Labor and Employment

Published on: August 20, 2012

A New Jersey Residential Tenant’s Rights

New Jersey landlord-tenant law offers residential tenants a great deal of protection to ensure that people have a secure and safe place to live, provided that tenants comply with their duties and responsibilities.

A landlord/tenant relationship typically begins with the signing of a lease. The lease is a contract – a legal document which specifies the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant to one another.

In a typical lease, tenants are required to pay rent and a security deposit, take good care of the premises, and comply with all laws. Often tenants are required to pay the utilities and request permission from landlords before obtaining a pet or altering the premises by, for example, repainting rooms. Landlords, on the other hand, have the responsibility to provide tenants with safe premises that are supplied by water, heat, and proper facilities for installation of a refrigerator.

Beyond their contractual responsibilities, landlords and tenants have other responsibilities to each other. However, the responsibilities of New Jersey landlords far exceed those of tenants. For example, tenants have the right of “quiet enjoyment.” Landlords must ensure that New Jersey tenants can live in their premises without any disturbances from other tenants or the landlord.

Further, New Jersey does not allow landlords or police officers to evict tenants by locking them out of the premises. A “self-help” eviction is illegal and in New Jersey is considered a criminal offense. Evictions may only be completed by special court officers with a warrant for removal issued by a judge.
Continue reading

Published on: June 11, 2012

New Jersey Employees’ Rights to Unemployment

by Pauline M.K. Young

The purpose of New Jersey’s Unemployment Compensation Law is protecting people from the harsh effects of losing their jobs, and providing a safety cushion for this sudden loss of employment.

Most employees are “at will” employees. This means that there are no contractual terms of employment or specific requirements for termination. An employer in such a relationship can fire the employee for just about any reason as long as that reason is not discriminatory or retaliatory, i.e. in response to a valid objection by the employee to the legality of the employer’s conduct.

So, an employer can walk into work one day and decide to fire the first person he sees, no matter who that person is, and no matter how well that worker performs her job. In such a situation, although there is no “good” reason for that firing, it is not illegal. However, that employee is able to make a claim for unemployment compensation since her firing was done though no fault of the employee. After all, this is required insurance for which every employee pays.

In order to make a claim for unemployment compensation, the employee is required to have had at least 20 “base weeks” of earnings or have earned a certain minimum required dollar amount. These amounts may be periodically adjusted by the State to reflect changes in income rates, for instance taking into consideration the State’s hourly minimum wage. In 2012, this meant that, in order to qualify for unemployment compensation, the employee had to have worked for the employer for at least 20 weeks in which the employee earned $145.00 or more, or at least $7,300.
Continue reading

Published on: May 25, 2012

Mis-aimed Discrimination is No Defense to a Violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, or the Bigots Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”) protects many people, particularly employees, from discrimination because of their race, ethnicity or religion, among other things. Discrimination can take many forms, but includes direct tangible adverse employment actions, such as firing, demotion, etc., and harassment which cause a hostile work environment. In order to constitute discrimination, harassment must be either “severe or pervasive,” and severe or pervasive enough to create a “hostile work environment.”

The Law on Poorly Aimed Discrimination

The law prohibiting discrimination and harassment is well established. However, an issue arose as to whether discrimination or harassment based not on a person’s actual race, ethnicity or religion, but on his incorrectly perceived religion, race or ethnicity is also protected.

The LAD also protects against discrimination or harassment based on disability. As far back as 1982, New Jersey Supreme Court noted in a footnote, Anderson v. Exxon Co., 89 N.J. 483 (1982), that employers could not discriminate based on a perceived disability, even if the employee was not actually disabled. Although that was not the issue in the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision, the Appellate Division shortly thereafter decided another case, affirming the rule that employers could not discriminate based on a perceived, even if an incorrectly perceived, physical disability.

