New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog
Employees in New Jersey have legal protections against age discrimination, including when you apply for a new role within the same organization. In a recent decision, Campagna v. Washington Township Public Schools, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed toward trial. In plain terms, the judge ruled that a jury could reasonably find that age played a role in the decision not to allow the employee to advance to the second round of interviews for the position.
If you are searching for a Bergen County employment lawyer because you believe your employer passed you over due to age, this opinion can help you understand they type of facts that may support your claim.
The Background
Guy Campagna worked for the Washington Township Public School District as a physical education teacher. He began with the District in 2006 and served as the sole PE teacher at an elementary school. According to the court’s opinion, he maintained a clean disciplinary history, received positive evaluations, and was recognized as the District’s Teacher of the Year for the 2017 to 2018 academic year.
In September 2020, the District posted an anticipated vacancy for a physical education position at Bunker Hill Middle School. Mr. Campagna applied because he wanted to transfer after many years teaching at the elementary level. He participated in a first-round remote interview with the middle school principal and assistant principal.
The District chose not to select Mr. Campagna for a second-round interview. It ultimately hired a 31-year-old candidate from another school district. Mr. Campagna was 50 years old at the time.
After the District made its decision, the principal called Mr. Campagna and indicated that he chose to advance “novice teachers” and explained that he preferred candidates who he could “groom” and “train from scratch” to fit the culture he was building.
Mr. Campagna questioned why experience would make him less adaptable, and emphasized that he took direction and worked within whatever systems were in place. The principal reportedly clarified that he was not saying Mr. Campagna could not perform the job, but that the candidate the District selected could fulfill certain aspects “in a better way,” and he reassured him that he did not doubt Mr. Campagna was a team player.
Those details mattered later, because the District’s litigation position emphasized different themes.
The Legal Claims
Mr. Campagna asserted age discrimination claims under two laws: the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Both laws prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or promote someone because of their age. The court applied the same basic framework to analyze both claims.
At this stage of the case, the question was not whether Mr. Campagna definitively proved discrimination. Rather, the question was whether the District was entitled to win as a matter of law before trial. The court held that it was not, and allowed the case to proceed.
Why the Judge Denied Summary Judgment
The judge’s ruling turned on how discrimination cases can be proven with circumstantial evidence, and whether a reasonable jury could view its explanations as a pretext or cover for age bias.
Step One Was Not a High Bar
On its motion, the District argued Mr. Campagna was not “qualified” because he supposedly did not interview well, and the job required strong interpersonal skills. The court rejected that argument, explaining that “qualification” for purposes of the first step of a motion for summary judgment is measured by objective requirements, such as education and experience, rather than by subjective impressions about how an interview went. Since the District did not dispute that Mr. Campagna had the objective background to be a viable candidate, the court found he met this part of the test.
The Age Gap Supported an Inference of Discrimination
The court also found the 19-year age difference between Mr. Campagna, who was 50, and the selected candidate, who was 31, to be significant. That disparity was more than enough to support an inference of age discrimination under the governing case law.
The District tried to argue that the administrators involved in the hiring decision did not know anyone’s age. The court explained that a plaintiff does not need direct proof that the decisionmakers knew his exact birthdate. A jury can infer awareness from common indicators like appearance and experience timelines. Here, the court noted that the resumes reflected career dates that could allow someone to infer relative age, and the administrators plainly focused on Mr. Campagna’s experience during the hiring process.
The Court Found Evidence a Jury Could Treat as “Pretext”
At the final stage, the court focused on whether a jury could reasonably disbelieve the District’s stated reasons for selecting another job candidate. The judge highlighted multiple points that could support that conclusion, including:
First, the District’s explanations could be viewed as shifting. The principal’s phone call emphasized advancing “novice teachers,” yet the District later leaned heavily on alleged interpersonal concerns. The contrast between praising Mr. Campagna as a team player during the telephone call and later arguing he was difficult to work with is the kind of inconsistency juries are allowed to consider evidence of discrimination.=
Second, the court noted the tension between the District’s claimed “age blindness” and the record showing administrators focused on experience and used language that plausibly could connect to age, such as preferring “novice” candidates.
Third, the court observed that the District’s negative characterization of Mr. Campagna was not uniformly supported by other testimony in the record. For example, his direct supervisor had previously nominated him for Teacher of the Year and described him in glowing terms, and the assistant principal did not share the principal’s harsh view of his interview.
Putting those points together, the judge concluded that a reasonable jury could find the District’s justifications are unworthy of belief and infer a discriminatory motive. Because of that, the court allowed the case to proceed.
Why This Decision Matters to Employees Considering an Age Discrimination Claim
Employees often get told that a promotion or transfer went to someone “younger,” more “dynamic,” “new blood” or supposedly easier to train, while the employer later insists its decision was purely about “fit” or “interpersonal skills.” This decision is a reminder that courts can treat subjective rationales with caution, especially when the record includes significant age disparities, strong performance history, and evidence that the employer’s story changed over time.
If you are dealing with a similar situation, documenting what you were told at the time, preserving written communications, and keeping a clear timeline of events can matter, because inconsistencies can become evidence. A Bergen County employment lawyer can help you evaluate whether what happened to you fits within the ADEA, the NJLAD, or both, and whether your evidence supports a legal claim.
Speak With a Bergen County Employment Lawyer
If you believe you were denied a job opportunity, transfer, or promotion because of your age, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can help you understand your options under New Jersey law and federal law. To discuss your situation with a Bergen County employment lawyer, call Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. at (201) 777-2250.