Discrimination

Appellate Court Recognizes Employers Must Accommodate Pregnancy

February 19, 2020 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Last month, New Jersey’s Appellate Division analyzed the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). The PWFA is an amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) that prohibits pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.

Among other things, the PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to women who are pregnant. For example, this can include providing bathroom breaks, rest breaks, assistance with manual labor, job restructuring, and temporary assignment to less strenuous or less hazardous work. However, employers do not have to provide an accommodation if it would impose an undue hardship on it.

Filing with EEOC Not Required for Court to Hear Title VII Lawsuit

July 2, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court ruled that filing a Charge of Discrimination is not required for a court to have jurisdiction over a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil of Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII is a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It requires employees to file a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), wait at least 180 days for the EEOC to investigate the claim, and then receive a “Right to Sue” letter before they can file a lawsuit.

Lois Davis worked for Fort Bend County, Texas. She made an internal sexual harassment complaint to the County’s human resources department. After Fort Bend subsequently reduced her job responsibilities, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC claiming she was the victim of retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment.

Trial Lawyer Has Apparent Authority to Settle Discrimination Case

June 5, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognizes that, under the doctrine of apparent authority, a company’s attorney can bind it to a settlement whether or not the employer actually authorized him to settle the case.

Jesus Gonzalez filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Electronic Integration Services, LLC, also known as Panurgy OEM. More specifically, he claimed Panurgy fired him in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), the Family & Medical Leave Act (“FLMA”) and the New Jersey Family Leave Act (“NJFLA”).

Shortly before a trial, Panurgy’s lawyer conveyed an offer to settle the case for $175,000. Mr. Gonzalez accepted the offer, and the judge placed the terms of the settlement on the record.

Termination Three Weeks After Medical Leave Supports Disability Discrimination Claim

May 1, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by New Jersey’s Appellate Division demonstrates that under the right circumstances an employee can prove disability discrimination from the fact that her employer fired her shortly after she had surgery.

Ada Caballero worked for Cablevision Systems Corporation for 15 years. In 2013, she was divorced. A few months after her divorce was finalized, Ms. Caballero submitted a copy of the divorce judgment to the company’s human resources department. However, Cablevision did not remove her ex-husband from its health insurance plan.

On Ms. Caballero’s 2014 performance evaluation, Cablevision gave her a rating of “strong performance.”

Close Enough? Who is “Similarly Situated” Under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination?

April 17, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals helps clarify who is a “similarly situated” employee in discrimination cases under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). This is important since one way to prove discrimination is by showing the employer treated other similarly situated employees more favorably than the employee who is claiming he or she was the victim of discrimination.

Santos Andujar worked for General Nutrition Corporation (“GNC”) as a store manager for 13 years. After failing the company’s Critical Point Audits four years in a row, he received a failing score through the company’s Performance Evaluation Process (“PEP”). On the day Mr. Andujar received his failing PEP score, GNC placed him on a “Red Store Action Plan” which gave him days to improve his job performance. Approximately one month later, the company fired him for failing to meet the Action Plan. GNC replaced Mr. Andujar, who was 57 years old, with someone in his twenties. Mr. Andujar then filed a lawsuit alleging that GNC had engaged in age discrimination in violation of the LAD.

The case went to trial. GNC argued that it fired Mr. Andujar because of his poor performance and not because of his age. However, Mr. Andujar presented evidence that five other store managers between 25 and 34 years old had failing PEP score, but GNC did not put any of them on an Action Plan, let alone fire them.

New Jersey Employers Can’t Discriminate for Medical Marijuana Use Outside of Work

April 1, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognizes that an employer can violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) if it discriminates against a disabled employee because he uses medically prescribed marijuana to treat a disability outside of the workplace.

Justin Wild worked as a licensed funeral director for Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (“Carriage”). Mr. Wild has cancer. Pursuant to New Jersey’s Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act, Mr. Wild has been prescribed marijuana to help with the associated pain. The Compassionate Use Act decriminalizes the use of marijuana for certain medical reasons including pain relief for individuals with cancer.

In 2016, while working for Carriage, Mr. Wild was in a car accident and had to be taken to the emergency room. He was prescribed pain medication and released from the hospital the same day. At home, Mr. Wild took the pain medication and used medical marijuana.

New Protection to Employees Under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

March 19, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a very important amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

Employees Cannot Waive Anti-Discrimination Rights in Advance

Under the amendment, any provision in an employment contract that requires employees to waive in advance any “substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of employment discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” violates New Jersey’s public policy and is unenforceable. Similarly, employers no longer can require employees to prospectively waive any of their rights or remedies under the LAD, “or any other statute or case law.” However, this provision does not apply to the terms of union collective bargaining agreements.

Judge Grants Tax Gross-Up in Discrimination Lawsuit

August 8, 2018 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent opinion, a federal judge ruled that nine retired Jersey City Police Sergeants who prevailed in their employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuits should have their economic damages awards increased to offset the negative tax consequences of receiving a lump sum payment rather than receiving higher salaries and pensions over time.

The opinion stems from two lawsuits that were consolidated for purposes of trial. Between the two cases, nine retired Police Sergeants sued Jersey City, its former Mayor, Jerramiah Healy, and its former Police Chief, Robert Troy, for failing to make any promotions to Lieutenant from a 2003-2006 promotional list. They alleged Jersey City’s decision to do so constituted discrimination based on political affiliation and expression discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment, and was retaliation because one of the Sergeants, Valerie Montone, objected about gender discrimination, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

The case went to trial and the jury found that Jersey City had discriminated and retaliated against all nine of the plaintiffs. It awarded economic damages totaling more than $2.2 million, or an average of more than $240,000 per person.

Slight Delay to Promotion Not Legally Actionable Discrimination

July 13, 2018 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer’s failure to promote an employee was not legally actionable discrimination where the employer promoted the same individual to the same job approximately one month later.

Evon Grossberg worked for the Hudson County Department of Social Services as a Human Resources Specialist. Ms. Grossberg is African American. In July 2013, she applied for a promotion to the position of Training Technician. At the time, Ms. Grossberg was 58 years old.

In early August 2013, Hudson County promoted another employee who was in her low to mid-twenties and Egyptian, rather than African American, to the position of Training Technician. When Ms. Grossberg asked her supervisor why she had not received the promotion, her supervisor told her to speak to her union representative. Ms. Grossberg then filed a complaint with her union representative. She also submitted an online intake form to the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) as part of the process to file a Charge of Discrimination.

Are Telecommuters Protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination?

May 22, 2018 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) prohibits discrimination in the workplace. But does it protect employees who work for New Jersey companies remotely, such as telecommuters? A recent ruling by New Jersey’s Appellate Division makes it clear that an employee does not have to physically live or work in New Jersey to be protected by the LAD.

Susan Trevejo worked for Legal Cost Control (“LCC”) for 12 years. After LCC fired her, Ms. Trevejo sued for age discrimination in violation of the LAD. LCC is a New Jersey company which has its headquarters in Haddonfield, New Jersey. However, Ms. Trevejo is a resident of Massachusetts who has never lived in New Jersey or worked in LCC’s office in New Jersey aside from a few meetings she attended earlier in her tenure with the company. Rather, she worked remotely from her home.

Early into the case, LCC filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the LAD does not apply to Ms. Trevejo because she is not an “inhabitant” of New Jersey. The trial court denied LCC’s motion, and instead permitted the parties to engage in some limited discovery (the process of exchanging information in a lawsuit) about Ms. Trevejo’s right to bring a claim under the LAD.