We were surprised by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Victoria Crisitello v. St. Theresa School. The court historically advances the Legislature’s intent in enacting the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to 49, and has noted that the LAD’s “worthy purpose is no less than eradication of the ‘cancer of discrimination’ in our society.” We also think the concurrence by Justice Pierre-Louis in support of retention of a burden-shifting analysis is the better view.
Victoria Crisitello was, as the Supreme Court identified her, an art teacher and a caregiver for toddlers in the St. Theresa School operated by the Church of St. Theresa (St. Theresa’s). Upon her hiring in 2011, Crisitello had signed receipt for a copy of the school’s Policies on Professional and Ministerial Conduct, including a Code of Ethics, which required employees to conduct themselves in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. In 2014, the school principal, Sister Lee, asked Crisitello to work as an art teacher full time. Crisitello, unmarried, informed Sister Lee that she was pregnant. A few weeks later Sister Lee terminated Crisitello, claiming she had violated the Code of Ethics by engaging in premarital sex.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
