NJ Court Affirms Jury’s Discrimination Verdict Against Newark Public Schools

In many employment discrimination cases, it can be difficult to prove what really motivated a company’s decision to fire, demote, or pass over a qualified worker for a promotion. But sometimes, someone in power simply says the quiet part out loud—and when that happens, the law is clear. That was the situation in a recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division, where two longtime educators claimed they were denied promotions because of their race and age. The appellate court upheld the jury’s verdict in their favor, offering important takeaways about how direct evidence can impact the outcome of a workplace discrimination case.

The Facts

The plaintiffs, Anna D’Antonio and Donna Stridacchio, were both long-serving White women who built their careers in the Newark school system. They applied for new vice principal positions after the School District restructured and eliminated their former roles. Both women had decades of experience, advanced degrees, and administrative certifications.

Despite their qualifications, the District passed them over. It instead selected other candidates, some of whom had limited experience or negative performance histories. In response, the plaintiffs filed suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging the District unlawfully used their race and age against them in the selection process.

The Applicable Law

Under the LAD, employers are prohibited from making employment decisions based on protected characteristics like race, age, and gender. Most cases are proven with evidence—such as suspicious timing, shifting explanations, or statistical disparities—to show bias.

But when there is direct evidence of discriminatory intent, the legal analysis changes. A statement by a decision-maker that indicates or suggests a candidate was rejected because of their race, age, or another protected trait can shift the burden to the employer to prove it would have made the same decision even without considering that unlawful factor.

Why This Case is Unique

What made this case stand out was not just that D’Antonio and Stridacchio were highly qualified. It was that one of the central decision-makers, a school administrator, admitted in her testimony that race was a factor in hiring decisions. He explained that he considered the student population and “wanted a team that reflected the students” when recommending candidates.

This statement—delivered under oath—was not vague, accidental, or taken out of context. Rather, it directly supported the plaintiffs’ claims that their race played an impermissible role in the hiring decisions, especially since the majority of the vice principals the District hired instead were Black. The trial court allowed the jury to consider this as direct evidence of discrimination, and the jury found in the plaintiffs’ favor.

On appeal, the Newark Public Schools argued that the jury instructions were flawed and that the plaintiffs had not proven their case. But, in D’Antonio v. Thee Newark Public School, the Appellate Division disagreed. The Court specifically found the administrator’s testimony constituted direct evidence, and the jury was entitled to consider it when determining whether the District had violated the LAD.

Why Direct Evidence Can Change Everything

What happened in this case is something we do not typically see in employment discrimination claims. Employers usually cover their tracks with vague qualification or performance-based justifications, or say nothing at all. But when a person in authority states that a legally-protected factor was part of the decision-making process—and when that decision negatively impacts qualified candidates—it may amount to unlawful discrimination.

Direct evidence can shift the entire framework of a case. Instead of the employee having to prove discrimination through a multi-step burden-shifting analysis, the burden falls on the employer to prove that it would have made the same decision even if it had not considered race. That is a relatively high bar, and one the District could not clear.

Speak with a New Jersey Discrimination Lawyer

If you were passed over for a job, demoted, or terminated—and you believe your employer’s decision was based on race, age, gender, or another legally-protected factor—do not assume it is impossible to prove. Comments made by decisionmakers, even subtle ones, can be powerful evidence. At Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C., we represent employees across New Jersey in workplace discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination cases. We know how to uncover what really happened—and how to build a compelling case when employers rely on unlawful motivations. To speak with an experienced New Jersey employment lawyer about your rights, call us today at (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to schedule a consultation.