New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Whistleblower Receives $96 Million From GlaxoSmithKline Under False Claims Act

November 10, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The False Claims Act is a federal whistleblower law. It allows individuals who have information about a company defrauding the federal government to bring lawsuits on behalf of the federal government. Someone who brings a case under the False Claims Act can receive between 15% and 25% of any money the government recovers.

On October 26, 2010, the United States Department of Justice announced that GlaxoSmithKline settled a case under the False Claims Act, and pleaded guilty to criminal allegations that it manufactured and distributed adulterated drugs. As part of the settlement, Glaxo is paying a $150 million criminal fine and a $600 million civil penalty to the government. Cheryl Eckard, the Glaxo employee who brought the False Claims Act case, will receive 16% of the $600 million civil penalty, meaning she is entitled to $96 million.

According to the Department of Justice’s press release, the case against Glaxo is part of the federal government’s efforts to combat health care fraud. The Justice Department further indicates that the United States has recovered “approximately $4.2 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs,” and its “total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 have topped $5.4 billion.”

New Jersey Considers Prohibiting Companies From Saying Unemployed Job Candidates Need Not Apply

November 4, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New Jersey is considering passing a new law to make it illegal for companies to state in job advertisements that they will not hire job candidates who are currently unemployed. This proposed new law is likely inspired by a recent article in the Huffington Post, which indicates that many companies are refusing to hire job candidates who are unemployed. According to the article, companies are actually stating in job advertisements that they will only hire candidates who currently have jobs, or that unemployed individuals do not need to apply.

Presumably recognizing this is bad for the economy because it makes it even more difficult for unemployed individuals to find jobs (and stop collecting unemployment insurance benefits), New Jersey is considering an amendment to its labor law that would make it illegal for any job advertisements to state or suggest that (1) being currently employed is a job qualification, (2) the company will not consider job applicants who are currently unemployed, or (3) the employer will only consider job applications who are currently employed.

The proposed law would subject employers who violate to a penalty of up to $5,000 for a first violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation. However, it would not make it illegal for employers to consider the fact that a job candidate is unemployed as a factor in hiring decisions. It also would not make it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire unemployed job candidates.

At this point, the bill is not yet a law. It was approved by the Assembly on October 25, 2010, but still needs to be approved by the State Senate, and then signed into law by Governor Christie. In the meantime, New Jersey law already prohibits employment discrimination based on numerous other categories, including race, gender, age, religion, and disability.

New York Employers Must Provide Same Bereavement Leave to Same-Sex Committed Couples

October 29, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New York State law does not require employers to allow employees to take time off for bereavement leave. However, under New York’s new funeral and bereavement leave law, when a company does allow employees to take time off for the death of a spouse, or for the child, parent or other relative of their spouse, they also must offer the same bereavement leave to employees for the death of their same-sex committed partner, and for the child, parent or other relative of the employee’s same-sex committed partner.

Signed by Governor Patterson on August 31, 2010, this new law is an addition to New York’s Civil Rights Law. It defines “same-sex committed partners” as couples that are “financially and emotionally interdependent in a manner commonly presumed of spouses.” The law goes into effect today, October 29, 2010.

New York’s funeral and bereavement leave law was passed because individuals in same-sex relationships historically have been denied the right to civil marriage, and are often denied the right to bereavement leave to attend the funeral of their partners and their partners’ blood relatives. The New York State Senate and Assembly concluded that this failed to recognize the value that any committed relationship contributes to our communities. The Legislature also concluded that “enlightened companies with domestic partnership policies now allow this type of funeral or bereavement leave.”

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About the New Jersey Civil Rights Act

October 24, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Civil Rights Act provides a remedy for many important civil rights. However, most people are unfamiliar with the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. This article answers some of the most frequently asked questions about the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Q. What is the New Jersey Civil Rights Act?

A. The New Jersey Civil Rights Act was passed in 2004. It creates remedies for violations of certain provisions of the New Jersey Constitution, the United States Constitution, and other New Jersey laws.

EEOC Sues Fox News for Retaliation on Behalf of Female Reporter

October 15, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Two weeks ago, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a retaliation lawsuit against New York based Fox News Network LLC, the company that owns and operates the Fox News Channel. According to the EEOC’s September 30, 2010 press release, the lawsuit alleges that Fox News retaliated against Catherine Herridge, one of its female news correspondents, after she complained about gender and age discrimination. The EEOC is a federal agency that helps employees enforce their rights under three anti-discrimination laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

In 2007, Ms. Herridge made several internal complaints that she was experiencing disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the EEOC announced. Fox News conducted an investigation, but found no evidence of age or gender discrimination. In the fall or summer of 2008, several months after Fox News completed its internal investigation, Ms. Herridge refused to sign a new employment agreement with Fox News because it referred to her discrimination complaints. Fox News ignored Ms. Herridge’s requests to remove that language from her contract, and ignored her other attempts to negotiate her employment agreement. As a result, instead of entering into a new guaranteed employment contract, Ms. Herridge became an employee at-will. It was not until June 2009, after Ms. Herridge filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the EEOC investigated that Fox News finally removed the language about Ms. Herridge’s discrimination complaints from her employment contract.

