ENID SANTIAGO VS. NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY PORT
AUTHORITY, ET AL.
A-5773-10T1
Plaintiff, a provisional police officer with the Port
Authority Police Department, was terminated after what, she
alleged, was a sham internal affairs investigation. She alleged
violations of the LAD, CEPA and the Civil Rights Act (CRA). The
judge dismissed the complaint, finding lack of subject matter
jurisdiction based upon plaintiff's failure to provide notice
prior to filing suit as required by N.J.S.A. 32:1-163 (requiring
sixty days notice prior to filing suit).
Plaintiff argued that because New Jersey and New York adopted "complimentary" legislation addressing workplace discrimination and whistleblowing, and because no notice was required under New Jersey's Tort Claims Act prior to filing suit under the LAD, CEPA or the CRA, she need not have provided pre- suit notice to the Port Authority.
We affirmed. Without reaching a conclusion as to plaintiff's "complimentary" legislation argument, we decided that the Port Authority's waiver of sovereign immunity and limited consent to suit was expressly conditioned on pre- litigation notice. Given the failure to provide such notice, the court lacked subject matter litigation, regardless of the nature of plaintiff's claims. 12-05-12
Plaintiff argued that because New Jersey and New York adopted "complimentary" legislation addressing workplace discrimination and whistleblowing, and because no notice was required under New Jersey's Tort Claims Act prior to filing suit under the LAD, CEPA or the CRA, she need not have provided pre- suit notice to the Port Authority.
We affirmed. Without reaching a conclusion as to plaintiff's "complimentary" legislation argument, we decided that the Port Authority's waiver of sovereign immunity and limited consent to suit was expressly conditioned on pre- litigation notice. Given the failure to provide such notice, the court lacked subject matter litigation, regardless of the nature of plaintiff's claims. 12-05-12
