New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies Procedural Requirements in CEPA Case

January 6, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent unpublished decision, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, addressed a Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) claim involving allegations of a retaliatory failure to promote within a police department. The case revolved around whether an employee of the Haddonfield Police Department, Michael Caruso, was denied a promotion to lieutenant due to his whistleblowing activities.

The Facts of the Case

In Caruso v. Borough of Haddonfield, the plaintiff, a police officer, alleged he was unlawfully denied a promotion to lieutenant in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities, in violation CEPA. Caruso contended that he reported unlawful conduct within the department. Specifically, he claimed to have raised concerns about violations of departmental policies, misuse of authority, and actions he perceived as undermining public trust in law enforcement. According to his claims, these protected activities caused his employer to retaliate by refusing to promote him despite his qualifications and eligibility.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Borough, finding that Mr. Caruso failed to establish two critical elements of a CEPA claim:

Protected Whistleblowing Activity: The court determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the employee engaged in whistleblowing activities as defined by CEPA.
Causal Connection: The court concluded there was no evidence linking the alleged whistleblowing to the decision to deny the promotion.

The employee then appealed the case to the Appellate Division.

DCR Revises Regulation Based on Jonathan Nirenberg’s Suggestion

December 3, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights recently modified its proposed regulation regarding disparate impact claims based on a comment that I submitted earlier this year.

On June 3, 2024 the DCR initially proposed the new regulation to addresses disparate impact claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). A disparate impact claims is when a practice or policy that appears to be neutral on its face has a disproportionate negative impact on people in a particular legally-protected class, such as based on their age, race, national origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

The DCR’s proposed regulation would make it clear that the LAD prohibits practices and policies that have a disparate impact on members of a legally protected class even if it was not intended to be discriminatory. In other words, it is form of unlawful discrimination.

Two Rabner Baumgart Attorneys Selected as Bergen County’s Top Lawyers in 2024

November 20, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. is pleased to announce that two of our employment lawyers, Jonathan I. Nirenberg and David H. Ben-Asher, have been selected to BERGEN Magazine’s 2024 list of Bergen County’s Top Lawyers. Jonathan and David were each selected in the category of Labor & Employment law.

This is the second time Jonathan has received this honor, having previously been selected for it in 2023. David was selected for the first time in 2024.

For information about BERGEN Magazine’s selection process for its Top Lawyers list is available here. No aspect of this website has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Teacher’s Objection to Inadequate Discipline of Student for Threatening Violence Can be Protected by CEPA

November 12, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent unpublished opinion, New Jersey’s Appellate Division found a teacher’s objection that his school did not sufficiently discipline a student for threatening to shoot another student could be protected from retaliation by the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”).

CEPA is a broad New Jersey whistleblower law that prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for, among other things, objecting to an activity or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes violates a law, a rule promulgated pursuant to law, or is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment.

Phillip Eisenstein is a physical education teacher for the New York Avenue School in Atlantic City. He witnessed a student, K.D., bullying other students. After Mr. Eisenstein intervened, K.D. threatened to get his uncle’s gun and come back the next day to shoot one of the other students. Mr. Eisenstein reported this to the school’s principal, who said he would handle it.

Court Recognizes New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s Broad Definition of Disability

August 1, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent unpublished decision, New Jersey’s Appellate Division make it clear that an employee does not have to have a severe or permanent impairment to have a viable disability discrimination to be protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

The case was filed by Bart Algozzini, who worked for DGMB Casino, LLC doing business as Resorts Casino Hotel (“Resorts”) as its Director of Slot Operations. Mr. Algozzini took a medical leave after he suffered second and third-degree burns over seventy percent of his body after his boat exploded. He was hospitalized for a month, during which he was placed in a medically-induced coma for more than two weeks. After leaving the hospital, he was in a rehab facility for a week-and-a-half, followed by over three months of outpatient physical therapy sessions.

While Mr. Algozzini was on his medical leave, Resorts eliminated his position as the Director of Slot Operations and instead created two new positions: Slot Service Manager and Slot Technical Manager. Resorts gave Mr. Algozzini the position of Slot Service Manager, a job with fewer responsibilities and that paid $23,000 less per year than his former position as its Director of Slot Operations. Resorts did not eliminate any other positions at that time.

Taxation of Employment Law Settlements

July 6, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

When you settle an employment law case, typically most or all of the money you receive will be taxable. Nonetheless, it is both common and important to discuss the tax allocation as part of the settlement negotiation, including what portion will be reported on an IRS form W-2, and what portion will be reported on a 1099.

While I am an employment lawyer rather than a tax expert, below is my understanding regarding the taxability of employment law settlements under federal law. These issues can be complex and have significant consequences to you, so you should consult with a tax expert before you make any decisions.

W-2 Payments: Lost Wages

Court Addresses When Commissions are Covered by Wage Payment Law

July 1, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“WPL”) is an important employment law that requires employers to pay employees their wages on time. Since August 2019, the WPL has entitled employees whose employers fail to pay them on time to recover not only their unpaid wages, but also up to 200% of that amount as liquidated damages plus their attorney’s fees.

One question that has been coming up with increasing frequency is when commissions are wages that are subject to the WPL, and thus when unpaid commissions (and belatedly paid commissions) are subject to the liquidated damages and attorney’s fee provisions.

The WPL defines wages to include at least some commissions, as follows:

Timing Between Protected Activity and Adverse Employment Action Supports Whistleblower Claim

June 4, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent unpublished opinion from New Jersey’s Appellate Division overturned a trial court decision dismissing his whistleblower claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”). The case serves as a reminder that close timing between a legally-protected activity and an adverse employment action can be powerful evidence to support a retaliation claim.

Joseph Silvestri was the Director of Information Technology (“IT”) for the Borough of Ridgefield. When he discovered that someone had tampered with the Lightning Alert System at Willis Park, he reported it to the Ridgefield Police Department. Paul Schaeffer, who is friends with a Ridgefield Councilman, Javier Acosta, was charged with tampering with the Lightning Alert System. Mr. Silvestri subsequently was subpoenaed to testify in Mr. Schaeffer’s municipal court case, and was present in court for the trial, but did not actually end up testifying.

Shortly thereafter, the Ridgefield Council President, Russell Castelli, told Mr. Silvestri that he is not entitled to receive overtime compensation because he is the head of the IT Department. Until then, Mr. Silvestri had been eligible to receive overtime compensation for approximately 20 years. According to Mr. Silvesti, Councilman Acosta caused Ridgefield to stop compensating him for his overtime.

Non-Disparagement Clause Cannot Prevent Employee From Discussing Discrimination

May 7, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Today, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) prohibits non-disparagement agreements that have the impact of preventing an employee from discussing the facts of their discrimination, harassment or retaliation claim.

Non-disparagement clauses are very common in settlement agreements in employment law cases. Typically, they prevent the employee from saying anything negative about their former employer.

The case interpreted a 2019 amendment to the LAD that was passed in response to the #MeToo movement. Specifically, the legislature amended the LAD to deem that any provision in a settlement agreement that “has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment . . . shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable.”

FTC Bans Most Non-Compete Agreements

April 25, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New Rule Will Ban Most Non-Compete Provisions

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has issued a new Rule that soon will ban virtually all non-compete agreements in the United States.

Specifically, on April 23, 2024, the FTC issued a new Rule that deems it to be an unfair method of competition for anyone to (1) enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause, (2) enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause, or (3) tell someone else that a worker is subject to a non-compete clause. However, for “senior executives,” employers still can enforce non-compete agreements that were entered into before the Rule’s date effective date.