New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

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 plaintif

fs 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.”

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.