Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1749

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

| NICHOLAS FANTINI, | : Civil Action No.: 1:22-CV-04351-CPO-AMD |
| --- | --- |
| Plaintiff, | : |
| v. | : |
| WESTROCK COMPANY, HOWARD | : |
| BRAVERMAN, KATHY GRIESS, | : |
| GEORGE MELVIN, TONYA CHITWOOD, | : |
| JILL HORNER, VICKI LOSTETTER, | : |
| STEVE VORHEES, and JOHN | : |
| DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, | : |
| Defendants. | : |

PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Nicholas Fantini, by and through himself, pro se, to file the instant motion for summary judgment and in support thereof avers as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff respectfully submits this cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to InL. p1-1 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on the undisputed facts and applicable law, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his claims for (1) unlawful termination in violation of public policy; (2) retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and (3) negligent misrepresentation.

2. The record indisputably shows that Plaintiff was terminated not due to any legitimate business necessity, but as a result of an unfounded accusation and a pretextual process intended to force him out. Plaintiff was a long-standing employee with no prior disciplinary history. The

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 1750

photograph that Defendants claim constituted a threat was neither overtly threatening nor accompanied by any action or behavior suggesting danger to anyone. No investigation was conducted to determine Plaintiff's intent. Plaintiff was never interviewed, warned, or counseled about the alleged misconduct. Instead, Defendants immediately removed Plaintiff from work and imposed an unreasonable condition precedent—a remote IME that they knew he could not fulfill due to his lack of access to required technology.

1. Further, Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to engage in the interactive process or request reasonable accommodations. The record shows that the IME vendor, Sedgwick, and Defendants failed to provide any alternative, even after Plaintiff advised them he could not access or download the necessary software. These facts establish a failure to accommodate and a discriminatory termination under the ADA and state law.

2. Plaintiff made numerous protected complaints during his employment, including reporting workplace bullying, broken equipment necessary to perform his job, and the failure of Human Resources to address his concerns. These reports were documented and sent to multiple individuals within WestRock. Within weeks of raising these issues, Plaintiff was removed from his position and subjected to the contrived IME requirement. Temporal proximity between Plaintiff's protected activity and his termination strongly supports causation.

3. Moreover, the fact that Defendants relied on a speculative interpretation of a photograph, without inquiry or context, further illustrates their retaliatory motive. Courts have consistently held that when the employer's stated reason is unworthy of credence, summary judgment for the plaintiff may be appropriate.

4. Plaintiff also brings a valid claim for negligent misrepresentation. Defendants affirmatively told Plaintiff that they would support his medical leave process and facilitate his access to

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 1751

necessary benefits through Sedgwick. However, Defendants failed to file the appropriate documentation or provide Plaintiff with accurate information about the job description or remote IME requirements. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants' representations to his detriment. The absence of factual dispute regarding these communications entitles Plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law.

1. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

1. Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” InL. p3-1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Once the moving party meets this burden, the non-moving party must present evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. InL. p3-2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Where the material facts are not in dispute and the record, taken as a whole, shows a violation of law, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is proper. See InL. p3-3 Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467 (1962).

III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1, Plaintiff submits

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 1752

the following Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment:

1. Plaintiff was employed by WestRock Services, LLC (“WestRock”) for several years and had a satisfactory work history prior to the events giving rise to this litigation. (InL. p4-1 Pl. Dep. at 20:3–21:5).

2. In or around 2019, Plaintiff began raising complaints to WestRock’s Human Resources department concerning a hostile work environment, workplace bullying, and mistreatment by his supervisor, Defendant Braverman. (InL. p4-2 Pl. Dep. at 160:1–174:25).

3. Plaintiff also reported that his work-issued computer was malfunctioning and repeatedly requested assistance and accommodation. These requests were ignored or inadequately addressed. (InL. p4-3 Id.; InL. p4-4 Am. Compl. ¶¶ __).

4. In early 2020, Plaintiff submitted medical documentation requesting a brief leave of absence due to stress and related symptoms. (See InL. p4-5 Doctor’s Note dated February 2020; InL. p4-6 Sedgwick File, WESTROCK 000300).

5. On or about February 24, 2020, WestRock placed Plaintiff on leave and required that he undergo an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) before being permitted to return to work. (InL. p4-7 Melvin Cert., ¶¶ 14–15; InL. p4-8 Grasty Cert., Ex. Y).

6. The IME was to be conducted remotely due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff advised Sedgwick, WestRock’s third-party administrator, that he lacked the technology necessary to complete a remote IME and had concerns about downloading apps. (InL. p4-9 Sedgwick Notes, WESTROCK 000300; InL. p4-10 Pl. Dep. at 549:21–25).

7. Plaintiff never refused to undergo the IME, but rather requested accommodations or alternatives to the remote process. WestRock did not provide a reasonable

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 1753

accommodation or make efforts to enable Plaintiff to participate in the IME. (InL. p5-1 Pl. Dep. at 544:4–10; 557:6–7).

1. Plaintiff was terminated by WestRock on April 22, 2020. (InL. p5-3 Grasty Cert., Ex. AA; InL. p5-4 Horner Cert., ¶ 10).

2. The stated reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were an alleged “threatening photo” and his purported refusal to submit to the IME. However, the photo was mischaracterized, and no credible threat was ever communicated. (InL. p5-5 Pl. Dep. at 138:6–21; InL. p5-6 Grasty Cert., Ex. A).

3. Plaintiff never met several of the Individual Defendants in person and had only passing email communication with others. (InL. p5-7 Pl. Dep. at 461:18–463:3; InL. p5-8 Melvin Cert., ¶ 18; InL. p5-9 Horner Cert., ¶¶ 2–3).

4. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in retaliation, failed to accommodate his disability, and misrepresented facts to Sedgwick and internally at WestRock, resulting in his unlawful termination.

5. Plaintiff has suffered economic and emotional damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct, including loss of employment, income, and mental distress.

III. ARGUMENT

I. Summary Judgment Should Be Granted in Plaintiff’s Favor Because the Undisputed Evidence Establishes That His Termination Was Unlawful Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity.

1. To prevail on a retaliation claim under Title VII and related statutes, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) engagement in protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. InL. p5-10 Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 340–41 (3d Cir. 2006). Here, the undisputed facts confirm each of

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 1754

these elements.

1. Plaintiff engaged in numerous protected activities throughout his employment, including submitting internal complaints about workplace safety, reporting bullying and harassment by his supervisor, and raising concerns about improper Human Resources conduct and failure to accommodate. These complaints were made in good faith, both verbally and in writing, and are protected under Title VII, the ADA, and analogous state laws.

2. Shortly after Plaintiff’s complaints were escalated—particularly his complaints about unsafe working conditions and management conduct—WestRock placed him on leave, citing a photo it purportedly viewed as threatening. There is no evidence that the photo in question was anything more than a personal image shared in a non-threatening context. Plaintiff was then subjected to an Independent Medical Exam (IME) requirement through Sedgwick, knowing he lacked the necessary technology for remote participation due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, WestRock failed to offer any accommodation or alternative means for compliance. The company’s decision to ignore Plaintiff’s requests and terminate him for failure to complete the IME was clearly pretextual.

3. The temporal proximity between Plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse action—being placed on leave and then terminated—strongly supports an inference of causation. See InL. p6-1 LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 232 (3d Cir. 2007). WestRock’s explanation that Plaintiff’s termination was based on “erratic behavior” and a photo taken out of context lacks evidentiary support and cannot justify summary judgment in its favor. Rather, it confirms the retaliatory nature of its actions.

II. WestRock Failed to Engage in the Interactive Process or Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 1755

1. The ADA requires employers to engage in an interactive process with employees who may require accommodations due to a disability. See InL. p7-1 Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 311 (3d Cir. 1999). Once WestRock placed Plaintiff on leave and required an IME, it had a duty to work with Plaintiff in good faith to explore means of compliance, especially once Plaintiff disclosed he lacked the technology to participate remotely.

2. The record shows that Plaintiff repeatedly informed Sedgwick and WestRock that he did not possess the necessary hardware or applications to complete a virtual IME. WestRock made no effort to offer an in-person evaluation, delay the process, or provide the tools needed. Instead, Plaintiff was punished for circumstances beyond his control. This failure to accommodate and communicate was a direct violation of the ADA, and WestRock cannot now hide behind Plaintiff's inability to complete an IME it failed to make accessible.

III. Plaintiff is Entitled to Judgment on His Negligent Misrepresentation Claim.

1. Plaintiff also brings a claim for negligent misrepresentation based on WestRock's failure to provide accurate information regarding his job status and disability benefits, as well as its failure to truthfully inform him of his rights and obligations under the Sedgwick process. Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must show: (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) made negligently; (3) on which the plaintiff reasonably relied; and (4) resulting damages. InL. p7-2 Pruco Life Ins. Co. of New Jersey v. Carrasco, 2022 WL 1210718, at *5 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2022).

2. WestRock misled Plaintiff into believing it would work with him through the IME and benefits process. It failed to clarify what technological requirements were necessary or provide assistance in meeting them. WestRock also delayed or declined to provide documentation needed to process Plaintiff's claim with Sedgwick, contributing to his disqualification and ultimate termination. Plaintiff relied on WestRock's representations and omissions to his detriment,

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 1756

suffering economic and emotional harm.

IV. Defendants' Justification for Termination Was Pretextual.

1. Even if WestRock claims it terminated Plaintiff for legitimate business reasons, those reasons are demonstrably false or exaggerated. A single photograph that WestRock construed as "threatening" was never the subject of an investigation or law enforcement inquiry, and Plaintiff was never disciplined or warned before his placement on leave. This overreaction to a benign photo—coupled with Plaintiff's known complaints about workplace conduct—suggests retaliatory motive, not legitimate concern.

2. Furthermore, the company's rush to judgment without affording Plaintiff any opportunity to respond or explain, and its complete failure to engage in any interactive process, undermines any claim that termination was justified. See InL. p8-1 Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 765 (3d Cir. 1994) (plaintiff can show pretext by pointing to "weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons").

V. Plaintiff is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law.

1. The facts in this case are not in dispute. Plaintiff was a long-time employee with no history of violence, threats, or disciplinary action. He was terminated following protected complaints, was subjected to an unreasonable and inaccessible IME process, and was never offered any accommodation or assistance. WestRock's shifting justifications and procedural failures leave no genuine issue for trial. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his retaliation, failure to accommodate, and negligent misrepresentation claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant his

Case 1:22-cv-04351-CPO-AMD Document 157 Filed 08/01/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 1757

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and enter judgment in his favor, and against Defendants, on all applicable counts of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff further requests that the Court award the following relief:

• Declaratory Judgment that Defendants’ actions constituted unlawful retaliation and violation of Plaintiff’s rights under federal and state law, including InL. p9-1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the InL. p9-2 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);
• Reinstatement to his former position, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement;
• Back pay and lost benefits, with interest, from the date of his unlawful termination to the present;
• Compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life;
• Punitive damages, to the extent permitted by law, for Defendants’ willful and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s protected rights;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to applicable law;
• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: July 31, 2025

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicholas_Fantini

Nicholas Fantini