The LAD also prohibits discrimination in housing. In 1987, the Superior Court’s trial division found that a landlord had violated the LAD by refusing to rent an apartment to three gay men (sexual orientation is also protected by the LAD), based on the landlord’s perceived but on the mistaken perception that they would contract AIDS.
Continue reading

Published on: May 10, 2012

Powell v. Wachovia New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law Doesn’t Protect All Complaints

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) is New Jersey’s whistleblower protection law. CEPA provides perhaps the broadest and strongest legal protections in the country against whistleblower retaliation. However, it does not protect against all employee complaints that an employer is doing something it shouldn’t. In the recent case of Powell v. Wachovia Corporation, the Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court once again defined the outer limits of what objections are protected.

CEPA: New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the “Whistleblower Law.”

Among other things, CEPA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who object to or refuse to participate in an employer activity, policy or practice which they reasonably believe violates a law, regulation or public policy, or which is criminal or fraudulent.

Examples of objections which New Jersey courts have found to be protected be protected under CEPA include:

New Jersey’s Supreme Court held that complaints about inadequate ventilation in a school shop affecting health and safety outlined in a guide incorporating regulations constituted clear mandate of public policy.

New Jersey’s Supreme Court found that objections that police selectively refused to enforce laws regarding sex-industry was complaint of violation of law affecting public welfare.

The Appellate Division held that objections to adoption of dog which had previously been violent impacted clear mandate of public policy to protect public from vicious dogs.

The Appellate Division found that a grammar school custodian objecting to unsanitary conditions in a student lavatory constituted objection regarding clear mandate of public policy.

What Happened Between Powell and His Employer, Wachovia

James Powell was a “benefits producer” for several insurance companies which were eventually acquired by Wachovia. As a benefits producer, Powell’s job was to market, sell and place insurance policies provided by companies as employee benefits. Powell was an “at-will” employee. However, he and his fellow benefits producers at Wachovia’s Wayne, New Jersey, were compensated under a contract from 1993 which had long ago expired. Under this scheme, they were paid fifty per cent of the revenue they generated.
Continue reading

Published on: April 17, 2012

Both the Federal and New Jersey WARN Acts Protect New Jersey Employees in Layoffs

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

We live in a time of economic turmoil. New Jersey’s unemployment rate stands at nine percent, well above the national average. Many New Jersey employees find themselves losing what they thought were secure jobs. Loss of a job can lead to devastating consequences. However, both the Federal and New Jersey WARN Acts require employers to provide advance notice before instituting mass layoffs.

The Federal WARN Act.

The Federal Warn Act was passed by Congress in 1988. It was designed to give workers and their families advance notice of mass layoffs to allow them, and their communities, to prepare for the impact of plant closings. It was passed with a veto-proof majority; it thus became law even though President Reagan did not sign it.

The Federal Warn Act requires 60 days notice to workers (or their union) who are affected by mass layoffs or plant shutdowns. It covers businesses with 100 full or part-time employees who work a combined 4000 hours per week or more. It covers plant shutdowns of at least 30 days which affect at least 50 employees, or mass layoffs affecting at least one third of the workers at a single worksite.

Exceptions to the notice requirements are made for closings or layoffs resulting from unforeseeable events or business circumstances. An employee who did not receive the notice can sue for unpaid wages and the employer may have to cover her attorneys fees, in the court’s discretion, if the failure was not in good faith. The employer may also face penalties.
Continue reading

Published on: April 8, 2012

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Jersey Business Taxpayers Can Correct the Misclassification of Workers with Minimal Tax Liability

by Pauline M.K. Young

Businesses with any New Jersey employees are responsible for withholding and paying income taxes, Medicare taxes, and Social Security, and paying payroll taxes on wages paid to their employees. However, in general, the same businesses do not have to do so when hiring independent contractors.

Therefore, it may be tempting for a business to classify all workers as independent contractors to avoid payments. However, the Internal Revenue Service and New Jersey Division of Taxation have stringent regulations to ensure that businesses correctly classify their workers. The IRS imposes significant penalties on businesses which have misclassified their workers as independent contractors.