According to the EEOC’s press release, the lawsuit is seeking money damages to compensate Ms. Herridge for Fox New’s retaliation, as well as punitive damages and an injunction to prevent Fox News from engaging in further retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination. Discussing the lawsuit, EEOC attorney Lynette A. Barnes stated that “[t]he anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination laws are indispensable to the attainment of a workplace free of discrimination.” Ms. Barnes further indicated that “[e]mployers must take care that any action taken in response to a discrimination complaint is constructive and not retaliatory.”

Employers Strictly Liable for Supervisors’ Sexual Harassment Under New York City Human Rights Law

October 6, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this year, New York State’s highest court ruled that, under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), employers are strictly liable for harassment and discrimination committed by supervisors. The case, Zakrzewska v. The New School, concludes that an affirmative defense available to employers under federal anti-discrimination laws does not apply under the NYCHRL.

The case involves Dominika Zakrzewska, a student at The New School who also worked part time in the school’s Academic Computing Center. Ms. Zakrzewska claims her immediate supervisor, Kwang-Wen Pan, sent her harassing emails and otherwise sexually harassed her. She eventually complained to school officials about the harassment. She also claims Mr. Pan began to secretly monitor her Internet use at work, in retaliation for her accusing him of sexual harassment. Ms. Zakrzewska sued Mr. Pan and The New School in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the NYCHRL.

As the New York Court of Appeals explained, under federal anti-discrimination laws a company can avoid liability for harassment committed by one of its supervisors if it can prove that: (1) the employee did not suffer an adverse employment action, such as being fired, demoted, or given an unfavorable work assignment for a discriminatory reason, (2) the company took prompt and reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment once it learned about it, and (3) the employee unreasonably failed to use an opportunity the employer provided to help prevent or correct the harassment, such as filing a complaint under the company’s anti-discrimination policy. This defense, which comes from the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, is known as the Faragher/Ellerth defense.

In Zakrzewska, the District Judge asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit whether the Faragher/Ellerth defense is available under the NYCHRL. The Second Circuit then asked the New York Court of Appeals to answer the same question. The Court of Appeals concluded that the defense is not available under NYCHRL. Rather, under the NYCHRL employers are strictly liable for harassment committed by their managers and supervisors. This means a company can be held liable for harassment by a supervisor even if the employee who was harassed never reported it and the company was unaware the harassment occurred. The Court of Appeals also indicated that employers can be held liable for harassment by non-supervisors if it knew or should have known about the harassment, but either permitted it to happen or failed to immediate take appropriate actions to stop it.

Federal Court Rules Death Threats Can Support Sexual Harassment Claim

September 22, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On June 29, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a federal appellate court which handles federal appeals from New York, ruled that a supervisor’s death threats to an employee can be evidence to support a sexual harassment case. The case, Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corporation, involves Sharon Kaytor’s allegations that her boss, Daniel McCarthy, sexually harassed her. Some of Ms. Kaytor’s allegations are sexual in nature. For example, she claims Mr. McCarthy complimented her clothing, told her she looked good for a woman her age, stared at her body, leered at her, made it clear he “had designs” on her, told the entire office she had a “flat ass,” gave her a pussy willow bush as a gift for Administrative Professional’s Day, said she was about to “spread her legs” for her doctor, and referred to her upcoming appointment with her gynecologist as “going where every man wanted to be.” But some of Ms. Kaytor claims are not sexual at all, and have no obvious connection to the fact that she is a woman. Specifically, she claims McCarthy told her he wanted to choke her and that he wanted to see her in a coffin, at least six times each.

The trial court dismissed all of Ms. Kaytor’s claims before her case could get to a trial, finding she had not proven the sexual harassment was severe or frequent enough to create a hostile work environment. It did so partially because it did not count the death threats as part of her sexual harassment claim, since they were not sexual in nature. The trial court also dismissed Ms. Kaytor’s claim that the company retaliated against her when it transferred her to work for another supervisor the day after she complained to the Human Resources (HR) department about the harassment, and in that new position took away some of her job responsibilities, gave her very little work to do, changed her work hours, isolated her, and repeatedly summoned her to unnecessary meetings with HR after she complained to HR about the sexual harassment.

But the Second Circuit disagreed. It ruled that although an employee with a sexual harassment claim must prove the harassment was based on her gender, the harassment does not necessarily have to be based on sexual desire. As a result, although Mr. McCarthy’s death threats were not sexual and did not refer to Ms. Kaytor’s gender, when considered together with all of the other evidence of sexual harassment, a jury could find he threatened her because she is a woman. The Court reached this conclusion even though Mr. McCarthy also threatened to choke a male employee, since otherwise a male employee could get away with sexual harassment by occasionally harassing male workers even though his real targets are women.

