New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

New Jersey Appellate Court Sides with Employees in Recent Case Involving the NJ Earned Sick Leave Law

February 14, 2026 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL) is supposed to be simple: you earn paid sick time as you work, and you can use it for health needs and certain family and safety-related situations without risking your job. In the real world, some employers try to fit their existing paid time off (PTO) policies into the ESLL without meeting the law’s requirements. A recent preceden bigstock-Sick-man-blowing-his-nose-in-t-71584990 t-setting New Jersey Appellate Division decision is a reminder that courts will look past labels and examine how a PTO policy works in practice to determine whether it complies with the law.

This case is important if you work in New Jersey and your employer tells you that “vacation time covers everything,” refuses to recognize sick leave rights, requires documentation that feels excessive, or makes it difficult to take time off for protected reasons.

Paid Sick Leave Versus a “Vacation Policy”

William Cano and Raymond Bonelli sued their employer, County Concrete, claiming the company violated the ESLL. Among other things, they argued that the company’s “vacation” policy did not satisfy the requirements of the ESLL.

New Jersey Appellate Court Strengthens Your Right to Stay in Court When Sexual Harassment Is Part of the Case

January 15, 2026 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

If you have ever signed an employment agreement that says all disputes must go to arbitration, you are not alone. Many New Jersey workers sign these clauses on day one, then learn about them only after something goes wrong at work. A new published decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division makes one point much clearer for employees: when you bring a viable sexual harassment claim, you should be able to keep your entire case in court, and not just the harassment claim. bigstock-Businessman-Sexually-Harassing-266093419

The Takeaway

In McDermott v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., the Appellate Division held that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Harassment Act (EFAA), can make a pre-dispute arbitration agreement unenforceable for the whole case, as long as the case includes a viable claim involving sexual harassment or sexual assault. In other words, an employer may not be able to force you to split your claims, with part of your lawsuit in court and the rest in private arbitration, if your case includes a properly pled sexual harassment claim.

This was a matter of first impression in New Jersey, meaning New Jersey appellate courts had not previously issued a published decision on the scope of the EFAA in this context.

Federal Court Lets New Jersey Teacher Age Discrimination Case Move Forward After Transfer Denial

December 21, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Employees in New Jersey have legal protections against age discrimination, including when you apply for a new role within the same organization. In a recent decision, Campagna v. Washington Township Public Schools, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed toward trial. In plain terms, the judge ruled that a jury could reasonably find that age played a role in the decision not to allow the employee to advance to the second round of interviews for the position.

If you are searching for a Bergen County employment lawyer because you believe your employer passed you over due to age, this opinion can help you understand they type of facts that may support your claim. bigstock-Portrait-Of-Athletic-Mature-Ma-336131452

The Background

Guy Campagna worked for the Washington Township Public School District as a physical education teacher. He began with the District in 2006 and served as the sole PE teacher at an elementary school. According to the court’s opinion, he maintained a clean disciplinary history, received positive evaluations, and was recognized as the District’s Teacher of the Year for the 2017 to 2018 academic year.

Federal Court Allows Claims Against Senior Executives to Proceed in New Jersey Discrimination Case

November 21, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

When you report discrimination at work, it can feel like the people at the top of the corporate ladder are untouchable. A recent federal decision from the District of New Jersey, Dominguez v. Novo Nordisk Inc., shows that senior executives can be held accountable when they allow discrimination or retaliation.

For N bigstock-Stressed-Millennial-Woman-List-227492101 ew Jersey employees looking for guidance from a Bergen County employment lawyer, this case reinforces that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) does not just apply to conduct by immediate supervisors or the company itself. It also extends to actions by decision-makers who participate in or ignore unlawful conduct.

What Happened in Dominguez v. Novo Nordisk

The plaintiff, Roxann Dominguez, worked for Novo Nordisk as a Regional Account Executive and later as the Director of National Accounts Strategic Planning. Based in Texas, she frequently interacted with the company’s leadership in New Jersey, where much of its operations were centered.

Federal Court Allows Flight Attendant’s Disability and Leave Claims to Proceed Against United Airlines

October 14, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Employees in New Jersey have strong legal protection against workplace discrimination, retaliation, and interference with medical leaves. A recent decision in Naranjo v. United Airlines, Inc. reinforces those rights, particularly for workers managing chronic health conditions. The federal court’s opinion allows a former flight attendant’s disability discrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims to proceed to trial, rejecting the airline’s motion to dismiss the case.

The Background of the Case

Samantha Naranjo worked as a flight attendant for United Airlines from 1999 until the company fired her in June 2022. During her employment, she was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease—a serious, chronic medical condition that can cause severe digestive flareups. To manage her condition, Ms. Naranjo regularly applied for intermittent medical leaves under the FMLA.

In May 2022, Ms. Naranjo called out of work due to her Crohn’s symptoms. A few days later, she tested positive for COVID-19 and followed the company’s policies for pandemic-related absences. However, despite notifying her supervisors and providing documentation, United still gave her an attendance point for her May 13 absence. Under United’s strict attendance policy, employees who accumulate 30 or more “points” face termination.

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.