In the unpublished case of Cohen v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, A-1300-12T1, the plaintiff, a sixty-nine year old associate professor, alleged age discrimination in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination when replaced by a sixty-six year old.  The trial court said  that’s not really age discrimination and dismissed and the appellate division said “not so fast.”  The trial court granted summary judgment to UMDNJ finding that the plaintiff failed to offer evidence that she was replaced by a younger candidate finding that her sixty-six year old replacement was “not significantly younger than the plaintiff.”  In reversing the trial court, the Appellate Division reinforced the Supreme Court’s rejection of merely comparing the age of the two individuals.  Rather, the Appellate Division indicates that courts should also consider: actions or remarks made by a decision maker reflective of discriminatory intent; preferential treatment given to non-protected employees; systematic transfer of discharged employee’s duties to other employees; a pattern of recommending the affected employee for positions for which they are not qualified; the failure to consider the employee for other positions; the timing or sequencing of events leading to the termination and the employer’s efforts in continuing to seek applicants to fill the position.