Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Plaintiff’s Bad Behavior Dooms NJ Employment Lawsuit
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 8, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
A recent decision by the Appellate Division should serves as an important warning to New Jersey litigants. The court dismissed a plaintiff’s employment discrimination lawsuit after she failed to comply with discovery requests and related court orders.
The Facts of the Case
In Fik-Rymarkiewicz v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), and two supervisors. The lawsuit alleged employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
During the course of discovery, the plaintiff was unwilling to answer questions and provide discovery. For instance, she refused to provide defense counsel with the name of her immigration attorney and turn over copies of her tax returns. She also stated that she would only “answer only questions which are related to the time I was working for Dr. Sharma and UMDNJ.”
At a subsequent court hearing regarding the discovery issues, the judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 4:23-5(a)(1), subject to a rescheduled deposition. After another unsuccessful deposition, defense counsel again sought to dismiss the case. However, the judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and ordered that plaintiff’s complaint could be reinstated if she produced documents regarding her publications, tax returns for 2005-08, and the name of her immigration attorney. Although the plaintiff ultimately produced the tax returns, she unilaterally redacted them. The court eventually dismissed her complaint with prejudice.
The Court’s Decision
On appeal, the Appellate Division found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit. “We are thoroughly satisfied that plaintiff demonstrated contumacious behavior, ignored court orders, and obstructed discovery of information that is directly relevant to her primary emotional distress claim,” the panel concluded.
As further explained by the court, the failure to respond to defendant’s document demands can be grounds for dismissal under New Jersey’s rules of discovery. The court further held that compelling the plaintiff to produce certain documents “imposed no more than what the [discovery] rule mandated” by requiring plaintiff to produce “fully and responsive” discovery as a condition to reinstatement of the complaint.
The Appellate Division also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the judge abused her discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice under Rule 4:23-5(a)(2). It noted that even though she was warned repeatedly that refusal would result in the dismissal of her case, the plaintiff still made a “deliberate decision to withhold relevant discovery.” Thus, the panel found the sanctions imposed were not unjust or unreasonable.
As this case highlights, the penalties for failing to comply with discovery requests can be severe. Therefore, it is important to work with your attorney to devise reasonable solutions to protect your rights through the use of protective orders, privilege exceptions, and other tools, while maintaining compliance with court rules.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Plaintiff’s Bad Behavior Dooms NJ Employment Lawsuit
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
A recent decision by the Appellate Division should serves as an important warning to New Jersey litigants. The court dismissed a plaintiff’s employment discrimination lawsuit after she failed to comply with discovery requests and related court orders.
The Facts of the Case
In Fik-Rymarkiewicz v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), and two supervisors. The lawsuit alleged employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
During the course of discovery, the plaintiff was unwilling to answer questions and provide discovery. For instance, she refused to provide defense counsel with the name of her immigration attorney and turn over copies of her tax returns. She also stated that she would only “answer only questions which are related to the time I was working for Dr. Sharma and UMDNJ.”
At a subsequent court hearing regarding the discovery issues, the judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 4:23-5(a)(1), subject to a rescheduled deposition. After another unsuccessful deposition, defense counsel again sought to dismiss the case. However, the judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and ordered that plaintiff’s complaint could be reinstated if she produced documents regarding her publications, tax returns for 2005-08, and the name of her immigration attorney. Although the plaintiff ultimately produced the tax returns, she unilaterally redacted them. The court eventually dismissed her complaint with prejudice.
The Court’s Decision
On appeal, the Appellate Division found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit. “We are thoroughly satisfied that plaintiff demonstrated contumacious behavior, ignored court orders, and obstructed discovery of information that is directly relevant to her primary emotional distress claim,” the panel concluded.
As further explained by the court, the failure to respond to defendant’s document demands can be grounds for dismissal under New Jersey’s rules of discovery. The court further held that compelling the plaintiff to produce certain documents “imposed no more than what the [discovery] rule mandated” by requiring plaintiff to produce “fully and responsive” discovery as a condition to reinstatement of the complaint.
The Appellate Division also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the judge abused her discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice under Rule 4:23-5(a)(2). It noted that even though she was warned repeatedly that refusal would result in the dismissal of her case, the plaintiff still made a “deliberate decision to withhold relevant discovery.” Thus, the panel found the sanctions imposed were not unjust or unreasonable.
As this case highlights, the penalties for failing to comply with discovery requests can be severe. Therefore, it is important to work with your attorney to devise reasonable solutions to protect your rights through the use of protective orders, privilege exceptions, and other tools, while maintaining compliance with court rules.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.