Divorce is not grounds for a firing | Editorial

The state Supreme Court is poised to reaffirm that divorce is a marital status protected under the New Jersey's anti-discrimination statues.

Divorce can be a traumatic and hideous experience, as millions of American can testify. But imagine if your boss piled on to your miseries by firing you just for being divorced.

This actually happened to a man named Robert Smith nine years ago, while serving on the Millville Rescue Squad. His wife worked for the same outfit, and the boss was worried the divorce would be bitter. So, Smith lost his job.

His case has now moved to the state Supreme Court, where we hope and expect that justice will be served.

In New Jersey, it is illegal to subject anyone to unfair treatment on the bases of race, age, origin, religion, and orientation. That applies to housing, credit, public accommodations, and the workplace.

The Law Against Discrimination is sacrosanct, and it's a massive blanket. It even protects people on the basis of marital status: For example, you are protected from being fired for being single or married --  and, presumably, engaged, separated, divorced, or widowed.

The Millville case could reaffirm divorce as a marital status that is protected under the discrimination law - still a nebulous legal area.

Smith, who rose from part-time volunteer to the squad's Director of Operations in 17 years, was fired in 2006 for that reason.

He had had an affair with another employee on that Gloucester County emergency unit the year before, his wife found out, and their mutual boss - CEO John Redden - allegedly set the rule: Smith had to reconcile with his wife, because the workplace couldn't endure the consequences of an "ugly divorce."

Smith gave it seven months, and then told Redden there would be no reconciliation. Six weeks later, this competent employee was sacked.

He sued, of course, because being fired over marital status is a direct violation of the LAD. But a trial judge dismissed the suit, saying Smith's firing was based on his conduct or expected conduct, and didn't qualify as a LAD claim.

The Appellate Division rejected the district court's finding - with great gusto, actually - and reinstated Smith's claim. So the MRS has appealed to the Supreme Court, which we hope will agree that Smith has a right to sue for a decade of lost wages and other damages.

Because the Appellate Court said it right: It found that MRS "terminated (the) plaintiff because of stereotypes about divorcing persons -- among other things, they are antagonistic, uncooperative with each other and incapable of being civil or professional in each other's company in the workplace."

It also found that Smith's supervisor "fired (the) plaintiff to avoid the feared impact of an 'ugly divorce' on the workplace."

Smith's attorney, Mario Iavicoli said the panel understood that there could be no presumption of acrimony between the former spouses, and he insists that "there is nothing in the record that remotely suggests this was an ugly divorce."

If hostility ensued, that's obviously a different story.

But an employer should not be allowed to terminate someone on such an assumption, because the people in their business have but two choices: Either they are sharp, dedicated, team-oriented professionals, or they put lives at risk. And the ones who do the latter give the squad a far more valid reason to show them the door.