Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—D.N.J.: Former professor at New Jersey university advances age bias, retaliation claims, (May 1, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

As she neared retirement, she attempted to develop a funding succession plan but was instead demoted and later terminated after filing several complaints.

Denying Rowan University’s motion to dismiss the state-law age discrimination and retaliation claims asserted by a former professor, a federal district court in New Jersey determined that the professor had pled facts sufficient to establish an inference of age discrimination and had shown a causal link between her protected activity and subsequent adverse actions taken by the university. The court did, however, grant the motion to dismiss the professor’s aiding and abetting claim asserted against several individual defendants, finding that none had substantially assisted with the alleged violations (Pruchno v. Rowan University, No. 24-cv-06619-ESK-EAP (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case was a tenured professor of medicine at Rowan University at its Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine. She began her employment in 2004 and alleged that she maintained a highly productive academic career, securing over $6 million in grant funding and publishing more than 150 peer-reviewed articles.

Succession planning. In January 2019, at age 65, the professor initiated discussions with the university regarding succession planning, citing her anticipated retirement and the long-term nature of grant writing and the lifespan of funded research. She proposed hiring a successor whom she could train to assume the responsibility for future grant writing. The dean of her school declined to allocate funding for such a position.

Following this decision, the professor developed a revised work plan, emphasizing scholarly publications and support for other faculty members’ grant-writing efforts, rather than her serving as a principal grant applicant.

Demotion. In June 2023, the professor was called to a meeting with several university officials. She was informed that her position was being eliminated, her job title would change, and her salary would be reduced by more than 30 percent.

According to the university, these changes were justified because the professor was no longer applying for grants. The professor asserted that these changes were pretextual, as grant writing had never been a formal requirement for her position and her reduced grant activity resulted from the university’s earlier refusal to support succession planning.

Complaints. Thereafter, the professor lodged several internal complaints and challenged her demotion and salary reduction. In October 2023, the university offered the professor a temporary restoration of her salary in exchange for signing a release of age-related claims. The professor declined the offer and continued to file grievances.

Retaliatory actions. Following these protected activities, the professor alleged that the university engaged in a series of retaliatory actions, including relocating her office to a storage space without windows or ventilation, removing her furniture, and requiring her to attend grievance proceedings in person despite her Florida residency.

On May 29, 2024, the professor filed this lawsuit. That August, she was assigned to teach an in-person, problem-based learning course for medical students. She alleged that she lacked the qualifications to teach the course and objected on ethical grounds. A grievance hearing officer concluded that she had abandoned her position and the university terminated her employment in December 2024.

Claims. In her lawsuit, the professor asserted claims for: (1) age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD); (2) pre-termination retaliation under the NJLAD; (3) retaliatory termination under the NJLAD; (4) violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (NJCEPA); and (5) aiding and abetting the NJLAD violations. The university moved to dismiss all claims.

Age discrimination. First, the court addressed the professor’s claim for age discrimination. The only disputed element of her claim was whether her allegations could support an inference of discriminatory intent. The court found that they could.

Rejecting the university’s argument that the professor could not state a claim without direct evidence of discrimination or comparator evidence, the court explained that plaintiffs can allege actions by an employer, if otherwise unexplained, that are more likely than not based on impermissible factors.

Here, the court pointed to the professor’s allegations that she had expressly raised her “advanced age” and anticipated retirement with the university in connection with succession planning. It also noted that the university allegedly later relied on the professor’s reduced grant-writing activity to justify eliminating her position and reducing her salary. “These allegations plausibly link the proffered reason for the adverse action to age-related considerations,” said the court.

Pretext. As to the professor’s contention that the university’s actions were pretextual, she asserted that grant writing was not a formal requirement of her position and her reduced grant writing resulted from the rejection of her successor plan. She further alleged that the university nevertheless adopted this reason, tied to her age, to discriminate against her based on her age.

“At this stage, such allegations of pretext, combined with the surrounding factual context, are sufficient to support a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent,” said the court.

Settlement offer. In addition, the professor alleged that the university offered her a temporary restoration of her salary conditioned on the release of her age-related claims, which she characterized as evidence that the university recognized potential age discrimination exposure.

While this allegation alone was not dispositive, that court noted that it did serve to contribute to the overall plausibility of the professor’s claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the age discrimination claim was denied.

Pre-termination retaliation. Next, the court addressed the professor’s retaliation claims, beginning with her claim for pre-termination retaliation. As an initial matter, it was undisputed that the professor engaged in protected activities. However, the university argued that none of its alleged retaliatory actions—relocating her office, assigning her to teach an in-person class, and requiring in-person attendance at her grievance hearings—constituted adverse employment actions. The court disagreed.

Considering all attendant circumstances, taken together with other actions by the university, including the professor’s demotion and pay cut, the court found the professor had met her burden to establish adverse employment actions.

Temporal proximity. With regard to temporal proximity, the professor contended that her November 1, 2023, union grievance and November 17, 2023, age discrimination complaints were followed in the next month by her forced office relocation. The court explained that a few weeks of temporal proximity, on its own, may not be enough to establish causation. However, the professor also noted a November 20, 2023, letter from the university confirming the loss of her director of research role. This “intervening antagonism” sufficiently buttressed the connection between the complaints and the office transfer, said the court. As such, the motion to dismiss this claim was also denied.

Retaliatory termination. Turning to the professor’s claim for retaliatory termination, the court denied the motion to dismiss for similar reasons as it did for the pre-termination retaliation claim, noting that the university had based its arguments on the wrong standard, citing to elements for discriminatory discharge, not retaliatory discharge.

NJCEPA retaliation. With regard to the professor’s claim for NJCEPA retaliation, which is similar to a whistleblower claim, she alleged that she notified the university of potentially unethical behavior by assigning her to teach a course she felt she was not qualified to teach, and that teaching the course could endanger public health and safety.

The court found the professor had shown a nexus between the university requiring her to teach a clinical class to medical students to the public safety concern to ensure that qualified instructors are training future physicians. The court found she had also satisfied the remaining prongs for the same reasons she had satisfied her other retaliation claims and thus denied the motion to dismiss this claim.

Aiding and abetting. Finally, the court addressed the professor’s NJLAD claim for aiding and abetting asserted against several individual defendants. The university argued, and the court agreed, that two of the defendants could not be held liable because they were not decisionmakers. As to the remaining defendants, the court determined that the professor had failed to establish that any of them had substantially assisted the university in violating the NJLAD. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted with regard to these defendants.

The case is No. 24-cv-06619-ESK-EAP.

Judge: Kiel, E.

Attorneys: Jamison Michael Mark (Mark Law Firm) for Rachel Pruchno. Katherine Ellen Chrisman (Saul Ewing) for Rowan University aka Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine, Keith Burkhardt, Thomas Cavalieri, Richard Jermyn, Anthony Lowman, Henry Oh, and Kevin Overbeck.

Companies: Rowan University; Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination CoverageLiability Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims NewJerseyNews