Discrimination

New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies How to Prove Disability Discrimination

July 14, 2017 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified how to determine whether an employer fired an employee because of a disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

Maryanne Grande, RN, worked for Saint Clare’s Health System for approximately 10 years. During that time she suffered four separate work-related injuries that required her to take significant time off and led to additional periods during which she only could work light duty.

In February 2010, while moving an obese patient from a stretcher to a bed, Ms. Grande had to grab the patient to prevent him from falling. She injured her cervical spine and needed surgery which required over four months of recovery and rehabilitation. When she finally returned to work she had to work light duty for several weeks.

Who Can Be Liable Under New York’s Anti-Discrimination Law?

June 15, 2017 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent employment discrimination case makes it clear that the primary factor to determine who is an “employer” under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) law is whether the party has the power to control how the worker conducts his or her job.

The case was decided in the context of the NYSHRL’s prohibition against employers discriminating against individuals who have been criminally convicted in the past. Specifically, with limited exceptions, the NYSHRL makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job candidate because he previously was convicted of committing a crime. The statute also prohibits any person or entity, whether or not an employer, from aiding or abetting a violation of the NYSHRL.

Trathony Griffin and Michael Godwin worked for Astro Moving and Storage Co. Astro has a contract with Allied Van Lines, Inc. pursuant to which Astro provides moving and storage services to Allied. That contract prohibits Astro from using any workers who have been convicted of a crime on any assignment for Allied.

Prison Guard Cannot Wear Khimar as Accommodation for Religious Belief

January 24, 2017 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent published opinion from the New Jersey Appellate Division recognizes that although the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held religious belief, that requirement does not apply when the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Linda Tisby began working for the Camden County Correctional Facility (“Camden”) in 2002. In 2015, she began practicing the Sunni Muslim faith. In May 2015, she came to work wearing a Muslim khimar, which is a tight fitting head covering, but without a veil. However, Camden has a policy regarding uniforms which prohibits employees from wearing any hats other than the ones issued by their departments. Accordingly, Ms. Tisby’s supervisor told her she was violating Camden’s uniform policy, and could not work unless she removed her khimar. When Ms. Tisby refused, her supervisor sent her home. After this happened three more times, Camden suspended her for two days.

Camden then told Ms. Tisby that it considered her to have requested an accommodation for her religious belief pursuant to the LAD. But while the employer recognized Ms. Tisby had a sincerely held religious belief, it denied her request on the basis that it would “constitute an undue hardship to the Department to allow an officer to wear head-coverings or other non-uniform clothing.” Since Ms. Tisby refused to work without wearing her khimar, Camden fired her.

Decision Based on Family Relationship is Not Ancestry Discrimination

November 21, 2016 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this month, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognized that New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”)’s prohibition against ancestry discrimination does not prevent employers from discriminating against an individual because he is related to another employee.

In 2011, John Walsifer applied for one of two vacant positions as a police officer with the Borough of Belmar. Of the job applicants, Mr. Walsifer had the second highest score on the Civil Service test. Erik Lieb, a military veteran, was at the top of the Civil Service list. Michael Yee, who already worked for Belmar as a special police officer, was third on the list.

Belmar chose to hire Mr. Lieb and Mr. Yee and did not offer a job to Mr. Walsifer. It was required to give a preference to Mr. Lieb in the hiring process because of his veteran status. The Borough claimed it offered the position to Mr. Yee because of his experience as a special police officer, the related police training he had received, and the fact the he already was authorized to carry a service weapon.