New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Retaliation After Termination Can Violate New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

March 22, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this year, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that an employer can violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination if it retaliates against an employee after it fires him. The Appellate Division decision reached the same conclusion in 2008, as discussed in a previous article. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits employment discrimination, including harassment and discrimination based on gender, race, age, disability and religion. It also includes a provision that makes it unlawful for anyone to retaliate against someone because they objected to another actual or apparent violation Law Against Discrimination.

The case, Roa v. LAFE, involved a husband and wife who worked for Gonzalez and Tapanes Foods, Inc. (G&T), a New Jersey corporation which does business under the name LAFE Foods. The wife, Liliana Roa, claimed G&T’s Vice President, Marino Roa, had been involved in extramarital affairs with two other G&T employees. Liliana’s husband, Fernando Roa, eventually told Marino’s wife about the affairs. According to Fernando and Liliana, Marino then began a campaign of harassment against them, attempted to make their work lives miserable and threatened to fire both of them. When Fernando told G&T’s President that Marino was sexually harassing company employees, G&T ignored his complaint. G&T eventually fired both Fernando and Liliana.

Fernando and Liliana sued G&T and Marino for firing them in retaliation for Fernando’s complaint of sexual harassment. However, they filed their lawsuit more than two years after G&T fired them. As a result, the trial court dismissed their case because it was filed after the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s two year statute of limitations had expired.

Employers Can Be Held Liable for Discriminatory Hiring Decisions Made By Independent Contractors

March 16, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that employers can be held liable for discriminatory hiring decisions of independent contractors who are authorized to make hiring decision on the employer’s behalf. The Second Circuit is the federal appellate court that handles appeals from District Courts in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

The case, Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments Inc., involves an individual, Michael Halpert, who applied for a job showing rental apartments for Manhattan Apartments. When he was seeking the job, Mr. Halpert was interviewed by Robert Brooks. According to Mr. Halpert, during the interview, Mr. Brooks told him he was “too old” for the position.

Mr. Halpert then sued Manhattan Apartments for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA is a federal anti-discrimination law which prohibits employers from using age as a basis not to hire, to fire, or otherwise discriminate against employees.

Sexual Harassment of Independent Contractor Can Violate New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

February 24, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On January 6, 2010, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that J.T. Tire Service can proceed with its sexual harassment lawsuit against United Rentals North under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. In the case, J.T. Tire alleges that United Rentals terminated its contract with United Rentals because the owner of J.T. Tire, Eileen Totorello, rejected the sexual advances of one of United Rentals’ branch managers, Harold Hinkes.

Specifically, Ms. Totorello alleges that Mr. Hinkes attempted to extort sexual favors from her. She claims that when she initially refused his sexual advances, Mr. Hinkes’ branch temporarily stopped buying tires from J.T. Tire. He only resumed doing business with J.T. Tires after Ms. Totorello agreed to have lunch with him.

Ms. Totorello futher claims that, several years later, Mr. Hinkes kissed her and groped her against her will. When she refused his advances, Mr. Hinkes told her she was making a “very poor business decision.” One month later, United completely stopped doing business with J.T. Tire.

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Clarified to Include Autisim as Disability

February 21, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this year, New Jersey amended its Law Against Discrimination to expressly include “autism spectrum disorders” in its definition of disability. This means it is unlawful for New Jersey employers to discriminate against employees because they are autistic, unless the company can show that the autistic employee cannot perform the essential functions of his or her job, even with a reasonable accommodation. It also means that employers must provide reasonable accommodations for employees who are autistic.

The Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because they belong to legally protected categories. In addition to disabilities, other legally protected categories include age, race, national origin, gender, pregnancy, and religion.

This amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination was based on an October 8, 2009 report from the Adults with Autism Task Force.

New Jersey Court Finds Emphatic Response to Discriminatory Remark Can Be Legally Protected

January 23, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently upheld a jury verdict which found Avaya, Inc. liable for retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The case is LaFranco v. Avaya, Inc. It involves an employee who responded to his supervisor’s anti-Semitic statement by emphatically indicating that he is Jewish. In an unpublished opinion, the appellate court found the tone and context of Mr. LaFranco’s response indicated he was offended by the statement. In addition, Mr. LaFranco reasonably believed the comment was religious discrimination. Accordingly, his response was a legally protected objection to unlawful discrimination.

Mr. LaFranco worked as a salesperson for Avaya, a telecommunications company, for more than 12 years. He frequently exceeded his sales quotas and received large commissions. Prior to 2002, all of his performance reviews were positive.

In August 2001, Mr. LaFranco reported to his boss, Patrick Iraca, that he had been improperly denied $10,000 in commissions. Mr. LaFranco subsequently reminded Mr. Iraca of the issue, and suggested that Mr. Iraca should discuss it with his boss. In response, Mr. Iraca asked, in a disgusted voice, “What are you, a Jew?”

Subsidy To Health Benefits Extended

January 1, 2010 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On December 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act. This new employment law extends the period during which certain employees who are laid off or otherwise lose their jobs through no fault of their own can receive a federal subsidy of their health care costs.