A worker is an independent contractor if the “employer” has the right to direct only the result, but not the way in which the worker performs her job. For example, if a business hires a New Jersey attorney to sue another company for breach of a contract, the business does not direct the attorney on how to argue the case, what motions to file, etc. The client educates the attorney about the dispute and asks the attorney to work towards a certain result (recovering lost profits). Therefore, this attorney is a New Jersey independent contractor, not an employee.
Continue reading

Published on: March 30, 2012

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Pregnancy Discrimination
In 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) received the largest number of complaints of pregnancy discrimination in its history. Pregnancy discrimination has been increasing since at least 1992. Pregnancy discrimination in New Jersey, New York and nationally continues to be a major problem.

It is illegal to discriminate against pregnant mothers. Pregnancy discrimination in New York and New Jersey is barred by law. Employers may not refuse to hire pregnant women, fire pregnant women, or lay employees off because of their pregnancy, harass or transfer them because of their pregnancy, or shift them to work that is perceived as “safer” or “lighter.” The only exception is that transfers can be made as a legitimate accommodation for the specific medical needs of a particular employee.

Employers are permitted to ask the estimated delivery date and expected length of leave before and after delivery, but they are not allowed to ask for a specific date that pregnancy leave will begin. Employers must rehire mothers after delivery, and make reasonable accommodations beforehand.

New Jersey Law
New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination bans discrimination based on “sex.” The New Jersey’s Supreme Court has ruled that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy.

Federal Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 likewise prohibits pregnancy discrimination. In 1978, Congress enacted the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII to include pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination. It also prohibits discrimination based on medical conditions related to pregnancy. It provides that if an employer offers a health plan, pregnancy must be a covered condition. However, the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, being part of Title VII, only covers employers with 50 or more employees.
Continue reading

Published on: March 27, 2012

the cats paw

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Both state and federal laws govern family leave in New Jersey. The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and New Jersey Family Leave Act (FLA) have long provided 12 weeks of unpaid family leave for employees of employers with at least 50 employees. In 2008, New Jersey passed the New Jersey Paid Family Leave Act.

The Paid Family Leave Act mandates six weeks of paid family leave to care for a newborn or newly-adopted child, or to care for a family member with a serious health condition.

Eligible employees receive two-thirds of their salary (up to $524 per week). The benefits are paid by the State and funded by a tax from all employees’ paychecks; employers do not incur any direct costs.
Continue reading

Published on: March 25, 2012

The Cat’s Paw In Federal And New Jersey Discrimination Cases

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that a fired employee can sue his employer for the harm he suffered from “cat’s paw discrimination” because of his membership in the Army Reserve. Federal and state courts have ruled that “cat’s paw” liability applies in a wide variety of other New Jersey discrimination.

The Cat’s Paw.

In Aesop’s Fables, a monkey convinces a cat to pull chestnuts from a fire. The monkey then eats them, leaving the cat with burnt paws and no chestnuts. A “cat’s paw” case happens when a decisionmaker has no intent to discriminate herself, but fires or penalizes in reliance on another employee’s input which was motivated by discrimination. It is sometimes been called “subordinate bias” because it holds the employer responsible for the discrimination or retaliation of someone below the decisionmaker.

The Supreme Court and Cat’s Paw Discrimination Against Members of the Armed Forces.

The United States Supreme Court recently allowed a hospital employee who was fired because of his Army Reserve service to sue for “cats paw” discrimination.
Continue reading

Published on: March 8, 2012

Whistleblower Protection: Employers Can’t Fire New Jersey Whistleblowers or Their Fiancés

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision on a contentious question in employment law , with important implications for New Jersey employment disputes – can an employee who did not engage in protected activity sue his employer for firing him to retaliate against a friend or family member who is a whistleblower? Lower courts had split, but the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the employee and said yes.

Anti-Discrimination Statutes

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment because of an employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination also prohibits discrimination for these reasons, and also because of an employee’s age, ancestry, disability, marital or civil union status, domestic partnership status, sexual orientation, gender identity, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, military service obligations, nationality, genetic information, refusal to submit to a genetic test, or refusal to let an employer know the results of a genetic test.

Both Title VII and the New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who make complaints of discrimination.
Continue reading