New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

New Jersey Court Revives Employee’s Hostile Work Environment Claim

September 26, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Workers in Bergen County and across New Jersey have the right to a workplace free of harassment. A recent decision from the Appellate Division, Burga v. UniFirst Corp., demonstrates that courts will allow sexual harassment claims to move forward when there is evidence of a hostile work environment and inadequate employer response.

bigstock-Sexual-Harassment-At-Workplace-364241905 This case serves as an important reminder that employees who experience sexual harassment and retaliation can challenge the employer’s actions under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

The Facts of the Case

Daniela Burga began working for UniFirst Corporation in 2019 as a customer service representative. Her role involved managing client accounts and working closely with route service managers. Four of her assigned routes were supervised by Victor Gomez, a UniFirst manager.

New Protection for Employees From Political Speech by Employers

September 3, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Today, Governor Murphy signed into law an amendment to a New Jersey employment law that will protect most employees from being forced to listen to their employer’s political or religious opinions. The statute is expressly intended to ensure that workers are permitted to perform their jobs rather than having to listen to their employer’s political speech.

More specifically, the amended law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting, or requiring them to participate in communications with the employer, that express the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters. It defines “political matters” to include the decision to join or support any political party, or any political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization or association. It also includes electioneering, which means communications that advocate for a political candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a municipal, runoff, school board, special or general election, as well as other communication that clearly identify a public question or referendum, or that no reasonable person could interpret in any way other than to communicate support or opposition regarding a public question or referendum.

This new law includes numerous specific exceptions. For example, it does not:

Federal Court Allows Newark Employee’s Religious Discrimination Claim to Proceed

August 10, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Workers in Bergen County and throughout New Jersey have the right to practice their faith without sacrificing their jobs. A recent federal decision, Aquil v. City of Newark, underscores that employees have the right not to be subjected to religious discrimination at work. The ruling confirms that, when a worker pleads enough facts to show a possible violation, the case can move forward toward a trial on the merits. bigstock-Muslim-Man-Praying-At-Mosque-67497454

The Facts of the Case

Akmal Aquil, a City of Newark employee, is a practicing Muslim. He alleges that his work schedule conflicted with his religious obligations. Specifically, he sought to attend Jumu’ah, the weekly congregational prayer each Friday. He told Newark that he could adjust his lunch break, make up time later in the day, or work additional hours during the week to ensure he still completed his job duties.

According to Mr. Aquil, the City refused these reasonable proposals and instead disciplined him for leaving work on Fridays. Specifically, Newark suspended him, claiming he had engaged in public unbecoming a public employee because he left work early to attend religious services without permission.

Court Revives Worker’s Sexual Harassment Case Against Employer After Disputed Transfer

July 6, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

If an employer fails to protect its workers from sexual harassment, especially by someone in the same workplace it may be held accountable under New Jersey law. That is the takeaway from a recent appellate decision that reinstated a certified alcohol and drug counselor’s lawsuit against her employer, Center for Family Services (CFS), after she alleged months of harassment by a male caseworker who worked in the same office.

bigstock-Sexual-Harassment-At-Workplace-365528596 Although the counselor, Kristine Bodnar, worked inside a state agency’s office, the Appellate Division held that her actual employer, a nonprofit social services provider contracted to work with the state’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), still could be liable for failing to protect her.

What Happened in the Case?

Kristine Bodnar was employed by CFS and assigned to work on-site at DCPP’s Burlington east office. Ms. Bodnar alleges that Ian Palumbo, a DCPP employee who worked in the same shared workspace, repeatedly harassed her over the course of several months, sending her inappropriate text messages and making unwelcome sexual comments and advances. She also alleges that Mr. Palumbo touched her hair and back, stood too close to her, and made comments and jokes about her supposedly having a sexual relationship with one of her coworkers.

Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Reverse Discrimination Standard in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

June 7, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

bigstock-young-attractive-tired-overwo-26167562

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, clarifying the legal standards that apply in workplace “reverse discrimination” cases. The Court held that plaintiffs are not subject to a heightened burden when alleging discrimination simply because they are part of a majority group. This decision is a significant victory for workers of all backgrounds and reinforces that Title VII protects everyone equally from discriminatory employment practices.

The Facts of the Case

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a newly created management position within the agency. The role was ultimately given to a lesbian colleague. Soon after, the employer demoted Ms. Ames from her role as a program administrator to an executive secretary—a position she had held 15 years earlier. This demotion came with a significant salary reduction. Her former role was filled by a gay male employee.

Ms. Ames believed she had been discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. She filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that both the denial of her promotion and the subsequent demotion were motivated by unlawful bias.

The Applicable Law

Title VII is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 2020, the United States Supreme Court concluded that Title VII’s protection includes sexual orientation.

When an employee claims discrimination without direct evidence, courts typically apply a burden-shifting framework. In these situations, an employee must first present a prima facie case of discrimination, which usually involves showing 1) they belong to a protected category, 2) they were qualified for the job, 3) they suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) someone outside the protected category was treated more favorably.

