New Jersey Lawyers Blog
Both New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and the Federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of their religious practices if they can be reasonably accommodated. In many cases the most difficult question is whether an accommodation which the employer could have provided was “reasonable.” However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision on the unusual question of whether an employee’s honestly and strongly held beliefs could be considered “religious” under Title VII.
Paul Fallon had been an employee of Mercy Medical Center since 1994. In 2012, Mercy instituted a rule that all employees had to receive a flu vaccination each year. Mercy allowed for religious exemptions. Fallon requested and was granted exemptions in 2012 and 2013. However, she was denied in 2014 because Mercy had changed its definition of religious exemption. There was no question that Fallon’s objection was because of his sincerely held belief that the vaccination did more harm than good. However, he cited no religious source, just his belief that it is wrong to cause harm to your own body. Mercy decided that this reason was not “religious” under its policy, and ordered Fallon to get the shot or provide a letter from clergy explaining why he could not get the vaccination for religious reasons. He failed to provide the letter and refused to be vaccinated. Mercy therefore fired him.
Fallon filed suit in Federal District Court alleging that Mercy had fired him because of his religious beliefs, and therefore committed religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. The trial judge disagreed and dismissed his suit. Fallon appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit agreed with the trial judge’s opinion and upheld the decision.
In the case of DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC, a former pharmaceutical employee brought an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against her former employer for retaliation in the form of a wrongful, constructive discharge. In that case, the employee specifically brought claims under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) 
Our employment lawyers represent many honorable New Jersey employees in disputes with their governmental employers.
In 2014, New Jersey’s Governor Christie signed The Opportunity to Compete Act which limited an employer’s ability to ask a potential employee about criminal records in many circumstances. The State passed this law based upon several findings, including:
New Jersey employment law protects employees who object to or report illegal conduct by their employers. New Jersey’s whistleblower protections, particularly the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, have been recognized as the strongest in the nation. The various sources of these protections are discussed below.
The short answer is: yes.
Disputes over construction projects can be costly, time-consuming, complex and unpredictable endeavors. Arbitration is a mechanism often used to avoid these pitfalls by many in New Jersey construction law. Attorneys from our firm have significant experience in litigating and arbitrating construction disputes. One of the most contentious areas is whether a dispute is subject to arbitration or whether it may be litigated in court. Even more complex is trying to figure out which parts, if any, are covered by an arbitration in multi-issue disputes. New Jersey’s courts recently faced just this problem and issued an important precedential decision.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued an important decision in the case of 
Where We Stand