More specifically, this new law extends the period of the subsidy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly called the 2009 Economic Stimulus package. Specifically, for a limited period the United States government will pay 65% of the health insurance premiums for qualified employees, for up to nine months after an employee is involuntarily fired or laid off. Under the Stimulus package, that subsidy applies to qualified employees who lose their jobs between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The 2010 Defense Appropriations Act extends that period through February 28, 2010. It also extends the maximum length of the subsidy from 9 months to 15 months.

This benefit applies to former employees who are covered by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) who involuntarily lose their jobs between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. COBRA applies to people who are eligible to receive health insurance benefits from a company with at least 20 employees. The government subsidy also applies to former employees who work in states that have “comparable continuation coverage” that apply to smaller companies (often called mini-COBRA laws). That includes employees who work for smaller companies in both New York and New Jersey.

Extended Medical Leave Can Be Reasonable Accommodation Under New York Law

December 22, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New York’s Appellate Division recently recognized that a disabled employee working in New York may be entitled to take extended medical leave under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law.

The case involved Deborah Phillips, a civil service employee for New York City’s Department of Homeless Services (DHS). After Ms. Phillips had worked for DHS for 18 years, she took a 3 month medical leave for a serious medical condition, stage III breast cancer. Ms. Phillips asked her employer to extend her medical leave for a full year. DHS denied her request because she had exceeded her entitlement to 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and was ineligible for additional unpaid medical leave under the Department’s policy. DHS told her that if she did not return to work by October 30, 2006, the date on which she originally agreed to return to work, she would be subject to disciplinary action, or fired.

Ms. Phillips then asked DHS if she could take any additional medical leave. The City denied her request, again telling her that if she did not to return to work by October 30, she would be fired and would lose her medical benefits. Ms. Phillips did not return to work, and DHS eventually fired her.

New York Requires Employers to Provide Written Notice of Overtime Rate

November 16, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Starting on October 26, 2009, employers in New York State must give newly hired employees written notice of their regular hourly pay rate. For employees who are entitled to receive overtime pay, employers also must state their overtime rate. Employers also need to obtain written confirmation from new employees, confirming they received the required information.

These new requirements are an amendment to New York Labor Law Section 195(1). Their purpose is to “allow workers to determine whether their paychecks properly reflect the hourly wage rates their employers agreed to at the time of hiring, including the overtime rate.” They are a response to the fact that many employees are only told their annual or weekly salary when they are hired, which makes it difficult to determine their hourly and overtime pay rates. The new law also should help minimize any confusion about whether employees are entitled to receive overtime pay, by requiring employers to address the issue up front.

If you work in New York or New Jersey and believe your employer violated your right to receive overtime pay, or another one of your rights as an employee, you should consider contacting an experienced employment lawyer.

When Do Employers Violate the ADA By Discriminating Against Employees With Disabled Relatives?

November 1, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In two previous articles, I discussed important rulings the Third Circuit Court of Appeals made in Erdman v. Nationwide Insurance Company regarding the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Specifically, that case rules that an employee’s time worked from home counts toward the FMLA’s 1,250 hour eligibility requirement if the employer knew or should have known the employee was working off-site, and that an employee who requests an FMLA leave is legally protected even if he never actually takes a leave. But Erdman also makes an important ruling regarding another, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of a disability. It includes a provision prohibiting employers from discriminating against individuals because they have a relationship or association with someone who has a disability. For example, it prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee who has a disabled child.

As Erdman notes, although the ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to allow employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs, it does not require employers to accommodate employees who have a disabled relative. As a result, employers can refuse to provide an employee time off to care for a disabled relative without violating the ADA. Of course, doing so could violate the FMLA or a state law such as the New Jersey Family Leave Act.

Employees Who Request FMLA Leave Are Legally Protected Before They Take Any Leave

October 21, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, I discussed the Third Circuit’s recent decision regarding when time worked from home counts toward the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)’s 1,250 hour eligibility requirement. The same case, Erdman v. Nationwide Insurance Company, also addresses whether an employee who requests but does not receive an FMLA leave is protected by the FMLA.

The FMLA has two separate provisions, one that prohibits employers from interfering with an employee’s FMLA rights, and another that prohibits employers from retaliating against employees. The FMLA’s interference with rights provisions prohibit employers from (1) interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of or attempt to exercise, any right provided by the FMLA; and (2) discharging or in any other manner discriminating against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by the FMLA. In contrast, to establish a retaliation claim under the FMLA, an employee must prove that (1) he is protected under the FMLA; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as being fired, demoted, or suspended, and (3) the adverse employment action was caused by the employee’s exercise of his FMLA rights.

The Third Circuit noted that “it would be patently absurd if an employer who wished to punish an employee for taking FMLA leave could avoid liability simply by firing the employee before the leave begins.” In other words, the Court has no doubt that employees are protected by the FMLA when they request FMLA leaves, even if they never actually take an FMLA leave. The court concluded that, depending on the circumstances, firing an employee for making a valid request for FMLA leave can constitute either an interference with the employee’s FMLA rights, unlawful retaliation, or both.