Labor and Employment

Published on: March 25, 2012

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

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

Published on: February 29, 2012

Looking for a Job in New Jersey – Employees Beware!

by Boris Peyner

Employers commonly require that potential employees sign agreements waiving their right to jury trials and, instead, requiring them to arbitration all disputes arising from their employment. New Jersey and Federal law supports enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Arbitration agreements are controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act and the New Jersey Arbitration Act. In arbitration, a dispute is submitted to a neutral third-party who makes a binding decision.

Although arbitration can be cheaper and faster than litigation, it is more advantageous to the employer. First, a decision is made by a single person (usually a lawyer or a retired judge) instead of a jury, which might be more sympathetic to an employee (especially since the arbitrator will know that the employer drafted the agreement and chose arbitration). In addition, discovery of information between the parties is significantly limited, favoring the employer which has most of the evidence, especially in a suit for wrongful firing. It is also difficult to appeal an arbitration agreement.

It is important to read employment documents presented carefully. People presented with arbitration agreements should seek an attorney’s advice because courts generally enforce arbitration agreements, even though they appear to be contracts of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is an agreement that is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis by a party with dominant bargaining power. Normally contracts of adhesion are unenforceable. However, in 2002 the New Jersey Supreme Court in Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., ruled that employment agreements requiring arbitration are not contracts of adhesion.
Continue reading