NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0181-13T3 WALTER TOWNLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Argued December 9, 2014 - Decided February 2, 2015 Before Judges Reisner and Haas. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1606-11. David H. appellant. Kaplan argued the cause for Eric L. Harrison argued the cause for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Mr. Harrison, of counsel and on the brief; Raina Marie Pitts, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Walter Townley appeals from a trial court order dated August 6, 2013, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Jefferson Township Board of Education, and dismissing plaintiff's age discrimination complaint with prejudice. After reviewing the record in light of the applicable legal standards, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the trial court's written statement of reasons issued with the order. We add the following brief comments. Our review of a trial court's summary judgment is de novo, employing the Brill standard judgment was warranted. to determine whether summary Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 477- 78 (2013); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Thus, in reviewing the evidence ourselves, we have considered whether, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant was nonetheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Servs., 204 N.J. 320, 330 See Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human (2010); Agurto v. under the Guhr, 381 N.J. Super. 519, 525 (App. Div. 2005).1 Because this case arises Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42, we consider the evidence in the context applicable to LAD cases. of the three-part proof paradigm To summarize, in an age discrimination 1 It is generally easier for us to review a summary judgment record when appellant's appendix presents the motion documents in the order they were presented to the trial court, that is, first the moving party's papers, followed by the opposition papers, followed by the moving party's reply papers. In this case plaintiff's appendix was not organized in that fashion. Nonetheless, we have carefully reviewed the entire record. 2 A-0181-13T3 case, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case by producing at least minimal evidence from which an inference may be drawn that the employer's decision was motivated by age bias. prima facie burden is relatively slight. The See Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler, 157 N.J. 188, 210 (1999). The defendant must then rebut the prima facie case by coming forward with evidence that the challenged decision was made for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Ibid. In the third and final stage of the case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's asserted legitimate discrimination. reason is actually a pretext for Id. at 211; see also Zive v. Stanely Roberts, Inc., 182 N.J. 436, 458 (2005). Throughout the case, the burden of proving discrimination remains with the plaintiff. Bergen Commercial Bank, supra, 157 N.J. at 211. In this case, there is no dispute that plaintiff presented a prima facie case and the employer presented evidence of a legitimate contract. which a non-discriminatory reason for not renewing his The issue is whether plaintiff produced evidence from rational factfinder could conclude that defendant's explanation was a pretext for age discrimination. The motion evidence is described at length in the trial court's written opinion and need not be repeated here in the same level of detail. In 1999, plaintiff, then age fifty-one, 3 A-0181-13T3 was hired as a substitute school custodian. He was given a full-time contract position as a custodian in 2002, when he was fifty-four. In June 2009, when plaintiff was sixty-one, his contract was not renewed and his employment with the school district ended. defendant In support of its summary judgment produced photographs numerous documenting performance plaintiff's motion, evaluations unsatisfactory and work performance, which was the stated reason for the decision not to renew his contract. The trial judge concluded that plaintiff did not produce evidence that the asserted reason was a pretext for age discrimination. Having reviewed the record, we agree with that conclusion. Affirmed. 4 A-0181-13T3