New Jersey Discrimination Lawyers Tag Archives

Published on: August 15, 2022

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Employee’s Claims of Employer Retaliation for Filing Lawsuit Under NJ Law Against Discrimination

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is one of the main employee protections under New Jersey employment law. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently examined the anti-retaliation provisions of the Law Against Discrimination. us-supreme-court-300x200

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

The Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee or harassing them

Published on: January 11, 2022

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Prohibits Termination Influenced by Subordinate’s Gender Bias, State Supreme Court Rules

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In an important New Jersey employment law ruling, the State Supreme Court held that an employer’s decision to terminate or otherwise take action against an employee influenced by the discriminatory bias of a subordinate, rather than the decisionmakers themselves, nonetheless gavel-300x200 violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Background: Meade’s Employment

In the case of Michele Meade vs. the Township of Livingston, the Court explained that Michele Meade was the Township Manger for Livingston Township from 2015 until she was terminated by the Township Council in 2016. She was the first female Township Manager in Livingston’s history. She was replaced by a male candidate although there were female candidates, and when her replacement quit he was replaced by another male candidate.

Published on: September 22, 2021

State Supreme Court Rules on Punitive Damages Against Government Employers Under New Jersey Employment Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The State Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning New Jersey employment law. In the case of Pritchett v. State, the Court confirmed that punitive damages are available against public employers under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and justice-2060093_960_720-300x200 whistleblower protection laws, and defined the heightened standard under which trial judges must review such awards.

Background

Shelly Pritchett was a New Jersey State corrections officer. She suffered injuries breaking up a fight between two inmates. She received medical treatment and went on workers compensation leave. She recovered from the injuries, but during her treatment it was discovered that she might be in the early stages of multiple sclerosis (MS). She requested unpaid leave. Her captain wanted to deny the leave, but was advised by human resources, her supervisor and the facility’s deputy executive director of operations that the leave should be approved. While the captain remained adamantly against it, the leave was approved. However, Pritchett was told that no further extensions would be granted.

Published on: September 1, 2021

Third Circuit Weighs in on Retaliation Against Employees for Complaints of Discrimination

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Kengerski Case

The United State Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an important employment law decision interpreting Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the case of Kengerski v. Harper.

Kengerski filed a lawsuit alleging that he objected to racially offensive comments by a supervisor, and that he was fined in retaliation. This is dc-court-appeals-district-columbia-building-abraham-lincoln-statue-74985350 not a novel issue as Title VII, like New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, prohibits retaliation against employees who make complaints about discrimination. The novel question in this case was whether an employee could maintain a claim for retaliation when the complained of racially offensive conduct was not aimed at or about the employee himself. The court ruled emphatically that he could.

Published on: January 29, 2020

New Jersey Bans Discrimination Based on Hair Styles

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

People Of Uganda, People, Sad, Emotional
The Wrestling Incident

During an incident on December 19, 2018, a referee required an African American wrestler at Buena Regional High School choose between cutting his dreadlocks or forfeiting his wrestling match. Rather than forfeit the match, the wrestler chose to cut his hair. Because the incident had indicia of being racially motivated, or at least having a racially disparate impact, and allegations of racism by the same referee had previously been made, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) and the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (known as NJSIAA, the Association self-regulates high school sports in New Jersey) begin a joint investigation. The NJSIAA eventually suspended the referee for two years.

The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights’ Guidance

Published on: November 19, 2019

Equal Pay Act

by Pauline M.K. Young

Refugees, Economic Migrants

Governor Murphy signed New Jersey’s Equal Pay Act into law in 2018. The NJEPA takes a necessary step in making pay discrepancies in the workplace more transparent with the hopes that this will address the pay differential between white men minorities, and women. Essentially, it bars any penalty to any employee for requesting or disclosing information regarding any employee’s job title, rate of compensation, benefits, race, gender, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic when the purpose of the inquiry or disclosure to investigate the possibility of discriminatory treatment. (While the NJEPA was originally intended to address inequitable pay for women, it was expanded to cover all protected classes of people.)

This allows for employees to obtain information which previously (and even now) is largely safeguarded by employers as “private” in order to determine whether they are being discriminated against based upon a protected classification. Any employer “policy” which forbids discussing compensation in the workplace could be considered void by the law.

The NJEPA amended New Jersey’s Laws Against Discrimination to enable the use of the protections of that statute. The NJEPA also specifically makes it unlawful to pay employees in protected classes a different rate of compensation when performing substantially similar work considering skill, effort, and responsibilities. Differentials may still exist when based on seniority, merit, education, productivity, experience, and other legitimate business reasons. The Act also allows expands upon the LAD’s typical 2-year statute of limitations by setting forth that limitation period restarts each time the employee receives unequal compensation resulting from a discriminatory decision or practice. The employee may also recover up to 6 years of back pay as a result of a violation by the employer. Additionally, the employee may receive treble damages – meaning that they may recover three times the monetary damages awarded as a result of the pay discrepancy.

Published on: September 7, 2017

New Jersey’s Supreme Court Issues Major Decision on Disability Discrimination in Employment Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

group-418449__340-300x300 Our labor and employment attorneys represent employers and employees in cases of wrongful termination and discrimination. This is an area of New Jersey employment law which generates considerable litigation. New Jersey’s Supreme Court recently issued an important opinion on when an employee may be terminated because her disability impairs her ability to perform the essential functions of her job.

Maryanne Grande had been a registered nurse for thirty years, and employed by St. Claire’s Health System for ten years, from 2000 through 2010. St. Claire’s job description for a registered nurse included lifting fifty pounds from waist to chest “frequently” as an “essential” job function. Grande suffered a series of injuries at work beginning in 2007. Her final injury was suffered while she was preventing an overweight patient from falling. Her doctor cleared her to resume full-duty work. However, St. Claire’s ordered her to undergo a physical with its own doctor, who said she could perform lifting only “occasionally,” which it defined as “1-33% of the time.” However, the report also concluded that it was “improbable that this will significantly affect job performance ability.” The report also concluded that Grande could return to work with “altered duties.”

Her own doctor again examined her and provided her with a form which said she could return to work with only certain limitations on lifting. The next day Grande was fired. She returned to her doctor, who cleared her to return to full-time duty with no restrictions. However the termination was not rescinded.