LAD claim of retaliation cannot be asserted against a union absent showing that the union was the “employer” under the statute

The plaintiff and other members of Local #9 were referred to a job site where Shaw Industries was the construction manager or employer. Shaw accepted the Union’s recommendation for the positions of foreman and assistant foreman. The plaintiff alleged that he was retaliated against for reporting and objecting to racial comments made by the assistant foreman. The resulting legal action was filed against the Union, the foreman and the assistant foreman, but not against Shaw. In affirming the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of the action following completion of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the Union was an “employer” under the LAD since there was no showing that the Union controlled the job site, the plaintiff’s work, or that there was an economic dependence upon the Local for the plaintiff’s compensation.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}