New Jersey Employment Attorneys

Published on: October 9, 2019

Third Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict Finding Age Discrimination Under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination has rightly been called one of the strongest employee protection laws in the nation. This is true both because of the broad range of inherent characteristics which it protects from discrimination, and the strong legal protections and remedies it provides. In short, the Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a wide range of inherent qualities which make them who they are. It likewise prohibits harassment because any of these characteristics as well. These protected characteristics include race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service, and mental or physical disability, including AIDS and HIV related illnesses. It also prohibits discrimination or harassment because of an employee’s age.

The Andujar Case

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from the federal district courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the United States Virgin Islands, recently issued an instructive opinion in the appeal of an age discrimination verdict under the Law Against Discrimination in the case of Santos Andujar versus General Nutrition Corporation.

Published on: June 3, 2019

Third Circuit Issues Important Decision on Non-Solicitation and Non-Compete Agreements Under New Jersey Employment Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

desk-3491990__340-290x300
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears appeals from the federal district courts in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the United States Virgin Islands) recently had the opportunity to address the state of New Jersey employment law on restrictive covenants in the case of ADP, LLC v. Rafferty.

Background

In the Rafferty case, two ADP employees, Kristi Mork and Nicole Rafferty, agreed to restrictive covenants in exchange for an award of company stock. Because they were high performing employees, they agreed to restrictions in exchange for the stock award which were more onerous than lower performing employees were required to agree to. The restrictions applied whether they quit or were fired.

Published on: May 31, 2019

Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court Explains Standard for Evaluating Motions to Dismiss Claims of Age and Disability Discrimination Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background: The Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (often referred to as the “LAD” or the “NJLAD”) prohibits discrimination and harassment against employees because of a wide variety of immutable characteristics. Among these are protections against discrimination and harassment because of an employee’s age and disability. The Law Against Discrimination’s protections have been described as among the strongest in the country.

The Caraballero Case

Published on: March 4, 2019

Changes to New Jersey’s Family Leave Act

by Pauline M.K. Young

girl-2607176__340-300x240 There are many types of medical leave benefits which exist in New Jersey for employees, and they are ever-expanding and evolving. There is the federal Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) which allows an employee to take time off from work either for that employee’s own medical issues or to care for a seriously ill family member. The FMLA allows an employee to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave each year as long as the employer has fifty or more employees.

To supplement this, in 2008 New Jersey enacted the Family Leave Act. That law provided up to six weeks of paid time off for employees to care for sick family members or newborn babies. The FLA did not cover time off for the employee’s own illness (because that is covered by New Jersey’s Temporary Disability Insurance laws (“TDI”)). Still, under the FLA, employees could take 6 weeks off to bond with or care for a family member and their jobs were protected during that period. The employee would receive up to 2/3rds of their normal weekly salary or wages (or approximately 66% of wages), up to a maximum of $650 per week. As with the FMLA, the FLA only applied to employers with fifty or more employees.

For an employee who had to be out for her own medical condition, pregnancy, or disability, that employee could file for TDI benefits. To qualify for TDI, an employee would need to be out of work for a medical reason for more than seven days. TDI benefits provide employees with up to 26 weeks of partial salary replacement. As with the 2008 FLA, the employee could receive up to 2/3rds of her normal wages. However, with TDI, that amount maxes-out at $637 per week.

Published on: November 12, 2018

While Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Extends Federal Age Discrimination Protections for Public Employees, New Jersey Law Already Offered Strong Protection to Older Government Employees

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

creative-signstop-age-discrimination-260nw-520754950-300x215 Amazingly, despite the law being clear for many years that age discrimination in employment is illegal, and despite the fact that both research and experience have shown the value of mature workers, age discrimination against older employees continues to be widespread in New Jersey and the country at large. Both the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination provide strict prohibitions against employers and supervisors discriminating against older employees.

Sometimes, however, the boundaries of these laws are unclear, and guidance from the Courts is required. On November 6, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision affecting the rights of state and local government employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Mount Lemmon Fire District Case and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Published on: November 8, 2018

Union Members May Opt-Out of Paying Dues

by Pauline M.K. Young

we-566326__340-300x135 On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued an important employment law decision in the case of Janus v. American Federal of State, County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”). Prior to Janus, the general law was that public sector unions (i.e. unions comprised of governmental employees) could collect fees from employees even when the employee did not want to join the union. The prior law was set in the case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,a prior United States Supreme Court case from 1977.

In Abood, the Court held that a public employee could still be required to pay union dues to cover collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievances even if they refused to join the union. The employee could only opt out of paying a portion of fees which were used for political purposes. Much of the reasoning for that holding was that public employees would benefit from union activities and thus should have to pay for such activities; however they did not need to pay for ideological or political support which the employee did not support. Being forced to make donations to political candidates through mandatory union dues was found to be a violation of First Amendment rights.

However, the Janus ruling changed that long-followed law. Janus argued that everything a public-sector union does (including bargaining for wages) is inherently political because it involves the use of taxpayer money, and therefore all mandatory union dues protected by the First Amendment. One concern is that this could potentially have a negative effect upon democratic political support where unions are generally very active in supporting candidates.

Published on: June 24, 2018

FAQ’s on New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Legislation

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

men-1979261__340-300x200 New Jersey has joined nine other states and the District of Columbia in enacting a law to require that employers must provide their employees with paid sick leave. The law is among the toughest in the nation, and imposes many new requirements on employers. Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Law.

What employers must provide paid sick leave?

Virtually all of them.

Published on: February 6, 2018

Mandatory Pay for Breaks Under the Fair Labor Standard Act

by Pauline M.K. Young

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is a federal statute enacted in 1938 with the goal of setting national minimum requirements for employee compensation. It covers areas such as minimum wage and overtime, among other things.

On February 9, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was the first United States Federal Circuit Court to address an area of the FLSA which is invoked relatively rarely in civil lawsuits involving compensation disputes. In a case captioned: Secretary, United States Department of Labor v. American Future Systems, Inc., the Department of Labor (“DOL”) sued on behalf of the employees of American Future Systems, Inc., claiming that the employer was violating the FLSA by not paying employees for time that they were logged off of their computers over 90 seconds.

The employer did not deny that it was not paying employees for “breaks” in excess of 90 seconds. The dispute was whether that non-payment violated the FLSA. Two different sections of the FLSA were evaluated.

Published on: January 11, 2018

United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals Extends Winters Doctrine, Further Limiting New Jersey Government Employees’ Right to Appeal Wrongful Employment Decisions

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Our employment lawyers represent many honorable New Jersey employees in disputes with their governmental employers.

The Winters Doctrine

As I wrote in a previous post, in 2012 the New Jersey Supreme Court created a serious hurdle for public employees. In the case of Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, the Supreme Court held that an adjudication by the Civil Service Commission of allegations that a termination was illegal retaliation (even raised tangentially) barred subsequent litigation for violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (known as “CEPA”) based on the same facts in a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court. The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court subsequently held that such a bar applied to claims of retaliation raised in disciplinary appeals under both CEPA and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (known as the “LAD”).

Published on: January 9, 2018

New Jersey’s Ban on Employers Inquiring about Criminal History Background Checks

by Pauline M.K. Young

police-2122373__340-300x200 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:

Criminal background checks by employers have increased dramatically with an estimated ninety percent of employers in the country conducting such checks as a matter of course during the hiring process;
Barriers to employment based upon a criminal record could affect approximately sixty five million people in the United States;