverse that part of the order under review. The judge, however, correctly denied summary judgment as to the other claims that are the subject of these interlocutory appeals.”

Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com. Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site. Don’t forget to visit the Patch Newark Facebook page.