Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—D.N.J.: PE teacher, rejected for job given to candidate 19 years younger, beats summary judgment, (Dec 4, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

A jury could construe the decisionmakers’ alleged ignorance of the age disparity “as a conscious effort to avoid acknowledging an age difference that was otherwise obvious and, in turn, reject the District’s broader contention that age played no role in the decision.”

A 50-year-old elementary school PE teacher, who was rejected for a middle school teaching position that went to a 31-year-old candidate, ostensibly because his did not interview well and had a history of interpersonal issues, and also because the school principal wanted to hire a “novice” that he could “groom,” defeated summary judgment on his claims of age discrimination under the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). A federal district court squarely rejected the school district’s contention that age bias could not be inferred at the McDonnell Douglas prima facie stage since the decisionmakers claimed they were unaware of the candidates’ age disparity. Moreover, a jury could find that the district’s proffered reasons for not selecting the teacher were pretextual based on the shifting and inconsistent explanations, credibility issues relating to the administrators’ alleged age blindness, and contradictory testimony from the district’s own witnesses (Campagna v. Washington Township Public Schools, No. 1:22-cv-05350-KMW-EAP (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2025)).

Elementary school PE teacher. The teacher had taught physical education at the district’s elementary school since 2006. He graduated from college in 1997 and taught elsewhere prior to coming to the district. During his time with the district, he received positive evaluations, and was recognized as “Teacher of the Year.”

Vacancy at middle school. In September 2020, the district announced a job opening for a middle school PE teacher. The teacher applied and was invited to participate in a first-round interview conducted by the school’s principal and assistant principal. During the interview, the administrators acknowledged his many years of experience, with the principal acknowledging him as a district “veteran.” They asked him about his background, teaching philosophy, and reasons for seeking a transfer after many years in the elementary-school setting.

31-year-old selected. Though the teacher was not selected for a second-round interview, the administrators continued interviewing other candidates for the position, including a 31-year-old PE teacher from another school district. The assistant principal——who was the only administrator to interview the younger candidate——described his first round interview as one of the best he had ever seen. Ultimately, he was awarded the position.

Phone call. When the principal informed the teacher by telephone of the district’s decision, he stated that he elected to advance “novice teachers” to the second round who he could “groom” and “train from scratch.” The principal also stated that he believed the selected candidate could fulfill certain aspects of the role “in a better way” and reassured him that, “I didn’t doubt for a second you were a team player. I didn’t doubt that at all.”

Lawsuit. The teacher cross-filed administrative charges, and the EEOC ultimately issued a determination finding reasonable cause. After the parties were unable to resolve the dispute through informal conciliation, the teacher filed this lawsuit.

District’s defense. The district moved for summary judgment, arguing that administrators did not know or have reason to know of the age disparity between the candidates. The district also claimed that the teacher was not hired due to legitimate concerns over his interpersonal skills. In particular, the principal testified that he viewed his interview performance as subpar, and described his responses as incomplete, long-winded, nonresponsive, or seeming “narcissistic” such that he perceived the teacher as difficult to work with. The principal also claimed he received unsolicited warnings from three district employees—including the teacher’s supervisor—that he could be difficult to work with.

Qualified. The court first rejected the district’s contention that the teacher’s lackluster interview performance demonstrated that he was not qualified for the position. Significantly, the district did not dispute that he possessed the objective education and job experience necessary to qualify as a viable candidate for the position, which was sufficient at the prima facie stage. His interview performance was not a job “qualification.” Rather, it constituted a proffered nondiscriminatory justification that would be considered at the later stages of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Age disparity. The court also rejected the district’s contention that age bias could not be inferred since the administrators were unaware of either candidate’s exact age. In particular, the assistant principal—then 38—testified that he thought the teacher appeared “a whole lot younger” than himself, and the district also emphasized that the application materials did not reference ages or birthdates. Here too, the district misapprehended applicable law.

Credibility issues. Even accepting the district’s premise that he must demonstrate the interviewers’ subjective perception of a meaningful age disparity, the 19-year age difference supported that inference given that such a substantial age difference is ordinarily apparent. Indeed, “a remark that someone looks nearly two-decades younger than his actual age is often understood as an extravagant or facetious compliment, rather than a literal assessment.” Thus, the assistant principal’s uncorroborated claims of being unable to discern any remarkable age difference triggered a credibility issue.

Moreover, even if the teacher appeared unusually young or comparable in age to the successful candidate, the record provided numerous grounds on which a jury could discredit the administrators’ claims. For instance, the candidates’ application materials contained the types of chronological data from which people ordinarily infer age—including graduation dates. “It does not take mathematical precision to appreciate that these parallel timelines point to a sizable age gap,” and a jury could find that the principal relied these experience markers in deciding to advance only “novice” teachers with less experience than the teacher.

Shifting explanations. Finally, the teacher cast doubt on the district’s contention that he was not selected for the job based on his subpar interview, his interpersonal skills, and his ability to collaborate with peers. First, pretext could be inferred from the shifting and inconsistent explanations for why he was not advanced. When notifying him of the decision, the principal did not cite concerns about teamwork, collaboration, or interpersonal skills, but instead told him that he had “not doubted for a second” that he was a team player but preferred more adaptable “novice” teachers. The principal later testified, however, that the teacher was passed over due to serious concerns about his interpersonal skills and ability to collaborate—an explanation squarely at odds with his earlier conversation with the teacher.

The court found this inconsistency especially notable given that the candidate who fit the “novice” teacher profile was nearly 20 years younger. A reasonable jury could view this shift in rationale, coupled with the significant age gap, as evidence that the district’s present explanation is not the true one. The district’s contention that the principal did not tell him the truth because “he did not want to be rude” created credibility determinations for a jury to consider.

Alleged age blindness. The administrators’ alleged age blindness further contributed to the credibility issues, particularly given that they repeatedly acknowledged and appreciated his extensive experience. Indeed, the principal explicitly relied on it, contrasting the teacher’s long tenure with the substantially lesser experience of more “novice” teachers like the much younger candidate, who was advanced for precisely that reason. The court found that “a reasonable jury could construe the administrators’ alleged ignorance as a conscious effort to avoid acknowledging an age difference that was otherwise obvious and, in turn, reject the District’s broader contention that age played no role in the decision.”

Contradictions. Lastly, pretext could be inferred from the contradictory statements of the district’s own witnesses relating to the principal’s portrayal of the teacher as “difficult to work with.” His direct supervisor——who the principal claimed warned him about the teacher—could not recall ever making such a statement. She also testified that she observed his collaborations with colleagues to be “very amicable” and “very productive.” And while the assistant principal believed that the successful candidate interviewed better, he did not share any of the negative impressions that led the principal to deem the teacher unsuited for the job or otherwise difficult to work with.

The case is No. 1:22-cv-05350-KMW-EAP.

Judge: Williams, K.

Attorneys: David M. Koller (Koller Law) for Guy Campagna. Suzanne M. Marasco (Hill Wallack) for Washington Township Public Schools.

Companies: Washington Township Public Schools

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination NewJerseyNews