The Court also found that Ms. Kaytor should have an opportunity to prove her retaliation claim. It ruled that a jury could find that the company, in effect, demoted her when it reassigned her work and reduced her job responsibilities right after she complained to HR. A demotion can be retaliatory, even when it does not lower an employee’s salary or job title, if it is bad enough to discourage other reasonable employees from coming forward with discrimination or harassment claims. As a result, the appellate court concluded that although the company claims it transferred Ms. Kaytor to separate her from her manager while it was investigating her sexual harassment claim, a jury could find that the company was harassing her. Accordingly, the Second Circuit sent Ms. Kaytor’s case back to the lower court, for a trial.

New Financial Incentives and Legal Protections for Whistleblowers

September 10, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Among its numerous provisions, the new law contains important economic incentives and legal protections for certain financial whistleblowers. As a result, it creates new employment law rights for employees in both New York and New Jersey.

New Economic Incentives for Whistleblowers

With some limited exceptions, if a whistleblower brings new information about a violation of the Dodd-Frank Act to the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the SEC recovers a monetary sanction of more than $1 million, then the whistleblower will receive between 10% and 30% of the sanction the SEC receives. In deciding the percentage the whistleblower will receive, the SEC is required to consider: (1) how significant the whistleblower’s information was to the successful recovery; (2) how much assistance the whistleblower (and any lawyer representing the whistleblower) provided to the SEC; (3) the benefit of deterring employers from future violations of the Dodd-Frank Act by giving financial incentives to whistleblowers; and (4) other relevant factors the SEC will establish through rules and regulations.

New Jersey Court Allows Harassment Claim Based on Relatively Minor Acts

September 2, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On July 28, 2010, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that a former employee of the Atlantic City Board of Education could proceed with his lawsuit. Even though the decision in Clarke v. Atlantic City Board of Education is not a legally binding precedent, it is noteworthy because it recognizes that a few relatively minor discriminatory actions potentially can be enough to prove a harassment claim.

The case was filed by Melvin Clarke, who had been an Assistant Superintendent for the Board of Education. He has a disability which limits his ability to walk, and as a result uses a power scooter and a cane. In February 2002, he filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the Board and two of its employees. As part of a settlement of that case, the Board agreed to give Mr. Clarke a raise of $5,000 per year, and guaranteed his annual salary would remain at least $5,000 higher than the other Assistant Superintendents in the School District.

In June 2006, Mr. Clarke sued the Board again, this time alleging both retaliation and disability discrimination. The trial court dismissed his claim, finding he did not allege an “adverse employment action.” To win in an employment discrimination case, an employee must show he suffered an adverse employment action, such as being fired or demoted because of his or her age, race, gender, disability, or another legally protected category.

As the Appellate Division explained, an adverse employment action has to be serious enough to alter the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, deprived the employee of future job opportunities, or had another significant negative effect on his or her job. Examples include being fired, demoted, suspended, passed over for a promotion, forced to resign, or harassed. Harassment is when a company subjects an employee to many separate but relatively minor actions, each of which might not be actionable on its own, but when combined, make up a pattern of discrimination or retaliation conduct.

The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision because it found Mr. Clarke’s allegations, if true, could establish a hostile work environment harassment claim. His relevant allegations included the fact that the Board (1) moved his office to the sixth floor of the building and further from a bathroom, even though he has difficulty walking, and did not relocate his office after he was stranded on the sixth floor during a fire alarm; (2) refused to develop a plan to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability; and (3) violated his settlement agreement by failing to keep his salary at least $5,000 more than the other Assistant Superintendents. Since the appellate court found Mr. Clarke’s allegations could be enough to prove a harassment claim, it sent his case back to the trial court to give him a chance to prove his case.

The question of whether a particular situation is bad enough to be a legally actionable harassment is very fact specific. It depends on factors such has how frequently the harassment happens, how severe the harassment is, and who is committing the harassment.

New Jersey Supreme Court Agree It’s Illegal Not to Renew Contract Because Employee Is Over 70 Years Old

August 25, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In June 2009, I discussed the New Jersey Appellate Division’s age discrimination ruling that it is illegal for an employer not to renew an employment contract because the employee is over 70 years old. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently agreed, and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Specifically, in Nini v. Mercer County Community College, New Jersey’s highest court ruled that a company’s decision not to renew an employment contract is more like firing a current employee than deciding not to hire a job candidate. As a result, the Court concluded that even though the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) allows employers to refuse to hire employees because they are over 70 years old, that exception does not apply when a company decides not to renew an employee’s contract after he or she turns 70.

In explaining its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the LAD is to protect New Jersey citizens “from all forms of discrimination in employment and, in particular, to protect our older citizens from being forced out of the workplace based solely on age.” It also indicated that the over 70 exception is meant to allow employers to avoid the cost of training new employees who have “limited long-term prospects.” However, that does not apply to an employee who already has been working for the company and does not need training.