NJ Court Affirms Jury’s Discrimination Verdict Against Newark Public Schools

June 3, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

bigstock-Tensed-school-teacher-sitting-139644923 In many employment discrimination cases, it can be difficult to prove what really motivated a company’s decision to fire, demote, or pass over a qualified worker for a promotion. But sometimes, someone in power simply says the quiet part out loud—and when that happens, the law is clear. That was the situation in a recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division, where two longtime educators claimed they were denied promotions because of their race and age. The appellate court upheld the jury’s verdict in their favor, offering important takeaways about how direct evidence can impact the outcome of a workplace discrimination case.

The Facts

The plaintiffs, Anna D’Antonio and Donna Stridacchio, were both long-serving White women who built their careers in the Newark school system. They applied for new vice principal positions after the School District restructured and eliminated their former roles. Both women had decades of experience, advanced degrees, and administrative certifications.

Despite their qualifications, the District passed them over. It instead selected other candidates, some of whom had limited experience or negative performance histories. In response, the plaintiffs filed suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging the District unlawfully used their race and age against them in the selection process.

NJ Appellate Court Reinstates Whistleblower and Retaliation Claims Following Early-Stage Dismissal

May 6, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A bigstock-Lovely-nurse-helping-old-woman-426080825 recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division serves as a strong reminder to employers: workers who speak up about unsafe conditions or violations of state regulations cannot be retaliated against. In Hussain v. Allies, Inc., the court revived a former group home manager’s whistleblower and wrongful discharge claims after she was fired shortly after raising concerns about staff training, resident care, and wage issues. The ruling clarifies important protections under New Jersey’s whistleblower law—and reinforces that workers cannot be punished for trying to report violations of the law.

At Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C., we help workers across Bergen County and throughout New Jersey assert their rights under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), especially when employers retaliate after health and safety concerns are raised.

What Happened in This Case?

Sharon Hussain was employed as a Support Manager at a group home operated by Allies, Inc. Her job involved overseeing staff responsible for the care of individuals with developmental disabilities. During her employment, she voiced serious concerns to her supervisors, including that:

staff-to-resident ratios were dangerously low and inconsistent with state regulations.
employees lacked proper medical training, such as how to check residents’ blood sugar.
training for care staff relied primarily on videos and did not meet hands-on requirements mandated by law.

Her concerns were based on regulations in New Jersey’s Administrative Code, specifically N.J.A.C. 10:44A-2.7, which outlines training requirements for staff caring for developmentally disabled residents.

NJ Supreme Court Holds Commission Are “Wages” Under the State’s Wage Payment Law

March 18, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a landmark decision on March 17, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Rosalyn Musker v. Suuchi, Inc. that commissions are unequivocally considered “wages” under the NJ Wage Payment Law (WPL). This ruling strengthens protections for New Jersey employees, ensuring employers cannot evade their obligation to pay earned commissions.

The Facts of the Case

Plaintiff Rosalyn Ms. Musker was employed by Suuchi, Inc., a company specializing in software subscriptions for apparel manufacturers. Initially hired for administrative duties with an annual salary of $80,000, Ms. Musker transitioned to a sales role in February 2020. In this capacity, she was eligible for commissions under Suuchi’s Sales Commission Plan (SCP), which incentivized sales based on Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR).

In March 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Suuchi expanded its product line to include Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Suuchi offered commissions to employees for PPE sales, as outlined in internal communications.

New Jersey Appellate Court Clarifies NJFLA Protections in Recent Decision

February 19, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

When your employer denies you a leave to care for a loved one, it can feel like you are being forced to choose between your job and your family. Fortunately, New Jersey law provides strong protections for employees under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). However, as a recent appellate decision illustrates, not all employers take these rights seriously. In the case, Hyra v. Chipotle Services, a federal court in New Jersey weighs in on a case in which the employer was alleged to have terminated a pregnant employee for exercising her rights under the NJFLA.

The Facts of the Case

Angela Hyra began working for Chipotle in 2017. Chipotle promoted her multiple times, eventually making her a general manager. She had no history of disciplinary action during her nearly seven-year tenure at the company.

In June 2023, Ms. Hyra informed her direct supervisor, Kushal Sridhar, that she was pregnant. Soon after, Mr. Sridhar removed Ms. Hyra from the process of becoming a certified training manager. Mr. Sridhar also removed another pregnant employee from her role as apprentice general manager, stating that it “did not make sense” to keep her in the position since she soon would be going on maternity leave. Chipotle later gave that job to a male employee. Continue reading

Supreme Court Rules on FLSA Exemptions in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

January 22, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a major decision impacting employment law across the nation, the United States Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs the employer’s burden of proving an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The ruling clarifies the evidentiary burden employers must meet and reinforces protections for workers who depend on fair pay and overtime compensation.

The Facts of the Case

Faustino Sanchez Carrera, a sales representative for E.M.D. Sales, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging the company violated the FLSA by failing to pay him overtime wages. Mr. Carrera regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but E.M.D. Sales claimed he was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements under the “outside sales exemption.”