A Superior Court judge rejected Jackson Township’s bid to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit, sharply criticizing the legal arguments presented.
Toms River, NJ – A New Jersey Superior Court judge has denied a motion by Jackson Township to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit, delivering a pointed rebuke of the township’s legal strategy during proceedings.
Judge Valter H. Must’s denial comes after township attorneys filed a motion under Rule 4:6-2(e) seeking to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were legally deficient and that they relied on facts not properly included in the original filing.
During arguments, the court rejected those claims outright. “This motion was ridiculous,” said attorney Kevin Lynch, referencing the township’s attempt to end the case at an early stage.
Judge rejects dismissal arguments
The defendants had argued that the plaintiff failed to establish key legal elements, including wrongful termination and discrimination claims, asserting that new allegations—such as a February 2026 termination—could not be considered because they were not part of the original complaint.
Despite those arguments, the judge denied the motion and issued a warning to township counsel, stating they “know exactly where this case is going” and why, according to statements made in court and slammed their attempts to have the valid case dismissed in court.
The case revolves around the alleged wrongful termination of former employee Marianne Horta, who claims she was fired without cause after current Mayor Jennifer Kuhn made statements that she wanted to fire “Her and her retarded son” in town hall. Her son Anthony who suffers from mental disabilities is also an employee with the township.
Key Points
- Judge denied Jackson Township’s motion to dismiss discrimination lawsuit
- Court criticized township legal arguments during proceedings
- Case will move forward despite claims of defective complaint
Legal history and prior settlements
The legal team representing Jackson Township in this case is the same firm involved in the prior litigation surrounding former Police Chief Matthew Kunz, which resulted in a $2 million settlement. They are being represented by Barker Gelfand, James & Sarvas of Linwood.
In the current case, township attorneys argued the complaint lacked sufficient factual support and attempted to limit amendments to only narrow procedural corrections and post-complaint developments, leading to the judge’s sharp rebuke and outright denial of that stance.
However, the court’s denial preserves all major claims, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with litigation against the township and its officials. The case now advances to the next phase in Ocean County Superior Court, where additional filings and potential discovery are expected.
